Context & The Gist
The article discusses recent controversies surrounding the certification and release of two Tamil films, Parasakthi and Jana Nayagan, by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). These cases underscore recurring issues with the CBFC’s procedures, particularly regarding transparency, timelines, and potential over-censorship. The central argument is that reforms are needed to ensure creative expression flourishes within constitutional limits, rather than being stifled by arbitrary restrictions and ad hoc decisions.
Key Arguments & Nuances
- Procedural Concerns with Parasakthi: The numerous cuts suggested by the CBFC to Parasakthi, a film dealing with a sensitive historical period, raise concerns about the suppression of historical narratives. The speed with which these cuts were requested, coinciding with the release date, suggests undue pressure and a lack of reasoned justification.
- Arbitrary Intervention in Jana Nayagan: Despite an initial “UA 16+” certificate, the CBFC Chairman’s last-minute referral to a Revising Committee, based on fresh objections, demonstrates a disregard for the economic realities of filmmaking and the importance of timely releases.
- Legal Challenges & Delays: The Madras High Court’s intervention, while adhering to legal procedure, further delayed the release of Jana Nayagan, highlighting the complexities and potential for disruption in the certification process.
- Need for Transparency & Clarity: The article emphasizes the importance of clarity in regulations and certification processes to foster both creativity and economic activity within the film industry.
UPSC Syllabus Relevance
- Polity: Constitutional provisions related to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).
- Governance: Issues related to regulatory bodies, transparency, and accountability in governance.
- Social Issues: The role of cinema in reflecting and shaping societal narratives, and the balance between artistic freedom and social responsibility.
Prelims Data Bank
- Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions.
- Cinematograph Act, 1952: The primary legislation governing film certification in India. It empowers the CBFC to regulate films for public exhibition.
- Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024: These rules outline the procedures for film certification, including the roles of Examining Committees and Revising Committees.
- CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification): Statutory body responsible for regulating the public exhibition of films under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
Mains Critical Analysis
The controversies surrounding these films expose critical gaps in the CBFC’s functioning. A Political (P) dimension is evident, as films dealing with politically sensitive themes or featuring actor-politicians are more likely to face scrutiny. Economic (E) implications are significant, as delays in certification can lead to substantial financial losses for producers and distributors. Social (S) concerns arise from the potential suppression of historical narratives and artistic expression. Technological (T) advancements, such as the rise of OTT platforms, are also relevant, as they offer alternative avenues for content distribution, potentially bypassing the CBFC’s control. Legal (L) challenges, as seen with the Madras High Court’s intervention, highlight the need for clear legal frameworks and efficient dispute resolution mechanisms. Finally, Environmental (E) factors are less directly relevant here, but the film industry's carbon footprint could be considered in a broader governance context.
The core issue is the lack of a transparent and predictable certification process. The CBFC’s discretionary powers, particularly the Chairman’s ability to refer films to Revising Committees at the last minute, create uncertainty and potential for arbitrary decision-making. This undermines the principles of fairness and due process. The current system often operates under duress, forcing filmmakers to negotiate cuts under time constraints, which compromises their creative vision.
Value Addition
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This landmark SC case affirmed the importance of freedom of speech and expression as a basic feature of the Constitution, emphasizing that restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate.
- K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1971): The Supreme Court held that “freedom of expression includes the right to express one’s opinion through cinema.” However, it also acknowledged the state’s power to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and national security.
- Kamal Haasan’s Advocacy: Actor-politician Kamal Haasan has been a vocal advocate for reforms in the film certification process, emphasizing the need for clarity and transparency.
The Way Forward
- Establish Clear Timelines: The CBFC should establish strict timelines for each stage of the certification process, from submission to final approval.
- Enhance Transparency: The reasons for any cuts or modifications should be clearly communicated to filmmakers in a written format, with detailed justifications.
- Strengthen the Revising Committee Process: The criteria for referring films to Revising Committees should be clearly defined and transparent, preventing arbitrary interventions.
- Promote Dialogue: The CBFC should foster a constructive dialogue with filmmakers and industry stakeholders to address concerns and improve the certification process.
- Review the Cinematograph Act: A comprehensive review of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, may be necessary to address contemporary challenges and ensure it aligns with constitutional principles.