Supreme Court to Delve into Amol Palekar’s Plea on Film Censorship & The Role of the CBFC

(Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

In a landmark move on Tuesday, the Supreme Court decided to examine the plea of veteran actor Amol Palekar, challenging the arbitrary censorship of films by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Palekar, a renowned actor and filmmaker, has called attention to the subjective and often erratic interpretation of guidelines by CBFC members, whose qualifications, he argues, are not even defined in law.

The two-judge bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, agreed to examine the petition filed in 2017, focusing on the legality of the Cinematograph Act of 1952. The petition highlights a crucial issue: the law does not specify the qualifications required for the members of the CBFC, nor does it set clear criteria for those on the examining, revising, or appellate committees. The absence of such clear qualifications, Palekar argues, results in the overreach of subjective judgment, where unqualified individuals make decisions on what films should be allowed for public viewing.

Palekar, represented by senior advocate Arvind Datar, raised concerns about how the lack of concrete standards allows for arbitrary decisions. “How can individuals whose qualifications are undefined have the authority to decide which films are suitable for public exhibition? And why should filmmakers be forced to make cuts, deletions, or alterations based on subjective interpretations?” Palekar asked in his petition. He called the practice an unjust and unreasonable restriction on the filmmaker’s freedom of speech.

The veteran actor’s petition stems from his frustration with the censorship faced by his documentaries, Aakriet, Daayara, and Thaang/Quest, all of which encountered significant hurdles in obtaining certification. He contends that documentaries, by their nature, should not fall under the purview of the 1952 Act. According to Palekar, these films do not meet the definition of “cinematograph films” as outlined in Sections 2(C) and 2(DD) of the Act, which were originally intended to govern mainstream cinema.

Palekar’s plea raises broader questions about the role of the CBFC in regulating films and whether the current framework stifles creativity and freedom of expression in the filmmaking community. The outcome of this case could potentially reshape the way films, particularly documentaries, are treated under Indian law and ensure that the censorship process is more transparent and accountable.