Film certification board and censorship
Film Certification Board and Censorship
What is the Film Certification Board?
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), often called the Film Certification Board, is a statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in India. Its primary role is to certify films for public exhibition based on guidelines laid down in the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
Objectives of Film Certification
To ensure films adhere to guidelines related to morality, decency, security, and public order.
To regulate content that may offend religious sentiments or propagate anti-national ideas.
To protect children and vulnerable audiences from inappropriate content.
To balance freedom of expression with societal interests.
What is Film Censorship?
Censorship is the act of scrutinizing films before release to decide what content may be suitable for public viewing or what should be excised or modified. The Film Certification Board acts as a censor, certifying or refusing certification based on the content.
Categories of Film Certification
U (Unrestricted Public Exhibition)
UA (Parental Guidance for children below 12 years)
A (Adults only)
S (Restricted to specialized audiences like doctors, scientists, etc.)
Grounds for Censorship Include
Obscenity
Defamation
Hate speech
Threats to public order and security
Religious sentiments
Vulgarity or obscenity
Promotion of anti-national or secessionist ideas
Important Case Laws on Film Certification and Censorship
1. S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)
Issue: Whether freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) extends to films and the limits of censorship.
Facts: The film Ore Oru Gramathiley was banned by Tamil Nadu government for allegedly hurting caste sentiments.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that freedom of expression includes films, and the power of censorship must be exercised sparingly and cannot be arbitrary.
Significance: It established that censorship should not suppress freedom of expression unless there is a clear threat to public order.
2. K.A. Abbas vs. Union of India (1971)
Issue: Challenge against the power of the CBFC to ban films and the criteria for certification.
Facts: The film Saat Hindustani was initially denied certification.
Judgment: The court held that the board’s powers must be exercised within the bounds of reasonableness and fairness. Arbitrary bans violate Article 19.
Significance: The case clarified that certification is not about moral policing but about balancing freedom and societal interests.
3. Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015)
Note: Although primarily about internet censorship (Section 66A of IT Act), it set important precedents for content regulation.
Significance: Emphasized strict scrutiny of content regulation and stressed that restrictions must be narrowly tailored and reasonable.
Impact on Film Censorship: Courts have adopted this reasoning to ensure CBFC's censorship powers do not overreach constitutional freedoms.
4. Union of India vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) (aka Navjot Singh Sidhu case)
Issue: Whether a film’s depiction of real-life persons or events can be censored.
Judgment: The court ruled that films based on real-life events can be shown but must maintain public order and not defame or malign individuals.
Significance: It drew a fine line between artistic freedom and individual rights, cautioning filmmakers.
5. Aamir Khan Productions vs. Union of India (2018)
Issue: Whether CBFC’s demand to cut or modify scenes from Secret Superstar violated freedom of expression.
Judgment: The court reiterated that CBFC should not impose its personal morality but apply guidelines objectively.
Significance: Reinforced the idea that CBFC’s role is to certify and not censor films arbitrarily.
Summary of Judicial Position on Film Certification and Censorship
| Case Name | Key Legal Principle |
|---|---|
| S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram | Freedom of expression applies to films; censorship must be reasonable and not arbitrary |
| K.A. Abbas vs. Union of India | CBFC’s powers must be exercised fairly; arbitrary bans are unconstitutional |
| Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India | Content regulation must be reasonable and narrowly tailored |
| Union of India vs. Navjot Sandhu | Films based on real events must balance freedom and defamation/public order |
| Aamir Khan Productions vs. Union of India | CBFC must certify, not impose personal morality or arbitrary cuts |
Conclusion
The Film Certification Board plays a critical role in balancing freedom of expression and societal interests such as morality, public order, and protection of vulnerable audiences. Judicial intervention has consistently aimed to prevent arbitrary or excessive censorship while recognizing the need for reasonable regulation.
The courts have emphasized that films enjoy constitutional protection but are not absolute. The CBFC must work transparently and apply guidelines fairly without infringing on artistic freedom unnecessarily.
RELATED Blog
0 comments