The FCAT observation was made while allowing the appeal of Khalid Kidwai, director Rambhajjan Zindabaad.
New Delhi: The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) has advised the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) headed by Pahlaj Nihalani not to summarily reject certification for a film if it is capable of receiving certification with certain cuts, deletions, modifications or additions. In an order, the FCAT said such an approach would save the appellants and the film producer “avoidable expense” and appeals being preferred before the FCAT, “which of late have shown a rising trend”.
The FCAT observation was made while allowing the appeal of Khalid Kidwai, director Rambhajjan Zindabaad, against the order of the CBFC refusing its certification. The censor board had refused certification to the film “for being a satire on rape”, “for using explicit language” and “for negative references to caste and communities”.
The FCAT, headed by Justice Manmohan Sarin, noted that most appellants who approach the tribunal say the CBFC did not give them an opportunity to make changes necessary for getting the certification.
In some cases, the FCAT said, some appellants come with complaints “regarding delay and harassment being caused by the CBFC having a preset mind and further, not disclosing their concern with regard to the movie to enable appellant to address them by voluntary cuts and deletions.”
“We would commend to the CBFC that if a movie examined by it is capable of receiving certification with certain cuts, deletions, modifications and/or additions in the disclaimer, then the CBFC may consider apprising the appellant of the same. Such an approach would save the appellants and the film producer avoidable expense and appeal being preferred before the FCAT, which of late have shown a rising trend,” the FCAT said.
In another order in respect of another film, 1946 Calcutta Killings (Hindi), the FCAT said its own approach was that “if only a few essential voluntary cuts or changes are required, then the same are directed without remanding or relegating the appellant to approach the CBFC”.