The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 19, 2024) decided to examine cine veteran Amol Palekar’s seven-year-old plea that the fate of cinematic art banked on the “erratic, subjective interpretation” of the members of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) whose essential qualifications are not even specified in law.
A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan decided to hear in January Mr. Palekar’s petition, pending since 2017, that the Cinematograph Act of 1952 does not specify any qualifications for the members of the Board and/or the examining committee or revising committee or even the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal.
Mr. Palekar, represented by senior advocate Arvind Datar, said this nebulousness in cinema law almost guaranteed the “subjective interpretation of overboard, imprecise guidelines in the hands of unqualified Members”. How could members whose qualifications were not specified sanction what films were fit for public viewing and require filmmakers to make cuts, deletions, and alterations.
“This is a very unfair and unreasonable restriction on the filmmakers’ freedom of speech,” Mr. Palekar said in his petition.
The veteran actor and filmmaker had approached the top court after three of his documentaries — Aakriet, Daayara and Thaang/Quest — were subject to many hurdles for certification.
Mr. Palekar argued that documentaries should be excluded from the purview of the 1952 Act. He contended that a documentary did not fall within the definition of a ‘cinematograph film’ under Section 2(c) and 2(dd) of the Act.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for Mr. Palekar even argued that “any executive body or Board or Commission appointed by the Executive is not a competent body to adjudicate whether a film has content to invite reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution… Adjudication should only remain within the domain and competence of the judiciary”.
“Are you saying that pre-censorship should cease entirely? This is like saying Article 19(2) restrictions should not apply…,” Justice Viswanathan remarked orally.
Mr. Palekar’s counsel said though the government had tried to bring in amendments in August 5, 2023 through a Bill, the petition was still relevant and the Bill does not cover many of the contentions raised in the plea.
Additional Solicitor-General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union government, said the High Courts should look into these exhaustive prayers made by the petitioner. But Justice Gavai responded that the petition had been pending for seven years.
“Rules have to change for the present day when the Internet and social media dominate... When content on television and Internet is free of censorship, the same content being altered, cut or deleted before being shown in a cinema hall is an attack on our right to equality,” Mr. Palekar’s side said.
Ms. Bhati responded that new regulations covering over-the-top (OTT) platforms have been introduced, the work was continuous and evolving.
Published - November 19, 2024 08:09 pm IST
