Mumbai, August 14
Questioning the Central Board of Film Certification’s lack of uniform guidelines for film certification, the Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that it was apparent that none of the board members had the capability to "discern" what was fit for watching and by whom.
The observation was made by a bench of Justices SC Dharmadhikari and GS Patel.
The Bench was hearing a plea filed by the Children's Film Society India (CFSI) seeking directions to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) tribunal to hear its plea to issue a 'U' certificate to its film 'Chidiakhana'.
The CFSI claimed the film was merely about a boy who beat all odds to emerge a hero, and that it was scheduled to be screened in schools across the country.
Therefore, the film must have a 'U' certificate (unrestricted public exhibition), it said.
However, the CBFC, which issued a 'U/A' certificate to the film in January this year, told the high court on Wednesday that there existed inherent violence in the film.
CBFC counsel Rajiv Chavan told the high court that the film had some scenes in which children were shown holding guns and firing bullets, among other things, and therefore, it was not fit to be awarded a 'U' certificate.
A 'U' certificate indicates that the film is suitable for all age groups, while a 'U/A' certificate means that parents of children below 12 years must exercise caution while permitting their children to watch such film.
'U/A' is merely cautionary, Chavan said.
He also said that in the film 'Slumdog Millionaire', major characters were played by children, and yet, the film was given a 'U/A' certificate.
At this the Bench asked: "How much do you know of the life of a child below 12 years of age? Are you aware of the level of violence one child is capable of ensuing upon another? You are stifling a child’s mind (by imposing restrictions through certification)". If this is the level of understanding of the board members then you have our sympathies, it said.
Referring to past disputes over certification, the bench said, "From the film 'Bandit Queen' to 'Udta Punjab', there has been one guiding principle that the board cant discern (who should watch a film without any need for caution and who shouldn't)." The Bench will now conduct a final hearing in the case on August 23 to decide whether the CBFC's refusal to grant the film 'Chidiakhana' a 'U' certificate is unreasonable or bad in law.
The high court said the court was not a certification board and that it would only examine the law in the case. PTI
All readers are invited to post comments responsibly. Any messages with foul language or inciting hatred will be deleted. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. Readers are encouraged to flag the comments they feel are inappropriate. The views expressed in the Comments section are of the individuals writing the post. The Tribune does not endorse or support the views in these posts in any manner.
CJI-led Bench reserves verdict on review plea of woman who a...
On his 150th birth anniv, family members want govt to step i...
Book stall set up at the venue; two plays staged to mark occ...
Councillors across parties protest against stray catttle men...
Block GT Road on Day 3 of protest; submit memo to SDM
34 two-wheelers, including 13 Bullet motorcycles, recovered
Estimates, with minor changes, will be sent to UT Admn
Were going on bike to celebrate their success in 2nd-yr MBBS...
Two brothers had spent Rs1.35 cr for new building, flooring,...
Offenders to face cancellation of passports & licences