Questions about censorship and artistic freedom

The controversy surrounding “L2:Empuraan” reminds people that the CBFC must restore its original authorization, not censorship, not censorship movies. If India is to truly uphold its spirit of democracy, it must allow its artists to freely tell their own stories while fear of politics and executive intervention is at a loss.

Malayalam movies recent controversy L2: empuraan,sequel Luciferonce again focus on the focus between Indian film and the Central Cinema Certification Commission (CBFC). Despite its certification, the film has been cut several times after various right-wing political and social groups have objected. Such a situation is a symbol of a bigger problem: the CBFC has gradually moved from a certification body to a de facto review authority. However, debate is not only a film, but also involves the basic distinction between censorship and certification, and the broader implications of excessive state intervention for artistic expression.

CBFC Roles

The CBFC established under the Photography Act of 1952 is conceived as entities responsible for classifying films into categories, which are classified according to their applicability to different audiences. However, over the years, its functions have gone beyond classification. It often plays the role of a gatekeeper, rather than giving the audience a wise choice, it determines which content is suitable for public consumption. The demand for cuts, the complete denial of certain films, and the political considerations that influence their decisions reduce the space for dissent and challenging narratives in Indian films.

Case L2: empuraan It’s illuminating. The film has eight major cuts, including changes to scenes considered sensitive and mutes of certain conversations. Political participants, especially the leadership of the Kerala BJP, oppose the references perceived in the film’s portrayal of historical events. In response, the filmmakers made pre-changed sequences to avoid potential rebounds. This raises an important question: Should artistic expression be viewed with political sensitivity or should it operate independently within the legal framework?

Constitutional protection of artistic expression

The right to freedom of speech and expression, as listed in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, forms the basis of democratic discourse. Although Article 19, paragraph 2 allows reasonable restrictions for the benefit of public order, decent and morality, the interpretation of these exceptions is generally broad and inconsistent. The CBFC’s actions often exceed these reasonable limits, effectively curbing the narrative of political views challenging the distribution of dominance.

Film producers across India have repeatedly contradicted the board of directors. Case S Durga (2017), facing an arbitrary injunction due to its ownership and subject matter, or Udta Punjab (2016) was initially asked to remove 89 scenes to portray drug abuse, demonstrating to what extent a subjective explanation of morality and decent can suppress storytelling. Recent blockage SantoshThe film criticizes police brutality and further expands growing tolerance for dissent in artworks.

Global perspective

Globally, film regulations follow a classification-based approach rather than a thorough censorship. Countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have rating systems that provide viewers with the content of the movie without interfering with the filmmaker’s vision. India, on the other hand, continues to be in a way that liberalized state control reminiscent of the media. So the question is why India has been sticking to this model as democratic societies around the world move towards greater artistic autonomy.

The 2021 repeal of the Film Certification Appeal Tribunal (FCAT) further restricts the arbitrary decisions made by filmmakers on the CBFC. Earlier, FCAT offered appeals to artists and producers to challenge unfair certification or cuts. Now its dismissal has consolidated decision-making power within the CBFC, leaving filmmakers with only the High Court as a means of appeal, an economic and logical responsibility.

Political influence and cold influence on film

A worrying aspect of Indian censorship is the growing influence of political entities in deciding what can and cannot be displayed on screen. 91% of art violations in India recorded in a 2017 freedom study are related to government authorities or non-state actors who enforce ideological views. Today, filmmakers face significant risks when dealing with topics that may be interpreted as politically inconvenient.

This leads to a creepy effect where the filmmakers self-censor themselves to avoid controversy. Controversy around L2: empuraan– Make voluntary changes to avoid rebound – Shows how the possibility of censorship affects storytelling choices. Such an environment kills critical narrative and reduces the depth of discourse in Indian cinema.

From review to certification

The transition from censorship to certification is not only an industry demand, but also a need for democracy. The reformed film certification system must maintain a rating-based classification system similar to the international model, which allows viewers to make informed choices rather than implementing cuts or bans. This approach will enable filmmakers to exercise their creative freedom while providing audiences with adequate guidance on the applicability of the content.

Furthermore, it is crucial to re-establish an independent appellate body to oversee disputes between the filmmaker and the CBFC. The absence of the Film Certification Appeal Tribunal (FCAT) has limited the appeal of filmmakers to challenge arbitrary decisions. A fair and transparent appeal mechanism will prevent unnecessary restrictions on artworks while ensuring that real concerns about public order and morality are resolved.

Transparency and accountability in CBFC decision-making must also be prioritized. Currently, the lack of clear guidelines on what constitutes objectionable content leads to inconsistent and often politically motivated interventions. Establishing well-defined authentication parameters, as well as publicly accessible CBFC decision records, will mitigate the risk of arbitrary review. CBFC must act as a facilitator of creative expression, not an executor in politics or ideology.

Summarize

The tension between artistic freedom and regulatory oversight is nothing new, but the growing censorship under the guise of certification has the potential to kill the creative landscape of Indian cinema. Although governments and institutions have a duty to ensure that the film does not cause hatred or violence, such roles should not be extended to suppress artistic expression based on ideological preferences.

The right to freedom of speech cannot be a privilege granted by the state at its discretion; it is the basis for a free society. Indian cinemas must not place hostages politically expedient; instead, it must remain a fearless independent medium to reflect the diversity and vitality of the state itself.

End of the article