Censor Board Revamp: Shyam Benegal Panel Report Is ‘Nehru Liberal’, Not Liberal Enough!

Shyam Benegal committee report on Central Board For Film Certification (CBFC), submitted to Information and Broadcasting Minister Arun Jaitley, falls short on many counts. It was constituted in the backdrop of outrage over too much censoring by CBFC chief Pahlaj Nihalani.

The outrage is not new. The board has run a coach-and-four over “artistic freedom” for too long and hence aptly known by its widely used name, Censor Board. Though, the SLOBs (Secular-Leftist Outrage Brigade) faithfully opposed any and every appointment of this Government in institutions of their pet causes, Nihalani’s was one which they were particularly serious about. He didn’t make things easy by using his censor scissors more often than warranted. Cinema lovers became frustrated with the government for not treating them as adults but like little children, who need not be shown non-Sanskari content.

The committee, headed by an eminent person from Bollywood, came in as a fresh breath.

In a broad sense, the committee has recommended that categorization of films should be more specific and has suggested having a UA Category apart from U one. UA can be broken up into further sub-categories: UA12+ and UA15+ (separate for children above 12 and 15 years of age). It has also advised to divide A category into A and AC (Adult with Caution) categories.

One transformative suggestion that is bound to win the committee accolades among the movie-goers who like their movies cuts-free is to make CBFC only a film certification body. The panel seeks to take away the censor scissors of the board. This is significant and totally in line with the model most progressive democracies follow - certify, not censor.

But there’s a catch. Every good thing in India comes with caveats. Panel suggests:

CBFC should only be a film certification body whose scope should be restricted to categorising the suitability of the film to audience groups on the basis of age and maturity (so far so good) except in the  following instances to refuse certification (emphasis and comment ours):

• When a film contains anything that contravenes the provisions of Section 5B (1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
• When content in a film crosses the ceiling laid down in the highest category of certification.

So, what are the provisions of Section 5B (1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952? Read:

5B. Principles for guidance in certifying films.—

1) A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence.

2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may issue such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition.

So, the Board can refuse to certify the film if it thinks it threatens the sovereignty and integrity of India, endangers the security of the State, can potentially spoil the friendly relations with foreign countries, is against public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence.

Also, the certificate can also be denied when content in a film crosses the ceiling laid down in the highest category of certification. That’s classic case of releasing from one hand but catching from the other one.

(Though, it’s not clear whether the films that don’t get the certificate from CBFC will be allowed to be screened or not).

Committee’s chief suggestion to turn the CBFC into a certification body is a welcome change but it doesn’t go far enough. People want a true 21st century liberal revamp of the Censor board, not an institution with a Nehruvian liberalism face-lift.