The Cinematograph Act, 1952
The Cinematograph Act, 1952
Overview
The Cinematograph Act, 1952 is a legislation enacted by the Indian Parliament to regulate the certification, exhibition, and public screening of films (cinematographic works) in India. It primarily aims to:
Provide for the certification of films before public exhibition.
Ensure films conform to standards regarding morality, decency, and public order.
Regulate film exhibition through a system of certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
Prevent exhibition of films likely to harm social harmony or public interests.
Background and Purpose
Before the Act, film censorship was unevenly regulated, with states having their own laws. The Cinematograph Act, 1952, was introduced to provide a centralized framework to standardize film certification and control.
The Act ensures that films:
Do not violate decency or morality.
Do not incite violence, hatred, or communal disharmony.
Protect the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Safeguard minors from inappropriate content.
Key Features and Provisions
1. Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)
The Act establishes the CBFC, commonly called the Film Censor Board.
CBFC is empowered to examine films, grant certificates, or refuse certification.
The Board consists of a Chairman and members appointed by the Central Government.
2. Certification of Films
Films cannot be publicly exhibited without a certificate from the CBFC.
Types of certificates issued:
U (Universal): Suitable for all ages.
U/A: Parental guidance for children below 12 years.
A (Adult): Only for adults (18+).
S: Restricted to specialized audiences like professionals.
Certification includes necessary cuts or modifications.
3. Procedure for Certification
Producers submit the film to the CBFC for scrutiny.
The Board views the film and evaluates content against prescribed guidelines.
Certification is granted, refused, or deferred with suggestions for cuts.
4. Grounds for Refusal or Cuts
The CBFC may refuse certification or demand cuts if the film:
Affects the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Hurts the feelings of any religious community.
Promotes enmity between different groups.
Contains obscene or vulgar content.
Threatens public order or decency.
Promotes defamation or contempt of court.
5. Appeal Mechanism
If the producer is dissatisfied with the CBFC's decision, an Appeal can be made to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT).
FCAT reviews the case and may uphold, modify, or overturn the decision.
The FCAT's decision is binding unless challenged in courts.
6. Penalties and Offenses
Exhibition of uncertified films or violation of certification terms is punishable.
Penalties include fines and imprisonment (usually up to 6 months).
Repeat offenses attract harsher penalties.
7. Exemptions
Films made for government purposes or for educational or cultural activities may be exempted from certification.
Newsreels or documentaries with government sanction may also be exempt.
Important Sections
| Section | Provision |
|---|---|
| 3 | Appointment of Central Board |
| 4 | Power to examine and certify films |
| 5 | Granting of certificates |
| 6 | Powers to refuse or require cuts |
| 7 | Appeal to Appellate Tribunal |
| 9 | Penalties for violation |
| 10 | Power to exempt certain films |
Case Law Related to The Cinematograph Act, 1952
1. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, AIR 1989 SC 1258
Facts: The Tamil film Ore Oru Gramathiley was banned by the Tamil Nadu government on grounds of potential communal disharmony.
Held: The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to exhibit films. The government cannot impose prior restraint unless it clearly violates public order or morality.
Significance: The Court emphasized the limited grounds for censorship, upholding artistic freedom while recognizing the need for reasonable restrictions.
2. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2006 SC 2817
Facts: The state government imposed a ban on a film fearing law and order problems.
Held: The Supreme Court reiterated that censorship must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and any ban must be justified on grounds of public order or morality.
Significance: Reaffirmed that the Act’s provisions should balance freedom of expression with public interest.
3. Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881
Issue: Definition and regulation of obscene content under the Act.
Held: The Court held that films should not be certified if they contain obscenity according to the Hicklin test (historical test for obscenity).
Significance: Provided guidelines on what constitutes obscenity under the Act.
4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
While this case primarily dealt with internet censorship, the Supreme Court laid down principles limiting censorship to reasonable restrictions, which apply similarly to film certification.
Important Legal Principles
Freedom of Expression: Films are a form of expression protected under the Constitution but subject to reasonable restrictions.
Limited Censorship: The CBFC can only refuse certification on grounds explicitly laid down in the Act.
No Prior Restraint Except for Specified Grounds: Government cannot arbitrarily ban or censor films.
Right to Appeal: Filmmakers have a right to appeal CBFC decisions.
Summary
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Regulate film certification and public exhibition |
| Certifying Authority | Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) |
| Grounds for Refusal | Obscenity, public order, sovereignty, religion |
| Certificates Issued | U, U/A, A, S |
| Appeal | Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) |
| Penalties | Fines and imprisonment for violations |
| Constitutional Link | Freedom of speech with reasonable restrictions |
RELATED Blog
0 comments