Film Certification in India: Certification or Censorship?

7th October, 2024 - 9:47 am Categories: Media & Entertainment Law 0 Comments

Recently, the release of the movie ‘Emergency’, a political drama directed and co-produced by Kangana Ranaut was delayed due to the pending certification from Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).[i] Various questions might come to one’s mind after reading this development: What are the powers of CBFC? What is the Regulating Authority under which the Board holds these powers? Moreover, there is a longstanding debate about whether film certification in India is truly about classifying films or veers into the territory of censorship. Various concerns like- how much creative freedom filmmakers can exercise, remain at the forefront. Finally, the most debated question crops up- whether the certification process a legitimate tool to safeguard public morality, or does it curtail freedom of expression?

CBFC

The CBFC is a statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in India. It regulates the public exhibition of films according to the Cinematograph Act of 1952. Films can only be shown publicly in India after receiving certification from the CBFC. The certification process follows the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, and the guidelines issued by the Central Government under Section 5(B). The CBFC is composed of non-official members and a Chairman, all of them being appointed by the Central Government. Its 9 regional offices are located in Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Thiruvananthapuram, Hyderabad, new Delhi, Cuttack, and Guwahati with its headquarters located in Mumbai. These regional offices are supported by Advisory Panels, members of which, are nominated by the Central Government from various walks of life for a two-year term.

THE CLASSIFICATION

Film certification in India is governed by Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. It outlines the grounds on which a film can be restricted. The provision, echoes the restrictions in Article 19(2) and empowers the CBFC to decide whether a film is suitable for public exhibition based on its content. Supplementing this, the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 provide procedural guidelines for certification.

These laws allow the CBFC to certify films into the following categories

1. U (Universal)- Unrestricted
2. UA (Universal Adult)- Unrestricted but with a parental discretion advisory for children under ages sub-divided into UA 7+, UA 13+, UA 16+[ii]
3. A (Adult)- Restricted to viewers aged 18 and above
4. S (Special)- Only for special class of persons

While the CBFC’s role is to classify films based on age suitability, it often imposes cuts and modifications that filmmakers view as censorship. These actions of the board and moral policing have been a point of contention, as it frequently inclines toward protecting public morality at the expense of artistic freedom.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION VIS-À-VIS REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS: ARTICLE 19

In India, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression which in turn guarantees the freedom to express oneself through films. Unlike other forms of media, films are unique in that they are subject to pre-censorship. This means their content is reviewed and potentially restricted before it is released to the public, as outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of this pre-censorship in the landmark case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India.[iii] The reasoning was that movies have a unique ability to stir emotions more intensely than other types of art and therefore should be treated differently from other art forms.

Under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, films can be restricted on the grounds of ‘decency and morality.’ The censor board often uses these grounds to object to certain films. In both Indian and English law, ‘indecency’ and ‘obscenity’ are defined similarly, with current obscenity laws being quite problematic. Essentially, anything deemed sexually arousing is considered obscene. The ‘community standards doctrine,’ established in the Aveek Sarkar v. West Bengal[iv] case, is used to determine what constitutes obscenity. This doctrine states that a nude or semi-nude image is not inherently obscene unless it is intended to arouse sexual desire. The perception of what is arousing can be typically restricted to adult audiences. The CBFC should apply this doctrine while reviewing and rating films.

CERTIFICATION V. CENSORSHIP

In 1952, this body was restructured as the Central Board of Film Censors, and in 1983, it was renamed the Central Board of Film Certification. Some say that the CBFC, though now named as the certifying board, still plays the role of a Censor Board. The idea behind certification is to inform audiences about the content of a film and allow them to make an informed choice. Censorship, on the other hand, controls content based on what the authorities deem acceptable, limiting access to particular ideas or depictions. In the case of S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram,[v] the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of freedom of expression and stated that it is the State’s responsibility to protect this freedom, and it cannot claim an inability to manage hostile reactions from the public. Regardless of this decision, the approach to censorship in Bollywood can be quite unpredictable, often varying with the personal views of CBFC’s members. This inconsistency can make the process seem arbitrary and capricious.

This inconsistency can be observed in following examples: In July 2011, ‘Delhi Belly’, a film known for its profanity and sexual content, hit the screens and was praised by both audiences and critics. Interestingly, it was released without any cuts and received an ‘A’ rating from the board. Despite some controversy over some of its songs and explicit content, notably, the CBFC was lenient in its certification. In contrast, the film ‘Udta Punjab,’ which aimed to highlight the drug problem in Punjab, faced a different fate. The CBFC suggested 94 cuts, including the removal of references to cities in Punjab and even the word ‘election.’ This sparked a major controversy, with the masses in the film industry criticising the CBFC’s actions as dictatorial and an attempt to stifle creative expression.

CONCLUSION

The thin line between film certification and censorship is a hotly debated topic. Although, the CBFC is supposed to classify films for viewers, its actions often feel more like censorship. Moreover, CBFC does not follow a standard, rather works on discretion and that brings inconsistency in their certification decisions. As the ever-growing industry of Indian cinema evolves, it is crucial to reform the certification process to honour both; the creators’ artistic vision and the audience’s freedom to choose.

Author: Yukta Chordia, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

[i] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/kangana-ranaut-says-emergency-release-postponed-new-update-soon/articleshow/113119432.cms?from=mdr

[ii] https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2014950

[iii] 1971 SCR  (2) 446

[iv] AIR 2014 SC 1495

[v] (1989) 2 SCC 593