Udta Punjab row: Bombay HC cuts Pahlaj Nihalani down to 1 from 89

The Bombay high court on Monday quashed and set aside the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and allowed the release of the film Udta Punjab with only one cut, a modification in the disclaimer and the condition that the film be certified for exhibition to an adult audience. CBFC chief Pahlaj Nihalani had sought 89 cuts.

The division bench of Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari and Justice Dr Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi directed the CBFC to issue a certificate to the makers of Udta Punjab within 48 hours and rejected the CBFC’s plea to grant a stay on its own order.

The only scene which the court has directed to be deleted is where actor Shahid Kapoor is shown urinating in front of a crowd. The filmmakers have given an undertaking to the court that they are ready to remove the scene. They also agreed to modify the disclaimer to say that “the film does not promote the use of drugs and abusive language” and deletion of any reference to a “particular country” (Pakistan).

The bench observed: “We do not find anything in the film that shows Punjab in bad light or affects the sovereignty or integrity of India as claimed by the CBFC.”

The bench was hearing a plea filed by Phantom Films that moved the HC against 13 suggestions of the review committee.

Discussing a suggestion made by the CBFC to edit a dialogue, the bench said, “Punjab is a land of warriors and martyrs. People should not be overly sensitive to a single dialogue that has the word ‘khanjar’ (knife).” The dialogue in question is “zameen banjar to aulaad khanjar”.

The bench, which was of the opinion that no one can dictate to a filmmaker how he should make a film, said that there is no need to censor films. The judges, however, also said, “There is no need to assert or incorporate abusive words in every dialogue.”

On the CBFC’s suggestion to remove the signboard of “Punjab” in the beginning of the movie among other deletions, the court said, “Such blanket deletion without reference to the theme and subject of the film is bound to interfere with the creative freedom of the petitioner.”

The judges also said, “Art must render obscenity so trivial that it doesn’t affect people’s minds. Holding up a certificate, suggesting cuts routinely will prove counterproductive. We do not find anything in the script that affects the sovereignty and integrity of the nation”.

According to the judges, the power to exercise deletion and cuts should be in consonance with provisions of the Constitution and directions of the SC.