SC notice to Centre over Palekar’s plea on CBFC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Centre on a writ petition filed by actor Amol Palekar seeking to quash the provisions of the Cinematograph Act which empowers the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to demand “unreasonable” cuts in films before they grant certification.

A bench headed by Justice A.K. Sikri issued a notice to the Centre on the petition which alleged that imposing cuts in films amounted to pre-censorship, which is an unreasonable restriction, and demanded that all restrictions on artisfic freedom be lifted.

He sought a declaration that the present CBFC was incompetent to carry out functions under the said act. He also prayed for quashing the guidelines for film certification as they are abstract, vague and imprecise, leading to rampant, erratic and subjective interpretations of scenes/language in a film amounting to unfair curtailment of the filmmakers freedom of expression.

Mr Palekar said that since the decision of the apex court in the Abbas case, the power of certification as a means of pre-censorship has been subjected to large scale abuse owing to ambiguity and a lack of clear guidelines on how the power was to be exercised. As a result, the CBFC routinely demands cuts of scenes or dialogue, failing which it denies certificates to films for arbitrary reasons.

Some of the CBFC’s demands to filmmakers, such as remove “Maan ki Baat” from a dialogue and get an NOC from the PMO’s office for the title of the film Modi Kaa Gaon were cited by the actor as examples of the arbitrary nature of the body’s decisions. Another film was denied certification on the gorunds that the “the story is lady oriented; their fantasy about sex and audio pornography”. It is the need the hour to redefine, reclaim and resurrect contours of our individual freedoms, he said in the petition.

Law must adapt itself to cope with new situations if it has to satisfy human needs and to meet the contemporary problems of life, he said and prayed for quashing the offending provisions.