Film Bodies Present Joint Representation To Govt Regarding Proposal To Amend Cinematograph Act
Six trade film associations on Friday issued a joint representation to the government regarding the proposal to amend the Cinematograph Act, objecting to the revisionary power sought to be provided to the Centre.
Six
trade
film
associations
on
Friday
issued
a
joint
representation
to
the
government
regarding
the
proposal
to
amend
the
Cinematograph
Act,
objecting
to
the
revisionary
power
sought
to
be
provided
to
the
Centre.
On
June
18,
the
Centre
had
sought
public
comments
on
the
draft
Cinematograph
(Amendment)
Bill
2021
which
proposes
to
penalise
film
piracy
with
a
jail
term
and
fine,
introduce
age-based
certification,
and
empower
the
Central
government
to
order
recertification
of
an
already
certified
film
following
receipt
of
complaints.
In
a
letter
sent
to
the
Information
and
Broadcasting
Ministry
on
Friday,
several
industry
personalities
called
the
proposal
a
"blow
to
the
film
fraternity"
as
they
believe
it
will
potentially
endanger
freedom
of
expression
and
democratic
dissent.
Filmmaker
Shyam
Benegal
also
said
that
the
government
has
no
role
in
film
certification.
The
six
bodies
include
the
Producers
Guild
of
India
(PGI),
Indian
Film
and
Television
Producers’
Council
(IFTPC),
Indian
Motion
Pictures
Producers’
Association
(IMPPA),
Western
India
Film
Producers’
Association
(WIFPA),
Federation
of
Western
India
Cine
Employees
(FWICE)
and
Indian
Film
&
Television
Directors’
Association
(IFTDA).
Ashoke
Pandit,
President,
IFTDA,
said
the
entertainment
industry
should
not
become
a
"scapegoat" and
that
all
powers
must
reside
only
with
the
CBFC.
"The
censor
board
works
under
the
Constitution
of
India...
The
industry
does
not
want
to
become
a
scapegoat.
CBFC
has
people
from
all
walks
of
life
to
take
a
decision
on
film
certification.
People
can
go
to
the
court
to
fight
it
out
if
need
be,"
Pandit
told
PTI.
Citing
a
2020
Supreme
Court
judgment
that
said
the
"revisionary
powers
were
unconstitutional",
the
associations
said
the
court
observed
that
"different
sections
of
the
society
could
have
a
different
view
to
the
film,
and
simply
because
of
such
different
view,
there
should
be
no
ground
for
the
central
government
to
review
or
revise
a
decision."
"What
is
noteworthy
is
that
even
though
not
mentioned
clearly
in
the
struck-down
portions
of
Section
6
of
the
Act,
the
only
justification
that
the
central
government
could
have
given
as
the
basis
for
exercising
the
revisional
jurisdiction,
could
not
be
beyond
Article
19(2)
of
the
Constitution
of
India.
"This
is
because
any
other
basis
for
exercising
such
jurisdiction
would
have
been
struck
down
as
ultra
vires/infringement
of
the
Right
guaranteed
under
Article
19(1)(a).
It
is
this
right
which
is
the
basis
for
all
filmmakers' right
to
produce
films,"
the
representation
read.
It
noted
that
when
it
comes
to
considering
whether
or
not
to
grant
certification,
the
CBFC
has
to
compulsorily
review
the
film
and
come
to
a
conclusion
that
the
film
content
does
not
fall
foul
of
the
factors
mentioned
in
Section
5B(1)
of
the
Act.
The
5B
(1)
of
the
Cinematograph
Act
states
that
a
film
shall
not
be
certified
for
public
exhibition
if,
in
the
opinion
of
the
authority
competent
to
grant
the
certificate,
the
film
or
any
part
of
it
is
against
the
interests
of
19
(the
sovereignty
and
integrity
of
India)
the
security
of
the
State,
friendly
relations
with
foreign
States,
public
order,
decency
or
morality,
or
involves
defamation
or
contempt
of
court
or
is
likely
to
incite
the
commission
of
any
offence.
In
such
a
scenario,
the
statement
read,
the
only
body
that
can
reverse
or
confirm
the
decision
of
the
CBFC
is
a
court
of
law
and
not
the
"administrative,
executive
machinery
or
bureaucracy."
It
further
read
that
an
"arbitrary
aspect" of
the
new
provision
was
that
the
exercise
of
power
could
be
on
a
"reference."
"The
use
of
the
said
term
is
non-judicious,
vague,
and
without
any
indication
of
the
circumstances
in
which
such
reference
can
be
made,
who
is
entitled
to
make
the
reference
and
how
such
person
can
decide
to
make
it
in
a
circumstance
where
the
film
has
been
certified
and
not
released."
Without
any
clarity
as
to
who
would
make
such
"reference"
to
the
central
government,
there
is
scope
for
"frivolous
mischievous"
references
to
be
made,
it
read.
"Each
reference
will
have
to
be
considered
by
the
central
government
before
they
decide
to
direct
the
chairman
of
the
CBFC
to
re-examine
a
relevant
film.
"This
will
add
to
the
workload
of
the
CBFC
as
well
as
the
central
government
while
giving
the
power
of
reference
to
any
and
everyone
with
or
without
a
valid
reason." The
association
said
films
are
freedom
of
speech
and
expression
of
the
creator
and
can
have
"multiple
interpretations"
depending
on
the
lens
from
which
they
are
viewed.
The
diverse
views
will
lead
to
anyone
taking
offence
over
a
film,
which
would
only
leave
the
filmmakers
absolutely
vulnerable,
it
read.
"The
right
to
freedom
of
expression
as
guaranteed
under
Article
19
of
the
Constitution
not
only
squarely
applies
to
films,
but
has
also
been
interpreted
to
give
films
a
wide
berth
in
view
of
the
importance
of
films
in
the
cultural
advancement
of
the
society.
"However,
the
fact
that
it
is
possible
with
the
growing
diversity
in
the
world,
any
group
of
people
could
find
an
issue
with
any
film
released,
leaves
the
filmmaker/producers
exposed."
The
representation
read
that
such
issues
should
"not
be
indulged
in
every
instance"
because
every
individual
will
view
a
particular
film
from
a
different
perspective.
"Giving
the
power
to
make
such
references
post-certification
of
a
film,
will
open
up
the
floodgates
for
a
subjective
and
moralistic
review
of
films
already
certified
and
defeating
the
entire
process
through
which
the
films
were
initially
granted
a
certification,"
it
read.