As Censor Board becomes the buzzword on social media, PRAKRITI ROY brings you a lowdown on what the controversial body is all about
Filmmakers and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), popularly known as the Censor Board, have been at loggerheads for ages. The conflict reached its height with the controversy surrounding Udta Punjab, with the CBFC demanding 87 cuts, finally concluding in the Bombay High Court ruling that the film be released with one cut and an ‘A’ certificate.
The Udta Punjab had the entire film fraternity questioning the CBFC’s right to censor a film. Industry insiders pointed out that being a certification board, it should only certify films and not suggest omissions. The name of the Board, in fact, doesn’t have the word ‘censor’ in it. Here is a timeline of the evolution of this statutory body under the Ministry of information & Broadcasting:
1920 — Independent regional bodies called Censor Boards formed under police chiefs of Madras, Bombay, Calcutta, lahore and Yangon (present day Rangoon, Burma).
1952 — Cinematograph Act, 1952 passed. The independent censors abolished and a centralised Central Board of Film Censors formed.
1983 — Cinematograph (Certification) Rules revised and the CBFC came into existence.
The CBFC can certify films under the following categories:
U — Unrestricted public exhibition.
U/A — Parental guidance for children below 12 years of age.
A — Restricted to adults.
S — Restricted to special class of persons.
Public viewing of films is allowed only after being certified by the CBFC. This holds true for all kinds of films, be it feature, documentary, ad film, educational film or any other.
Despite the word ‘censor’ being removed from the name, it continues to have powers of censorship, although the popular perception is that censoring is beyond the CBFC’s brief.
Even after the Cinematograph (Censorship) Rules, 1983, were passed, a lot of power continued to be in the hands of the board. The name Censor Board stuck on. The process to be followed for a film’s certification is clearly specified in the Act and its subsequent amendment. After filling the required forms and providing the fees and documents specifying the certification being sought, the film is watched by the Examining Committee (EC). Immediately after that, “recommendation of every member of the committee is recorded in unambiguous terms and each excision or modification is properly specified in clear terms with reason.”
If the filmmakers disagree with the EC on the certification or modifications, they can appeal to a Revising Committee (RC) screening within 14 days. Members of the EC and RC cannot be the same. “Provided that where the chairman disagrees with the decision of the majority of the committee, the board shall itself examine the film or cause the film to be examined again by another RC and that the decision of the board or the second RC, as the case may be, shall be final,” the Act says.
The main problem that filmmakers have with the CBFC is that it hampers creativity. The last amendments to the rules were made in 1983, more than 30 years back. Committees formed to suggest changes in the rules have presented reports and suggestions, none of which has been passed. Meanwhile, the board continues to function by the rules set even before liberalisation. The chairperson enjoys absolute powers. For instance, when there is no majority in the voting system, the chairperson’s decision is final.
The Khosla Committee was formed in 1969. It suggested that the board be made an independent and autonomous regulatory body. Filmmakers are advocating for this till today, calling for a regulatory body independent of the Government and consisting of members from within the industry, much like in the West. Then there was the Mukul Mudgal Committee whose 2013 suggestions included introducing 12+ and 15+ ratings, apart from the existing ones.
Most recently, an Expert Committee was formed under the leadership of Shyam Benegal. Among other things, its report stated that the “the CBFC should only be a film certification body whose scope should be restricted to categorising the suitability of the film to audience groups”.
Need for reform in the Act is reiterated by the fact that there is an entire table that specifies the length of the film and the trailer, literally, mentioned as per the length of negatives (600 metres for a 70 mm certificate and so on). The last amendment was made way before digitisation.
The CBFC has been at the centre of controversies for refusing certificates to films or demanding massive cuts. Since Pahlaj Nihalani took over, the enormity of cuts has increased. Films which faced trouble most recently include Jai Gangajal and children’s film The Jungle Book. Nihalani’s critics have recounted his own productions which had double meaning lyrics like “Khada hai, khada hai.” Things went out of hand for Nihalani especially after the CBFC reportedly tried to make James Bond film Spectre more sanskari by reducing the length of the kisses.
A prominent voice against the board’s decisions has been former CBFC chairperson leela Samson who quit citing political interference in the certification of the film on Dera Sachcha Sauda chief Baba Ram Rahim, Messenger of God. The film had been denied a certificate by the board, only to be granted one by the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal later.
Most recently, she issued a public statement on her Facebook page about the Udta Punjab row: “...another film and its slaughter at the hands of the CBFC... It should be just the industry and... an empathetic CBFC board... Who makes policyIJ The Ministry. Who runs the Film FestivalsIJ The Ministry... this act of certification should be transferred to an internal body within the industry. Self regulation is the only regulation that should exist!”
Mahesh Bhatt is another film personality whose runs-in with the CBFC are as old as his career. At a recent Press conference in support of Udta Punjab, he said his very first film Manzilein Aur Bhi Hain (1973) faced trouble from the censors and so did his Zakhm (1998), towards the end of his direction career. He tweeted: “Censorship is the child of fear and the father of ignorance. Is Pahlaj Nihalani listeningIJ”