Padmavati: How censorship is dragging India back to the middle ages
A few years ago, chief justice Kabir asked Fali Nariman, Rebecca John, Indira Jaisingh and me to review in the precincts of the Supreme Court the film "Sadda Haq" about violence in Punjab in the bloody years. We reported back that the film should be released but with an "A" (Adult) certificate and suggested the promotional song be deleted. The first exercise was an act of certification; the second persuasion in an exercise of censorship.
Why censorship
Why does India still live with a "middle age" attitude to films? Even before a film is released, violent threats are made, theatres attacked and screaming hordes declare they will not allow the film to be seen. So far, we faced three kinds of censorial opposition: (i) censorship by the Board (ii) censorship by motivated mobs and (iii) populist censorship by governments playing to the crowd.
The film Padmavati has been through all three kinds of censorship. The Board changed its name to Padmaavat and censored scenes. The mob behaved with threats and violence including a bounty on the filmmaker (Sanjay Leela Bhansali) and the lead actress (Deepika Padukone). The states of Rajasthan, Punjab, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and even Goa imposed a ban which was stopped in its tracks by the Supreme Court. The court struck down existing and future bans by states too, which lacked legal authority to do so. Public disorder was no excuse, but despite this, the threats persist.
Let us start with India’s over-active censor board. Should there be pre-censorship at all? If its logic is acceptable, it could theoretically apply to all kinds of speech. The Supreme Court in the Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan cases (1950) denied it on newspapers and in the Punjab case (1957) limited the scope of pre-censorship because of public order threats. Even that decision is not quite correct. Theatre pre-censorship was struck down by Allahabad HC in 1956. However, when it came to film censorship in the KA Abbas case (1970), the Supreme Court approved of the same because of the effect of cinema.
Looking back with all kinds of new communication, this judgment is seriously flawed. Interestingly, in 1981, the name of the "Board of Film Censors" was changed to "Board of Film Certification". That is a step in the right direction. There should be no question of changing “content”. Certification means informing the public what kind of audience the film is suitable for — Adult (A), Universal (U), or with supervision (U/A).
Control rowdyism
Add to these categories. They are simply classifications for parents, viewers, theatre owners on audience suitability. If you add "AAA" (example for extreme scenes), with this information, an audience may watch the film or not. If there is a fundamental right to watch a film, there is equally a fundamental right not to watch the film. How can “non-watchers” who don’t quite know of the film’s content terrorise others? Thus, here is a case for the Supreme Court reviewing KA Abbas’ (1970) precedent and to convert the Cinematograph Act 1952 for certification, not censorship.
After certification (or censorship), no question whatsoever arises of mobs continuing to attack theatres or filmgoers who want to see the film. In the Shankarappa case (2001), the Supreme Court unequivocally said that after a film has gone through an expert body, “it is for the state government concerned to see that law and order are maintained. In a democratic society, there are bound to be divergent views”.
Protest peacefully
In the case of Padmaavat, the state governments, instead of doing their duty, banned the film — to be rightly told by the Supreme Court that to maintain law and order is the respective state’s duty. Where an act of watching a movie is a voluntary act, it cannot be said that a film “provokes” or “incites” — especially when you have not seen the film at all. If after seeing the movie, you don’t like it, express your views through Twitter, Facebook, print and electronic media. The maximum length to which any citizen can go is an orderly protest (without threats) that the movie is bad and people should not watch it.
Anything else is a travesty. It is shocking to place a bounty on someone or to threaten that someone’s nose should be cut off. The words “provocative” or “incitement” are valueless epithets in this context or also of a book which you don’t have to read. The option of walking out of a show or chucking a book is with the readers — his or her speech right and privacy. I return to my plea that film pre-censorship is constitutionally bad and the Supreme Court’s indulgence to pre-censorship of cinema in 1970 (now almost half a century old) is unwarranted and unreasonable.
It is absurd to repose such a power in a censor board which is often politically motivated and composed. The only concession is to permit certification so that the public is informed and warned about the nature of the film which theatres would follow to exclude children from adult movies. Mobs may still threaten films. The simple principle is: “If you don’t like a film, don’t watch it. If you are critical, do just that without threats.”
(Courtesy of Mail Today)