Jana Nayagan controversy shows — film certification process is punishment

Context & The Gist

The controversy surrounding the film 'Jana Nayagan' has brought to light the persistent issues within India’s film certification process. The film’s delayed release, despite a positive recommendation from the CBFC examining committee, underscores the challenges filmmakers face due to ambiguous laws and discretionary powers vested in the Board. The core issue is the transformation of the certification process from a classification system to a form of censorship, hindering artistic expression and causing financial strain on the film industry.

Key Arguments & Nuances

• The Cinematograph Act of 1952, while intended to classify content, suffers from vague terms like “public order,” “decency,” and “morality,” which are open to subjective interpretation and misuse.
• The abolition of the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) in 2021 has removed a crucial layer of redressal, leaving filmmakers with limited options but to approach the High Courts.
• Recent reports suggest an increasing trend of arbitrary cuts demanded by the CBFC, particularly under the current leadership, intensifying the problem.
• The ‘Jana Nayagan’ case exemplifies the punishing nature of the process, with the film caught in legal battles due to a complaint from a CBFC member, leading to financial losses and delayed release.
• Recommendations from committees like those led by Justice Mudgal and Shyam Benegal, aimed at reforming the certification process, remain unimplemented.

UPSC Syllabus Relevance

• Polity: Issues related to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)), constitutional limitations, and the role of the judiciary.
• Governance: Analysis of regulatory bodies (CBFC), transparency, accountability, and the effectiveness of grievance redressal mechanisms.
• Social Issues: Impact of censorship on artistic expression, cultural freedom, and the film industry.

Prelims Data Bank

• Cinematograph Act, 1952: Empowers the CBFC to regulate films.
• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
• Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal (FCAT): Abolished in 2021; previously served as an appellate body for film certification disputes.
• CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification): Statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

Mains Critical Analysis

The ‘Jana Nayagan’ controversy highlights a systemic issue within India’s film certification process. A PESTLE analysis reveals the following:

• Political: The discretionary powers of the CBFC Chairman and potential political interference in certification decisions.
• Economic: Delays in release and arbitrary cuts lead to financial losses for filmmakers and the film industry.
• Social: Censorship impacts artistic expression and limits the public’s access to diverse perspectives.
• Technological: The rise of OTT platforms presents an alternative avenue for filmmakers, potentially bypassing the CBFC, but also raises questions about content regulation.
• Legal: The ambiguity of the Cinematograph Act and the lack of effective redressal mechanisms contribute to the problem.
• Environmental: (Not directly relevant in this case)

The core issue is the lack of clarity and transparency in the certification process. The vague terms used in the Cinematograph Act allow for subjective interpretations, leading to arbitrary decisions. The abolition of the FCAT has further exacerbated the problem, leaving filmmakers with limited recourse. This creates a chilling effect on artistic expression and undermines the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.

A critical gap lies in the absence of a robust and independent regulatory framework that balances the need for responsible content regulation with the protection of artistic freedom. The current system is prone to misuse and lacks accountability.

Value Addition

• Justice Mudgal Committee (2016): Recommended a more holistic and transparent certification process, including clearer guidelines and a more representative examining committee.
• Shyam Benegal Committee (2018): Suggested classifying films into categories based on age groups and providing more autonomy to the CBFC.
• SC Judgment (S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989): Emphasized that censorship should be guided by constitutional principles and should not unduly restrict artistic expression.

Context & Linkages

The linked article reinforces the concerns raised by the ‘Jana Nayagan’ case, highlighting a pattern of arbitrary interventions by the CBFC. Both films faced issues related to last-minute cuts and delays, demonstrating a consistent problem with the Board’s procedures. The previous article also points to the potential suppression of historical narratives and the economic impact of these interventions, further emphasizing the need for regulatory clarity and a more transparent certification process. The continuity between the two cases underscores the urgency of addressing the systemic flaws within the CBFC.

The Way Forward

• Amend the Cinematograph Act, 1952: Replace vague terms like “public order,” “decency,” and “morality” with clear and objective criteria.
• Re-establish the FCAT: Restore an independent appellate body to provide filmmakers with a fair and accessible redressal mechanism.
• Increase Transparency: Publish detailed guidelines for certification and make the decision-making process more transparent.
• Promote Self-Regulation: Encourage the film industry to develop self-regulatory codes of conduct.
• Strengthen Oversight: Establish an independent oversight committee to monitor the CBFC’s performance and ensure accountability.