This article is written by Ms Sankalpita Pal, who is currently pursuing BBA.LL.B (Hons) from Symbiosis Law School, Pune. This article attempts an overview of the CBFC and gives an introductory insight into the Cinematograph Act, 1952. 

Introduction

Censorship has been a highly debated topic for a long time ever since the inception of visual acts. Thus, it has been commonly defined as an act or a mechanism that establishes a system of restriction over public expression of ideas, opinions, and conceptions. The main objective of censorship is to restore and control what kind of morals and values are portrayed amongst the public at large as the portrayal of an idea or opinion which is inconsistent with the social morals and norms have the capacity to incite violence as well as the breeding of wrong ideals. The government controls various portals of media via censorship.

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) executes this very objective of censorship. This article will also deal with the role of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the setting up of CBFC under it.  

What is the Cinematograph Act, 1952?

The CBFC is a statutory body which regulates the public exhibition of films in India according to the provisions under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

The Cinematograph Act of 1952 enshrines certain guidelines that tame the public expression of ideas, opinions and imagination via films by filmmakers. Cinema has opened up to new possibilities and debatable themes in the social and political arenas. With the rapid technological advancement, it is easy to abuse the wonders of technology and portray themes that are hurtful to social conformations. 

Film censorship and Legislative development in India

The film censorship is technically a Colonial concept. Initially in British India silent films were a source of private entertainment. However, with the passage of time cinema became an Indian fancy. Thus, regulations had to be put on the exhibition of films. The first Cinematograph bill was proposed in 1917 with the purpose of protecting public morality from the exhibition of objectionable films.

It is interesting to note that the Indian legislative Council opposed the passage of such a bill for the sake of liberty. Regardless, the colonial state approved the Cinematograph Act in 1918. This Act came into effect from 1 August 1920 and it inaugurated the concept of film censorship in India. The 1918 Act dealt with two issues:

1. the licensing of cinema houses.
2. the certification of films according to its suitability for public exhibitions.

A separate authority was set up; without the authority’s permission, no film could be exhibited.

Post India’s independence in 1947, the new government felt the necessity to retain film censorship. However, few amendments were made to the Cinematograph Act 1918 in 1949. Two categories of film certification were created, ‘A’ certificate for restricting viewership to adults and ‘U’ certificate for an unrestricted exhibition. The 1949 amendment also provisioned for the setting up of a central censorship board instead of a regional one. In 1951 the Central Board of Film Censor was formed by the Ministry of Information and broadcasting.

Subsequently, a consolidated statute, the Cinematograph Act was enacted in 1952 which empowered the central government authority to constitute a censorship board.

Formation of CBFC

The Central Board of Film Censors was renamed into the Central Board of Film Certification on June 1, 1983. This board implements and follows the provisions under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The chairperson and other members are appointed by the Central Government. 

Board certifies films without which they are not eligible for public exhibition. Section 5B(1) of the CA, 1952 empowers the CBFC to examine and implement principles of sovereignty and integrity of India while certifying a film. It also requires the board to check works against the security of the States, friendly relations with foreign States etc.

Objectives of Film Certification

Section 5B(2) lays down the principles to be followed by the CBFC while sanctioning films. The guidelines require the CBFC to ensure that-

1. the medium of film conforms to the values of the society. 
2. creative freedom or artistic expression shall not be unreasonably curbed.  
3. the certification must be responsive to social change.  
4. the film must provide clean and healthy entertainment. 
5. the film must be cinematical of a decent standard and is of aesthetic value.
6. The CBFC must judge the film in its entirety and not from a one-track biased perspective. 

Organizational setup of CBFC

The CBFC is a bi-level association. It is headquartered at Mumbai and has 9 Regional Offices. These Regional Offices assist in the examination of films.it is interesting to note that the members of the Advisory Panel are from different walks of life who are nominated by the Central Government.

Board of CBFC 

The actual statutory power to certify films lies with the Board of CBFC. The main CBFC Board consists of a Chairman and other members 12 to 25 in the number who are appointed by the Central Government. It is interesting to note that there are no prescribed minimum qualifications required to be a member of the CBFC as under the Cinematograph Act. Tenure of members is also very flexible and no maximum or minimum tenure is set. The tenure is in fact subjected to the pleasure of the Central Government. The Central Government can terminate tenure whenever possible on reasonable grounds. The chairman, however, holds office for a period of 3 years only. On exception, the chairman continues until his successor is appointed.

Regional Offices of CBFC 

The nine Regional Offices have a particular regional officer who supervises it. They are situated at Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai, Guwahati, Cuttack, Mumbai, Hyderabad, New Delhi and Thiruvananthapuram.

Functions of the CBFC 

The provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, determines whether a film is fit for public exhibition or not. The CBFC must satisfy this question on the basis of a few parameters while certifying a film. There are 4 categories under which the CBFC can classify and certify a film or even may not sanction the film at all. The CBFC has the liberty of reasonable discretion.

1. S- for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons
2. U- for unrestricted public exhibition or Universal viewership 
3. A- for public exhibition restricted to adults only (persons who have attained majority, completing their 18 years of age) 
4. U/A- for unrestricted public exhibition with an endorsement of caution to the parents or guardians of children below 12 years of age. 

