In a notable case of film certification, the Bombay High Court recently adjudicated a dispute concerning the film “Teesri Begum”. The judgment highlights the intricate relationship between artistic expression in cinema and the regulatory framework outlined in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 read with Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023.
The aforementioned legislation forms the basis for film certification and censorship in India, with the objective of harmonizing creative liberties with societal standards and public tranquillity. The judgment provided a resolution to the long-standing disagreement over suggested cuts in KC Bokadia’s film, ultimately allowing for its release.
Further, the resolution of this dispute underscores the importance of dialogue and compromise in resolving conflicts between filmmakers and certification authorities. The Bombay High Court’s intervention facilitated a mutually acceptable solution, balancing creative expression with regulatory compliance. The case also highlights the judicial system’s role in mediating such disputes, ensuring that the guidelines of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, are upheld while respecting the filmmaker’s artistic vision.
Overview Of The Cinematograph Act, 1952
The Cinematograph Act, 1952 read with Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 was enacted by the Indian Parliament to regulate the certification and exhibition of films within the country. Its primary objective is to ensure that films align with societal norms while also respecting the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression. The Cinematograph Act established the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which is tasked with categorizing films into classifications such as Universal (U), Parental Guidance (U/A), and Adults only (A). Further vide amendment in 2023, new certification categories under U/A, and specifying age endorsements like UA 7+, UA 13+, and UA 16+, which aim to provide clearer guidance for parents regarding age-appropriate content were introduced.
The CBFC evaluates films based on their potential impact on public order, morality, and decency, in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. An Examining Committee reviews films, suggesting edits for societal norms. Disputes can go to a Revising Committee. Notably, Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act prohibits the certification of films that could disrupt public order, reflecting the need for communal harmony in India’s diverse society.
Additionally, films with A or S certificates will now require separate certification for television and other media, ensuring that content is appropriately modified for different audiences. Furthermore, the amendment in 2023, the Cinematograph Act provides for the perpetual validity of CBFC certificates, streamlining the certification process, and removes the central government’s revisional powers over the CBFC’s decisions, thereby enhancing the Board’s (as defined under Section 2(b) of the Cinematograph Act) autonomy in film certification matters.
Case Background: KC Bokadia vs. CBFC
The producer of the film “Teesri Begum”, KC Bokadia (Petitioner), had submitted his film to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for certification. The CBFC, via a letter dated January 1, 2024, refused to issue a certificate citing reasons that the Film needed modification. Pursuant of the order of CBFC, the Petitioner approached the Bombay High Court seeking review of the order of CBFC. A single-judge bench of the High Court, comprising Justice RI Chagla, heard the petition filed by the Petitioner. During the proceedings, the CBFC informed the bench that the modifications would be considered for certification once the application was filed. The Petitioner agreed to the changes, and the High Court allowed the movie to be released.
The CBFC had objected to a specific climax scene where the main character, a Muslim, upon being attacked by his Hindu wives, chants “Jai Shree Ram”. CBFC also raised concerns about a scene related to triple talaq, stating that it was against the Supreme Court judgment in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, which declared the practice of instantaneous triple talaq unconstitutional. After discussions, the filmmakers agreed to modify the usage of “Jai Shree Ram” slogan to “Tumko Tumhari Bhagwan Ki Kasam” and to include a disclaimer regarding the triple talaq scene. The CBFC’s objections were rooted in the potential for these scenes to incite communal tensions and violate public order. Such concerns reflect the emphasis of the Cinematograph Act on preventing content that could disrupt social harmony, underscoring the Board’s role in safeguarding societal values.
The High Court’s judgment mandated that the Petitioner shall implement these agreed-upon changes to the Film’s dialogues. To ensure the Film’s release, the Petitioner agreed to alter the controversial dialogue and add a disclaimer for the triple talaq scene. These changes were essential for the Hon’ble Court’s approval, enabling the Film to be shown after the CBFC reviewed it with the modifications. Upon satisfactory incorporation of these modifications, the CBFC would grant the required certification, allowing the Film to be released. This process highlights the Cinematograph Act’s provisions, which permit filmmakers to appeal CBFC rulings and the importance of meeting regulatory criteria for certification. The ability to make modifications demonstrates a degree of flexibility within the framework, enabling filmmakers to adapt their work while still adhering to legal requirements.
Additionally, the court allowed the Petitioner the liberty to apply for a change in the film’s certification from ‘A’ to ‘U/A’ (unrestricted public exhibition with parental guidance). This application would be considered by the CBFC on its merits and in accordance with the law.
Implications of the Cinematograph Act
The modifications made to the Film, exemplify the broader implications of the Cinematograph Act within the film industry. This legislation not only regulates the content of films but also moulds the narrative landscape by imposing constraints that filmmakers must navigate. In this context, the CBFC plays a crucial role in ensuring that films do not disseminate content that could disrupt social harmony or violate legal rulings, such as those related to triple talaq, or any such portrayal which might cause communal or societal disruption. Furthermore, the provisions within the Cinematograph Act for appeals and modifications offer a certain level of flexibility, allowing filmmakers to adjust their work to meet certification requirements without completely compromising their artistic vision. This balance is vital in a diverse society where films have the potential to shape public opinion and cultural dialogue. The Cinematograph Act functions as a regulatory tool aimed at safeguarding societal interests while also permitting the exploration of intricate themes in cinema.
Conclusion
The present case serves as a pertinent example of how the Cinematograph Act functions within the Indian film industry, highlighting the ongoing tension between artistic expression and regulatory control. As filmmakers continue to explore complex and potentially controversial themes, the framework provided by the Cinematograph Act will remain a critical factor in the production and exhibition of films in India, ensuring they resonate with both audiences and the legal landscape. The case also underscores the importance of adhering to regulatory norms and demonstrates the potential for constructive dialogue and consensus-building in the creative process.
Following the agreed-upon modifications, the CBFC will re-watch the Film and determine the appropriate certification to be accorded which can be either ‘A’ or ‘U/A’. Looking ahead, the implications of the Cinematograph Act will further shape the film industry by introducing stricter penalties for unauthorized content and enhancing the classification system with more nuanced age endorsements, thereby encouraging filmmakers to navigate sensitive topics more thoughtfully while ensuring compliance with evolving societal standards and legal expectations.
Authors: Shalini Bajpai, Ananya Chakraborty & Devanshi Damania