Lipstick Under My Burkha and (right) Haraamkhor were denied certification by the CBFC, after which the FCAT stepped in and gave both the films an ‘A’ certificate and some cuts

Niharika Lal (BOMBAY TIMES; April 8, 2021)

Recently, through the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021, the Centre has done away with appellate authorities under nine acts and vested those powers in the high courts. One of the appellates that have been removed is the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT). The FCAT was established in 1983 under the Cinematograph Act. It was the statutory body constituted to hear appeals of filmmakers aggrieved by Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) orders.

Now, a film that isn’t being granted a CBFC certificate or has any other grievances with the board, can approach the high court. Several film personalities, such as Hansal Mehta, Vishal Bhardwaj, Guneet Monga and Richa Chadha took to Twitter to express their views on this ruling. Mehta wrote, “Do the high courts have a lot of time to address film certification grievances? How many film producers will have the means to approach the courts? The FCAT discontinuation feels arbitrary and is definitely restrictive. Why this unfortunate timing? Why take this decision at all? (sic),” while Bhardwaj tweeted, “Such a sad day for cinema. FILM CERTIFICATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ABOLISHED | 6 April, 2021 (sic).” Monga and Chadha reacted to Bhardwaj’s tweet, expressing their displeasure.

A SPECIAL BENCH NEEDS TO BE CREATED TO DEAL WITH FILM CASES: VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA, LAWYER
Lawyers say that this move would help filmmakers, provided there is a separate bench to deal with such cases. Vivek Narayan Sharma, an advocate and ex-Joint Secretary of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, says, “This is a good decision, provided some measures are taken simultaneously. The number of judges has to be increased in the high court, and a separate bench should be created to deal with these matters exclusively so that there is no delay. The tribunals are quasi-judicial in nature and they have a limited approach. Filmmakers can’t push much in a tribunal, but in the high court, they can reason.”

GOING TO THE COURT IS A LONG PROCEDURE. IF A FILMMAKER IS STUCK AT THE HIGH COURT, A FILM CAN SUFFER: POONAM DHILLON, FORMER FCAT MEMBER
FCAT is one of the fastest working tribunals and the cost incurred by the body is minimal. None of the members are drawing any salary, and the expenditure is also limited. The FCAT was something necessary to give relief to filmmakers if they had any problems with the CBFC, as going to the court is a long procedure. If a filmmaker is stuck at the high court, it becomes a big burden and the film can suffer. We, at FCAT, would try to have a screening as soon as we could once we got a request from a producer or filmmaker about the problems they were facing with the release. Based on the screening, the members would try and come to a decision as soon as possible. During the screening, members go back to the scenes and dialogues that the CBFC objected to. Sometimes we’ve seen a film twice and even thrice. Giving that much time to each film would not be a fair thing to expect from a judge. Sometimes, we even have to refer to old films which were passed or objected to. The tribunal was being fair to the filmmakers and adhering to the guidelines, and the decision to abolish it should be reconsidered.

It would be a bit of a problem for filmmakers to get relief against the CBFC’s decisions, considering how overburdened courts are. The film industry is huge, and it is not just the Hindi film industry, but films from across the country come to the tribunal.

CASES IN THE PAST WHEN THE FCAT HAS CHANGED THE CBFC’S RULING
- Overturning the CBFC’s decision to reject a certification to Great Grand Masti, FCAT cleared the film with an ‘A’ certification and 22 voluntary cuts.

- Babumoshai Bandookbaaz (left) was cleared by the FCAT with an ‘A’ certificate and eight minor cuts, after the CBFC ordered 48 cuts.

- After the CBFC denied Lipstick Under My Burkha a certification, the film was cleared by the FCAT with an ‘A’ certificate and voluntary cuts reducing the length of sex scenes.

- After the CBFC refused to certify Haraamkhor, the FCAT cleared it and suggested to reduce the length of lovemaking scenes between the teacher and student by 50%. It also asked makers to add a disclaimer at the beginning and a warning during three lovemaking scenes between the characters.

- Last year,the FCAT refused to clear Joker (2019) for telecast with a U/A certificate, saying the movie glorifies violence. The film has been given an ‘A’ certificate by the CBFC.
------------------------
FCAT had cleared Lipstick Under My Burkha with a few cuts and an ‘A’ certificate

As government does away with Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, former member says the five-member body was sensitive to filmmakers
Mohar Basu (MID-DAY; April 8, 2021)

The entertainment industry, which is reeling under the new OTT guidelines formulated by the Information & Broadcasting Ministry and trying to find a way to tell its unconventional stories in a country that is quick to take offence, has suffered another blow. Filmmakers across the country woke up on Wednesday morning to the news that the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) was abolished with immediate effect. 

The move comes after the Ministry of Law and Justice reportedly dissolved nine appellate authorities, following the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021. 

With the body that was constituted in 1983 now dissolved, filmmakers in disagreement with the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) will have to approach the high courts. Poonam Dhillon — who was a part of the five-member FCAT along with retired Justice S K Mahajan, journalist Shekhar Iyer, advocate Bina Gupta and Shazia Ilmi — says that the decision spells more distress for aggrieved producers and directors. “Filmmakers need a platform where they can get fast relief. Long drawn-out court procedures can be time-consuming and monetarily draining for them. In some cases, the CBFC may object to something minor, say a scene or a dialogue. Now, a filmmaker will have to get a court date, arrange for a two-hour viewing of the movie. I am not sure the court will have the time to watch two-hour films every week; they have other pressing cases. The Tribunal was expeditious in resolving issues, dispensing decisions within a week — whether it’s reversing the CBFC’s decision or suggesting a cut. Additionally, the Tribunal kept the CBFC in check. The film industry needs a body like that,” she asserts.

Considering the body had representative of the entertainment industry, it was sensitive to filmmakers’ grievances. “We have sat down with [directors] and understood their perspective. Often we’ve watched the same film over and over again to be certain that the makers don’t get a raw deal.”

Dhillon notes that while several Tribunals have been done away with because they are not cost-effective, the same doesn’t stand true for the FCAT. “None of the members were drawing a salary. If one weighs in on the work we did vis-a-vis the expenses incurred [of screening], it was a win-win situation,” she says, urging the government to reconsider the matter.

Ilmi, who is currently in the Sundarbans campaigning for the ongoing West Bengal elections, did not respond to our detailed text.