Film certification and censorship inIndia

Cinematograph Act of 1952

 Film certification and censorship in India
 Established the Central board for film certification
 Statutory body
 Under ministry of information and
broadcasting
 Head quartered in Mumbai
 Members of the committee are appointed by the central
government inc Chairman.

• Justice Mukul Mudgal, 2013 – To examine the issues of certification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

• Shri Shyam Benegal Committee in 2016

• To evolve broad guidelines for film certification within the ambit of the
  Cinematograph Act and Rules.
• • With that consultation the ministry has
  proposed to introduce the
  Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.
• • Up for public consultati

• Age-based categories:

 ‘Unrestricted public exhibition’ category is
proposed to be amended
 Film category
 “U” – unrestricted public exhibition
 “A” – restricted to adult audiences
 “UA” – unrestricted public exhibition subject to parental guidance for children below the age of twelve
 “S” – Restricted to a special class of audience.

• Draft bill proposes to further sub-divide the
existing UA category into age-based categories –
U/A 7+, U/A 13+ and U/A 16+

• Amendment of sub-section (3) of section 5A – ‘Validity of certificate’

 Act of 1952 – certificate issued by the CBFC is valid for 10 years
 Amendment – certificate will be valid in
perpetuity.

• Adding sub-section(1) of section 6 – when the Central government received any
complaints for violation of section 5B(1) on any film that is already certified by CBFC –
in that case the Central government may ask
the chairman of the CBFC to reconsider the certification.

• Film piracy – insertion of section 6AA:

 Piracy rose 62% in India in the last week of March 2020 compared to the last week of February 2020 following the
COVID lockdowns.
 Cinematograph Act, 1952 – No provision
to check privacy
 Prohibits unauthorised recording
 Prescribes punishment – imprisonment for
minimum of three months and maximum
of three years, fines the individual with
minimum of Rs 3 lakhs.

Criticism

• An attempt by union government o act as a “super censor” body.
 SC in K.M. Shankarappa vs Union of India, 2000 case – Union government
cannot exercise revision powers on films that are already certified by the CBFC
 Despite the SC judgement, this is an attempt to add another layer to quell
freedom of expression through films
 Government scraped the existence of Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal
(FCAT) through an ordinance. (A body to hear appeals of film-makers against decisions of the CBFC)

Conclusion

A way to stifle free speech as expressed
through films. And that is why this draft
bill is being criticised