To foresee potential offense, it strengthens a culture in which free expression depends on the objections of those who are most easily offended
- The Heckler’s Veto: The CBFC appears to be operating on the principle of a “heckler’s veto,” where the potential for a hostile audience reaction or manufactured outrage is used to silence a speaker. The Supreme Court in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) explicitly ruled against this, stating that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of a threat of demonstration or violence. The state must protect the freedom of speech, not suppress it for fear of a mob.
- Chilling Effect on Creativity: When the CBFC preemptively censors content to avoid controversy, it sends a chilling message to the filmmaking community. Artists and writers may self-censor, avoiding sensitive but important social, political, and historical themes for fear of facing an institutional roadblock. This leads to a creative ecosystem that produces safe, non-confrontational art, impoverishing public discourse.
- Erosion of Institutional Credibility: Such actions undermine the CBFC’s credibility as an independent, quasi-judicial body. It begins to be viewed as a tool of the executive, susceptible to political pressure and public sentiment rather than a guardian of constitutional balance. This erosion of trust weakens the very fabric of institutional governance.
- Abdication of State Responsibility: The primary responsibility to maintain law and order lies with the state governments. By asking filmmakers to dilute their content, the CBFC effectively abdicates the state’s duty to protect creative works and their creators from threats. It places the onus of maintaining peace on the artist, which is a perversion of justice.
- Implementation of Committee Recommendations: The recommendations of the Shyam Benegal Committee (2016) and the Mukesh Mudgal Committee (2013) must be implemented in spirit. These committees advocated for limiting the CBFC’s role to categorizing films (e.g., U, U/A, A) with clear, objective guidelines and refraining from ordering cuts except in rare cases where content violates specific provisions of the Cinematograph Act.
- Strengthening the Appellate Mechanism: The abolition of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) in 2021 has forced filmmakers to approach High Courts, a costly and time-consuming process. The reinstatement of a specialized, independent appellate body is crucial for swift and fair grievance redressal.
- Upholding Judicial Precedents: The CBFC must be reminded of the strong judicial precedents set by the Supreme Court that champion artistic freedom. Its decisions should be firmly rooted in the legal framework established by judgments like K.A. Abbas v. Union of India and S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram.
