Amol Palekar wants overhaul of Cinematograph Act, Censorship; Gopal Subramanium appears [Read petition]

In what could turn out to be a significant development relating to free speech, the Supreme Court today issued notice to the Centre and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of various provisions in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Act) and the Cinematograph Rules, 1983..The petition, filed by actor Amol Palekar, was heard by Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan. Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium appeared for Palekar along with advocates Sanjay Ghose and Gautam Narayan..The thrust of Palekar’s petition is his challenge to what he has termed “pre-censorship provisions”, which hits the freedom of speech and expression besides being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Act..The petitioner is particularly aggrieved by Sections 2, 3, 4(1)(3), 5(1), 5(2), 5A(1) and 5B of the Cinematograph Act..“The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforementioned provisions granting the power of ordering cuts, deletions, alterations in a film along with the abuse of powers while exercising the powers given by the said Act, and Rules while certifying and/or denying certification to any applicant film.”.He has contended violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 due to the impugned provisions..Regarding Section 4(1)(iii) of the Act, Palekar has submitted that the same is violative of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) since it does not fall within the scope of reasonable restrictions contemplated in Article 19(2)..Further, he has submitted that the power exercised under Section 4(1)(iii) is not of certifying but of censorship..One of his major submissions is that the CBFC has been granted unbridled power to censor films and there are no guidelines to guide the CBFC while exercising its power of censorship. Regarding the guidelines framed pursuant to Section 5B-2, Palekar has submitted that the same applies only to the act of certification of films and that the said guidelines are abstract, vague and can lead to erratic, subjective interpretation..“On this ground alone the provision of Section 4(1)(iii) deserves to be declared unconstitutional and violative of Article 14.”.Regarding violation of Article 14, Palekar’s major contention is that Motion pictures are treated differently when compared to other Art forms which are equally influential..“Section 4(1)(iii) is violative of Article 14 in as much as it treats two similarly situated entities in a dissimilar manner. ….For instance, television and internet videos available on digital platforms are most certainly as influential as motion pictures and in certain cases have a much wider reach. However, there is no pre-censorship of content shown on television or internet.”.Palekar has also raised the issue of the provisions in the Act being used to further political causes..“The power to demand cuts and to demand certification have been used for extraneous purposes. Objections of political and/ or ideological nature have often been raised to the advantage of ruling party at the cost of artistic freedom of speech. As a consequence, the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity of viewing acclaimed and informative films which give an alternate perspective.”.Besides, the petitioner has also espoused the cause of Documentary films. Contending that documentary films portray reality, Palekar has submitted that they are akin to news reports and should be treated as such. He has, therefore, prayed that the Act be read down so as to exclude documentary films from the purview of Section 2 (c) read with Section 2(dd) of the Act..To buttress his case, Palekar has placed reliance on the Benegal Committee Report of April 2016 which had suggested sweeping changes to censorship regime..Palekar has also not overlooked the judgment of the Supreme Court in KA Abbas v. Union of India. In the said case, the Court had upheld the Constitutional validity of Part II of the Cinematograph Act..Palekar has however, contended that in the said case, the challenge was only with respect to violation of Article 19(1)(a). Further, the Act was subsequently amended. Hence, he has contended that the said judgment will not be binding in this case..Palekar has made a slew of prayers including striking down of sections 4(1)(iii), 3(1), 5(1) and 5(2) of the Act..Read the petition below..Image of Amol Palekar taken from here.