Six trade film associations on Friday issued a joint representation to the government regarding the amendments proposed to the Cinematograph Act, objecting to the revisionary and ‘super censory’ role sought by the Centre over Central Bureau of Film Certification (CBFC).
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), wrote to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting offering their comments to the 2021 amendments and also welcome any opportunity for personal discussion. On June 18, the Centre had sought public comments on the draft Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill 2021 and proposed to penalize film piracy with jail term and fine, introduce age-based certification and empower the government for recertification.
The film bodies gave several instances of Amendments that were carried out over the years and wrote said, “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 film makers’ right to produce films.
The second aspect that is noteworthy is that the Article 19(2) factors are already set out in Section 5B(1) of the Act. What is means is that when considering whether or not to grant certification to a Film, 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. Once the CBFC has given the certification, based upon the guidelines that the CBFC follows, then there is a presumption that the film is not violative of the Section 5B(1) factors.
‘Bid to thwart freedom of expression’: Film associations oppose govt plan to amend law | IndiaNews,The Indian Express
@producers_guild #IMPPA @IftpcM @DirectorsIFTDA #WIFPA @fwicemum https://t.co/PNsioUx7hY
— Ashoke Pandit (@ashokepandit) July 3, 2021
In such a scenario, the only entity/body that can reverse or confirm the decision of the CBFC, is a court of law and not the administrative /executive machinery or bureaucracy. This is the same principle on the basis of which the SC decided the Shankarappa case mentioned above. In essence, therefore, while seemingly appearing to agree with the SC to delete the old Section 6(1), the proposed amendment does nothing but confer the same power upon the Central Government, to exercise its revisional power. The other arbitrary aspect of the new proviso to be inserted, is that the exercise of power can 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. For all the aforesaid reasons, including the most important aspect that there is no change in the basis on which the SC struck down the exercise of such power under the existing Section 6, it is requested that this amendment be reconsidered and not introduced.”
The statement given to the MIB reads, “The undersigned are cognizant of the efforts being made by MIB to ensure that the Act withstands the test of time and is constantly evolving. In this respect the amendments proposed with respect to privacy and the penal provisions thereto are greatly welcomed, given the considerable economic loss it causes our members / any other filmmakers. We are hopeful that the comments we have provided on the remaining 2021 Amendments are critically analysed, examined and taken on board. We remain available for any further discussion / information at MIB’s request.”
(Source: Agencies)
