The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) found itself on the back foot on Thursday, as the Bombay High Court demanded to know from it if the drug menace had never been portrayed on Indian celluloid in the past and why it was insisting on deletion of the word Punjab from the title of the film Udta Punjab.
On a day when renowned filmmaker Shyam Benegal heaped praise on Udta Punjab for projecting the drug problem in Punjab effectively and said the film had not portrayed the northern State in a bad light as was being made out in certain quarters, the CBFC’s Revising Committee insisted that the changes proposed by it in the controversial film were “justified” and “proper”.
Hearing a petition filed by Phantom Films, producer of Udta Punjab, challenging the changes proposed in the film, a HC Bench headed by Justice Dharmadhikari observed it was not satisfied with the first two of the 13 changes proposed by the Revising Committee about deleting the word Punjab from the title of the film and all references to Jalandhar, Punjab, Chandigarh, Amritsar, Tarantaran, Jashanpura, Ambesar, ludhiana and Molga in the movie.
Tearing into the justification offered by the CBFC about the changes proposed by it, Justice Dharmadhikari demanded to know from the Censor Board, “Has drug menace never been portrayed on celluloidIJ Some of it may be crude, while some may be artistic. How does this signboard insult anyoneIJ” Drawing comparison between Udta Punjab with the film Go Goa Gone, Justice Dharmadhikari said that in the latter film, Goa had been shown as a place where people go to party and also take banned drugs.
“If Goa can be shown as a place of drug abuse in that film, what is wrong if Punjab is shown in Udta PunjabIJ” he asked.
Alluding to the CBFC’s argument that it projected the State in a bad light, the judge asked the CBFC’s lawyer, “Are you saying that Punjab is known only for drugsIJ”
“There was a film on Moga (a district in Punjab) being a town full of cancer patients. It was not to degrade the town, but to talk about the seriousness of the issue,” he added.
Earlier, the CBFC lawyer contended that the Revising Committee’s order suggesting 13 changes in the film was not arbitrary, as was being made out by the filmmakers, and had been proposed after due application of mind.
“We are objecting to the reference to Punjab and its people and the base language used in the film”, the lawyer told the court.
On its part, the HC Bench made it clear to the CBFC that it was not satisfied with the first two changes proposed by it, namely, deletion of the word Punjab from the title and removal of references to Punjab and various cities in the State from the film.
The CBFC’s lawyer told the court that he would make submissions about other proposed changes in the film on Friday, following which the court deferred the matter.
In his arguments opposing the changes proposed by the CBFC, counsel for Phantom Films, Anurag Kashyap’s production company Ravi Kadam said: “Punjab is an integral part of the concept and cannot be deleted from the film”.
Kadam went on to argue that references to Punjab in the film were in the context of the theme and did not form a substantial part of the dialogues and the script.
Kadam wondered how the sovereignty and integrity of the country in general and the State in particular has been questioned, through references to Punjab.
Phantom Films’ lawyer also took exception to the proposal that cuss words be removed from a song of the film. “These (cuss) words relate to drug abuse,” Kadam said.
Making a strong case against the changes, the petitioner’s lawyer said the order was issued without reasonable application of mind and that the producer of the film was not given a hearing by the Revising Committee before passing the order and hence the principles of natural justice had been violated.