It was a report about a unilateral decision by the Centre to dissolve a body that dealt with appeals regarding censorship - the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT). The move has justifiably led to outrage among filmmakers.

The FCAT, a statutory body constituted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, was set up in 1983, to serve as a sounding board and arbitrator for filmmakers who were unhappy with the sometimes regressive or draconian ruling of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in certifying films or ordering cuts. In its role of supporting creative licence, the FCAT was a respected body which helped filmmakers who objected to Censor board rulings get a fair hearing. One such example involved India’s youngest Oscar-nominated director Ashvin Kumar. His film No Fathers In Kashmir was having trouble getting certified by the CBFC. When he took the matter to the FCAT, they intervened and demanded that the CBFC revising committee give the film a proper review.

The FCAT, which was headed by a govt appointed chairperson, acted as an informed via media to hear both sides of the argument and suggest a solution. There was a time when there were talks about extending the scope of FCAT’s powers to even deal with PILs that were routinely filed against certain films that were deemed contentious. Now, with the Centre’s order to abolish the tribunal, filmmakers have no choice but to directly approach the concerned high courts to challenge any CBFC order. While there does not appear to be any clarity of why this decision was taken, all stakeholders agree that the removal of FCAT will make it very difficult for filmmakers to challenge any curbs on their creative freedom.

There are a few filmmakers and lawyers who are of the opinion that the courts are better equipped to deal with such cases than the FCAT. Some have gone so far as to say that there are already a number of organisations for the film industry - like National Film Development Corporation and Children’s Film Society of India - so the FCAT may not have enough of a role. And considering that the final authority for a film certification is the Censor Board, the question of empowering another body to challenge it could be divisive. But even with that argument, the FCAT was a much-needed neutral body that gave filmmakers the much needed direction when they felt their creativity was misunderstood or in some cases, stifled.

There is no denying that there is a need to monitor the effect a film will have on the audiences. However, in the age of easy access to international shows, films and a definite increase in awareness among Indian viewers, it is indeed worth considering whether it was the right decision to abolish the FCAT, or would it have been smarter to give the CBFC new guidelines? The Centre had mooted the idea of introducing more progressive classification norms, but that project seems to have been forgotten. Even back in the time of the UPA regime, one recalls guidelines prepared by the Justice Mudgal Committee for the implementation of a revised classification system for films.

Tying up the right to appeal against CBFC decisions with the present day judicial process is tricky, as it could mean appeals will remain pending and important hearings could get delayed as a result of the additional workload. More importantly, in creative fields, it is impossible to decide on a uniform aesthetic that will apply to audiences who come from wildly different economic, social, educational and cultural backgrounds. Under such circumstances, the most sensible thing one can do is to allow filmmakers the opportunity to be heard by a group of informed stakeholders, and finally allow audiences the right to choose and refuse.