Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The makers of the film "Ghallughara" based on the biopic Jaswant Singh Kalhra, a human rights activist, have approached the Bombay High Court seeking an intervention of high court against the decision of the Central Board of Flim Certification that has asked the makers to make 21 modifications to the film.

The plea states that RSVP had approached the CBFC in December 2022 for certification. The movie was initially viewed by the Examining Committee of the CBFC, however, it was thereafter referred to the Revising Committee. The Revising Committee viewed the subject Film twice, on 6th February 2023 and 1st March 2023, despite which it failed to give the petitioner a decision regarding its certification, even two months thereafter.

The petitioner then approached the Bombay High Court seeking directions to be issued to CBFC for granting of the certificate. Accordingly, the CBFC granted a certificate to the makers of the movie subject to 21 modifications. 

The plea claims that such modifications unreasonably restrict their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. 

The makers have contended that the decision which seeks cuts in the subject Film as a pre-condition to its public exhibition is ultra vires Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act and guidelines thereunder.

The plea also states that the CBFC has mechanically cited the guidelines for subjecting the grant of certificate to modifications.

"CBFC has merely decided to recommend modifications which would change the very character of the film and crase the artistic and cinematic liberties rightly exercised by the Petitioners and, in order to justify these actions, have mechanically cited the Guidelines. This is nothing but an act of arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the Respondent and violates the Petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution. The same constitutes a colorable exercise of power on the part of the Respondent," the plea reads. 

It also states that as per the Supreme Court's decision threat to public order cannot be a valid ground to disallow a film.

"If every film which depicts a wrong or excesses committed by a state authority endangers public order, then only propaganda films which glorify the State can be made. That is typical of closed undemocratic societies such as Russia, China, North Korea etc. That is not what our Constitution contemplates. It promotes free debate and dissemination of Information. Moreover, the Supreme Court has stated that the threat to public order cannot be a valid ground to disallow a film. It is the state's responsibility to maintain public order. Moreover, the film does not in any manner promote violence against the state. It merely seeks to depict past events in which portions of the State authorities indulged in violence," the plea states.

Case title: Unilazer Venture Pvt. Ltd vs CBFC