INDIA’s film industry is agitated over proposed amendments to the film censorship laws. As usual many prefer to propound their views and see it as a means of self-advertising. But actor and film director Kamal Haasan is a rare exception. He entered politics and stood for election to parliament; sadly, he failed. He belongs to the vibrant film industry in Tamil Nadu which produced film stars who went on to become chief ministers of the state, including M.G. Ramachandran and Jayalalithaa.

Kamal Haasan’s article in The Hindu concerns proposed amendments to the film censorship law. Last April the government decided it would abolish the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal Act. Was it aware that it stood in serious breach of an assurance it gave to the the Indian supreme court several years ago? It remains a quasi-judicial affair at the apex of the film censorship system.

In 1929, Khwaja Ahmad Abbas had moved the court to challenge the censor board’s cuts to his documentary A Tale of Four Cities. He challenged film censorship itself as the relevant law appeared to violate the right to free speech and expression. The government promised it would amend matters and bring in the relevant legislation which it sought to do in 1973. Though the act was supposed to come into force on July 1, 1975, the Emergency put paid to that goal, and the next government did nothing about it besides revising guidelines.

The film producer labours under a grave handicap.

In 1981, the 1973 amendments were replaced with new ones made to the Cinematography Act of 1952, with more in 1984. In 1978, L.K. Advani, a minister at the time, said that a tribunal was being considered. He was critical of the government’s overruling the censor board’s decisions.

Briefly, there is a Board of Film Certification with a full-time chairman and between 12 and 25 members. Ordinarily, it meets once in three months. While vast powers are vested in the chairman, no qualifications are prescribed. He holds office “during the pleasure of the central government” though a three-year term is prescribed with eligibility for reappointment. The message is clear — behave yourself or out you go.

An examining committee of four people from an advisory panel and an official review the film. The chairman can refer the film to a revising committee. The chairman of the board can nullify the examining committee’s verdict as well as select the members of the revising committee. The process is cumbersome and conducted by those appointed by the information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry.

Meanwhile, sanction for public exhibition may be refused altogether. The decision of the board or the second revising committee is final. There was an appellate tribunal though comprising the chairman and up to four other individuals. The chairman had to be either a retired high court judge or “a person who is qualified to be a judge of a high court”. No consultation with the chief justice of India was enjoined.

Shockingly, those constituting the tribunal could “hold office during the pleasure of the central government”. They had a three-year term but the government “may remove from office any member of appellate tribunal before the expiration of his term of office”, that included the chairman. This stood in violation of the spirit of the supreme court’s ruling in the K.A. Abbas case. The case of a book banned requires three high court judges to hear appeals against such a move. Film censorship too must have an independent tribunal.

The tribunal very much functioned under the shadow of the central government. It is another matter that it provided some welcome relief. That did not cure the grave legal defects. Now this is gone.

As I have noted elsewhere a “pattern of obligatory consultation on appointments to high offices has been established by laws in respect of the chairmen of the Press Council, the National Human Rights Commission, and the Prasar Bharati Board. No such consultation is enjoined in the Cinematograph Act”. Everyone — the chairman and members of the tribunal, the board and the advisory panels — was appointed at the discretion of the I&B minister or secretary.

The film producer labours under a grave handicap. He has either to submit to the cuts or fight it out in the courts. The situation is not improving. A stage has been reached where the police arrogate to themselves the right to clear films before the censors do so. Depressing as is the situation in regard to the supposedly legal system of censorship of films and plays, the extra-legal censorship that has come in vogue in some parts of the country is alarming. It is subversive of the rule of law and democracy. State governments condone and even connive at it. So, does the centre; though not without making noises occasionally of deeply felt pain.

The writer is an author and a lawyer.

Published in Dawn, July 3rd, 2021