Pre-certification of films can’t be done away with: Centre

NEW DELHI: Pre-certification of movies could not be done away with as it had stood the test of time and continued to be relevant, the Centre has told the Supreme Court. It also said the censor board did not do moral policing as only a minuscule number of films were rejected.

Pre-censorship of films before public screening was "absolutely necessary" to ensure sensitivity and sensibility with even developed countries continuing with censor boards despite the increasing dominance of TV and internet, the Centre and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) said in a joint affidavit. They refuted the charge that CBFC was a "sanskari board" scrubbing abusive words and intimate scenes, saying only 0.03% of films were rejected by the board.

"The films are certified based on the laid down principles of the Cinematograph Act and the film is seen in that context. It is wrong to say that the board is holding a moral compass. Had it been the case, films could not have been passed at such a large scale. Hardly 0.03% of movies get rejected because of content. Even in developed countries, there are censor boards which only proves that despite TV and access to internet, there is a need for censoring so that right content goes to the right audience," the affidavit said.

Litigant actor Amol Palekar alleged the law granted "unbridled" powers and "unguided" discretion to the board to stop public screening of a film. The case is being heard in the backdrop of arbitrariness in the censor board's decisions that were seen to have led to the exit of Pahlaj Nihalani as board chairman with adman and lyricist Prasoon Joshi taking over. Controversies have ranged from cuts in films like 'Udta Punjab' and snipping out cuss words and kissing scenes in James Bond movies.

The government filed its response countering arguments of Palekar who challenged the constitutional validity of the Cinematograph Act which allows pre-censorship of films. In apetition, the actor said pre-censorship amounted to violation of filmmakers' fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and should be declared unconstitutional.

The Centre, however, said there was no need to re-examine the current mechanism for censoring films as guidelines for certifying films had been in existence for the last 26 years. "India is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society with people living in diverse economic, social, political, religious and technological conditions. A pre-certification board is absolutely necessary in a country like India, so as to ensure a modicum of sensibility and sensitivity to the audience base," the affidavit said.

"Many progressive films have been made in India and the film industry has moved from strength to strength. This could not have happened if there was misuse or abuse or arbitrariness involved in the decisions of CBFC," it said.

"An average 18,000 certificates are issued, out of which 900 feature films are certified on average. And on average, less than 15 films are rejected or refused every year. The percentage of such rejection is very low," the Centre added.

Palekar's petition said the board had put unreasonable restrictions on filmmakers, who were asked to delete scenes from their films. "The Act, when enacted in 1952 and interpreted in 1970 by the SC, could not have conceived the present-day scenario wherein dissemination of information is through a variety of media, many of which are either not regulated or, if regulated, not subjected to pre-censorship."

"The board cannot be the protector of the moral compass of society... There is no provision which is applicable to TV or to videos available on the digital medium. There is not much distinction between TV and cinema," he added.