Under the provisions of the Act, just like the Board can decide to not certify a certain film or even disapprove a particular scene of the film; it is competent enough to even order the deletion of a film in its entirety or a particular scene. Sometimes the Censor Board take steps to assess the reactions of the public in order to determine whether the principles on the basis of which films are certified need any change or not. There are provisions under the CA, 1952 that empower the CBFC to: 

1. hold symposia or seminars of film critics, community leaders, film writers and any other relevant person engaged in the film industry.  
2. Facilitating local or national surveys in order to understand the impression of different types and genres of films and their impact on the public mind.   

Judicial Pronouncements 

1. In the criminal appeal Raj Kapoor v. State [AIR 1980 SC 285], the Apex Court laid down by that if film certificate is granted by the censor board under Section 6 of the CA, 1952, the court shouldn’t disregard the decision because of the fact that an expert committee judges the suitability of films for the audience. The expert committee knows better and their understanding of the principal ingredients of the obscenity would also be better.
2. In the landmark case of K.A Abbas v. Union of India [AIR 1971 SC 481], the Delhi High Court explained the broad legal governing principles on the censorship issue related case Srishti School of Art, Design and Technology v. Chairman, CBFC [2011 IIIAD (Delhi) 289].  the following points were summarised in 2011 by the Delhi HC:

• Reasonable standards must be adopted while judging.
• The onus of proof of obscenity must be provided by the petitioner (Government).
• The film must be judged in its entirety in order to determine whether a particular scene in it offends Cinematograph guidelines or not.
• The Petitioners must also prove the proximate and direct nexus of the film to endangering public order 
• The courts shouldn’t ordinarily disregard CBFC’s decisions regarding film certification unless it is proven to be unreasonable.

3. In S. Ranga Raan v. P. Jagjivan Ram [(1989) 2 SCC 574], the issue raised was whether the Tamil Film ‘Ore Oru Gramathile’ should be granted the “U” certificate. The film apparently deprecated the exploitation of people on the basis of their caste. 

The Supreme Court held that as long as there is no utterance in the film that threatens to overthrow the government by unconstitutional means and there is no indication as to impairment in the integration of the country the U certificate can be conferred.

4. In Gita Ram v. State of HP [AIR 2013 641], the appellants were caught while showing the blue film named “size matter” to young men in their premises. The wrongdoers were convicted and sentenced accordingly for an offence punishable under Section 292 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also subjected to Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act.

Need for reform in the CBFC and the Statute

In recent times it has been debated that the CA, 1952 is a pretty outdated statute. The colonial-era Statute needs to be updated as the societal mindset has changed and the standard of visual entertainment has also changed. Famous director Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra has stated that society has adapted itself to a different world and therefore, it is high time that things go to the next level. With the advancement in technology and the amount of connectivity and information available nowadays benefits the film industry in more ways than one. However, the age-old statute restricts a few of the creative possibilities due to its backwardness. An immediate change is the need of the hour. The time when the act was passed cannot be applied to the present. 

The Mudgal Committee has recommended a few important changes. One of the most important recommendations was the need for change in name of the ‘advisory panel’ to ‘screening panel’. The committee also recommended that the panel must consist of 9 members in such a manner in order to ensure language diversity via representation.  At least 2 lady members must be included. The Mudgal committee also mentioned that the present method of appointment is more political than practical. It is also observed that the CBFC often contains members who have little knowledge of the intricacies of Indian cinema and the real societal standards.  

Another suggestion was to widen the scope of jurisdiction of the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal. The suggestion is that tribunals can hear cases regarding objection in the film rather than courts. This would save time and resources a bit more than the usual tedious court procedure. 

Criticism of CBFC

The CBFC has been criticised for a number of reasons. It has been alleged of being unreasonable while exercising the power of censorship. Sometimes the CBFC has unreasonably ordered the deletion of major or effective parts of the film. The main problem with such orders is that it dampens creativity of the film. And also shows disregard for the efforts and dedication put in by the filmmaker and his supporting team and of course the cast. The fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution is violated. 

A lackadaisical outlook of the board shows their unreasonably and meaningless cuts in a film may lead to not only wastage of effort but also financial resources. Many critics have viewed this as a mockery of the entire film fraternity.

Conclusion

It is abundantly clear that the CBFC is the statutory body which regulates the public exhibition of films and also controls its certification. The CBFC is required to implement the guidelines laid down by the provisions under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. 

It is imperative for the CBFC to cater to the social demands and that of filmmakers. The whole point of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is to tame the public expression of ideas and opinions by filmmakers. Even though the Apex Court has admitted time and again that the CBFC’s decisions shall not be disregarded yet we have observed a few important judicial pronouncements where the Court has provided a better interpretation of the actual role of CBFC as under the provisions of the CA, 1952. 

There are a few criticisms regarding the CBFC with corruption and nepotism restricting the transparency of this industry and the CBFC has been alleged of being unreasonable as well. The censorship guidelines are periodically reviewed in the best interest of the audience, changing times and acceptability amongst the public. CBFC’s main role is based on moral policing. However, the CBFC needs to be revamped along with the need for amendments to the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

References

• Trishi Gupta, Media autonomy and Censorship: a study in Indian Perspective, Chapter V (2014)

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: