As the row over Padmavati intensifies, Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) chief Prasoon Joshi on Monday said the Board is trying to come up with a “balanced decision”, but it should be given adequate space and time to do that. At the same time, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan said the film would not be allowed to be screened in the State if it contains scenes “breaching the honour” of the Rajput queen or portrays “distorted facts”.
Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh too backed the anti-Padmavati brigade, saying nobody will support the distortion of history and backed those who are protesting against the release of the movie.
In a related development, the Supreme Court on Monday refrained from ordering any ‘cut’ in the controversial movie as it made it clear that this was the job of the Censor Board, which is currently examining the matter.
Saying that the Board seeks 68 days for the certification process of a film so that they have enough time if a situation like Padmavati comes up, Joshi said, “We need to understand that the CBFC must take a balanced decision. This situation was not created by the CBFC. It had nothing to do with the protests on roads. You show the film to media houses and get reviews done but you want CBFC to deliver a fair and well-thought-out decision,” Joshi said on the sidelines of IFFI’s inaugural ceremony.
The Censor Board had returned the application to the film’s makers citing “technical issues” after protests erupted over the magnum opus on the legendary queen of Chittor, with various Rajput groups and politicians accusing the director of “distorting historical facts” by including a
dream sequence between Padmavati (queen Padmini) and Alauddin Khilji.
“We are not asking for a lot of time. We mostly certify films before 68 days but we ask that time so that when there is a situation like this, we have time. This is not new. It has been with the CBFC for years. If certain people don’t want to see this, that is their decision.
“I respect Sanjay leela Bhansali a lot. As a member of the film fraternity, I understand him. But this issue is not about Bhansali. It is about the controversy over the film,” he said.
“If you expect a solution, you need to give CBFC time, space and a state of mind so that they can take a decision. That’s what I request from everyone who is involved in this,” he added.
In Bhopal, Chouhan said that a memorial of queen Padmini would be constructed at a site here, where a memorial for the country’s brave soldiers has been proposed.
Earlier, the Chief Ministers of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, both BJP-ruled States, had also raised a concern over the proposed release of the period drama in which actor Deepika Padukone plays the legendary Rajput queen.
Addressing members of the Rajput community at his residence here, Chouhan said twisting of historical facts will not be tolerated. “We will not tolerate any distortion of historical facts. The entire country is speaking in one voice that historical facts were distorted (in the movie),” he said.
Meanwhile, the SC refused to take note of a PIl filed by advocate Ml Sharma raising objection to screening of the movie and accusing the makers of the movie of indulging in “character assassination” by showing Queen Padmini as a “belly dancer”.
The Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud reiterated that a day ago it had ruled that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct. However, dealing with the movie in question, it said, “It is very premature petition. The film in question has not yet received the certificate from Censor Board. Our interference will tantamount to pre-judging the matter.”
Sharma vehemently opposed the movie being shown in cinema halls citing how portions in the movie hurt sentiments of a community. He complained that even while Censor Board certificate is awaited, the songs of the movie had been released without permission. Senior advocate Harish Salve who appeared for Viacom 18, the producers of the movie, submitted that the songs were released with due certification by the Censor Board. He pointed out that YouTube that hosts such songs do not upload the certification, which is available with the producers of the film.
Although the Bench dismissed the PIl, Salve objected to language employed by the petitioner, following which the court directed all objectionable portions from the petition to be deleted and struck off.