CBFC Justifies Decision Of Censoring Film Subtitles
The censor board today justified its decision of censoring a movie's subtitles, saying it was to curb the "mischief" done by some filmmakers of inserting additional words after a film is certified.
The
censor
board
today
justified
its
decision
of
censoring
a
movie's
subtitles,
saying
it
was
to
curb
the
"mischief" done
by
some
filmmakers
of
inserting
additional
words
after
a
film
is
certified.
The
Central
Board
for
Film
Certification
(CBFC)
filed
its
affidavit
in
the
Bombay
High
Court
in
response
to
a
petition
by
the
Indian
Motion
Picture
Producers
Association
(IMPPA),
challenging
the
censor
board's
direction
to
submit
subtitles
of
a
movie
for
censorship.
The
IMPAA
approached
the
high
court
in
July
claiming
that
the
new
rule
introduced
by
the
CBFC
was
arbitrary.
On
April
27,
the
petitioner
received
a
notice
from
the
CBFC,
saying
producers
of
a
movie
are
required
to
obtain
a
separate
censorship
certificate
for
the
film's
subtitles.
The
censor
board
in
its
affidavit
said
it
was
duty-bound
and
obligated
to
ensure
that
filmmakers
do
not
insert
any
words
or
visuals
after
a
film
is
duly
certified.
"The
rationale
behind
the
impugned
notice
is
to
curb
the
mischief
noticed
in
a
number
of
films
where
subtitles
were
introduced
or
added
after
the
film's
certification
by
the
CBFC.
This
amounts
to
an
alteration
in
the
film.
This
mischief
needs
to
be
plugged
or
curbed," the
affidavit
said.
It
cited
examples
where
makers
mute
the
cuss
words
when
they
present
their
films
before
the
CBFC,
but
after
certification,
they
add
those
words
in
the
subtitles.
"Dubbing
and
subtitles
constitute
an
integral
part
of
a
film.
In
this
context,
translation
errors
can
sometimes
result
in
grave
prejudice,"
the
CBFC
said.
A
division
bench
headed
by
Justice
R
M
Borde
posted
the
petition
for
further
hearing
on
August
20.
According
to
the
CBFC
notice,
producers
have
to
first
obtain
a
certificate
for
the
film
and
thereafter
when
the
sub-titling
is
done
in
a
different
language,
they
are
required
to
go
for
fresh
censorship.
The
petition
said
that
earlier
the
CBFC
certification
was
needed
only
for
the
film
and
there
was
no
requirement
or
practice
of
certification
for
subtitles.
The
petition
claimed
that
programmes
which
are
freely
available
on
the
Internet
and
other
electronic
media,
do
not
require
such
a
certification
or
censorship
from
any
authority.
The
IMPAA
alleged
that
the
CBFC's
move
was
only
to
harass
producers
and
extort
money
from
them.
Such
a
rule
was
also
resulting
in
the
films'
release
getting
delayed,
it
said.
The
petitioner
requested
the
high
court
to
quash
this
procedure.