The Bombay high court on 5th July chastised the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for refusing to issue a ‘U’ certificate to a children’s film, saying, it had no intellectual or moral authority to decide what people can see and listen. “It is like saying, ‘You are all of sub par intelligence, and only we in this world know what’s good for you.’ That takes us through to an authoritarian stage,” said a bench of Justices Satyaranjan Dharmadhikari and Gautam Patel. It heard a petition by Children’s Film Society (India) to direct the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) to hear its appeal.
In January, CBFC directed the CFSI to mute a word and delete a scene from Chidiakhana, or it would get a ‘UA’ certificate. On June 24, after the CFSI agreed to make the modification/deletion, the high court sought CBFC’s response on whether it will issue a ‘U’ certificate.
The CBFC’s advocate said that the Board felt that the film’s theme, presentation and narrative mandated a ‘UA’ certificate. He produced the regional officer’s email, which said, the film’s subject was based on violence, included scenes of murder, attempt to murder/suicide, bullying of a school kid, mother slapping a child, and a community facing discrimination.
Observing that the CBFC was now after children’s films, the judges said, freedom of speech and expression was not something it could suppress. “You are not a censor board. You are a certification board. You can’t decide what I can or cannot see or listen. Nobody has given you intellectual and moral authority to decide that,” said Justice Patel. The bench took note that offence was taken to a child slapped by the mother. “What escapes your attention is most surprising, what catches it, we are now shocked. You want to control everybody,” said Justice Dharmadhikari. Justice Patel added, “Reality of the street is that the word (objected to) is used.”
The bench asked if someone wanted to show a film on abuse or ragging, if the CBFC could pretend that it did not exist. “What are you? Ostriches? Putting your head in the sand,” said Justice Patel. The judges said, it was better to use films to explain to children issues like racism, discrimination and drug addiction.
The judges said, CBFC must take back its communication “or we’ll redefine your role”. Its regional officer was directed to file an affidavit, elaborating “the cause for his communication and outlining policies of respondents in relation to children’s films”.