Blog
All You need to know about Udta Punjab vs Jhukta CBFC saga
Udd-Daa Punjab, Jhukta CBFC
Introduction
Anurag Kashyap has made many movies which have courted decent amounts of controversies in the past and hopefully, just hopefully, will make movies that will continue to be a pain to some people in the future. Time and again, we have faced the undeniable question of defining “morality”. In all its virtues, that harmless little word has perhaps been a major cause for violence and intolerance in India because whose morality and whose moral line to draw is a far more complex issue contrasted with the inherent positivity of morality itself. Udta Punjab has just finished its little war with morality. Let us evaluate, the interesting story that has unravelled before we hit the theatres to feast on the movie coming Friday i.e. June 17, 2016.
We have as a nation shuttled from assuming at one end of the spectrum, that freedom of speech is unfettered by limitations to imposing an iron fist at the other end to insist that morality can perhaps be used as a Brahmastra to choke any free speech that we disagree with. Somewhere in between, the Constitution of India sits quietly lamenting the ignorance of our discourse. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution specifically provides all citizens with a fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression. The limitation of “morality” is clearly set out under clause 2 as a possible ground for restricting the freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a). Article 19(2) states the following:
“Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
It is here that the governmental agencies regulating and enforcing such restrictions come into the picture.
The Central Board of Film Certification
The Central Board of Film Certification (Hereafter, the “CBFC”) is a statutory body under Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India regulating the public exhibition of films under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Hereafter, the “Cinematograph Act”). Motion Pictures in India can be publicly exhibited in India only after they have been certified by the CBFC. The Certification process is in accordance with the Cinematograph Act, The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 (Hereafter, the “Cinematograph Rules”), and the guidelines issued by the Central Government under section 5(B) of the Cinematograph Rules. In this case, the CBFC actually proposed 94 cuts to the movie.[1] Most of the grounds cited in the certification with cuts are in relation to obscenity under the morality clause mentioned above [The initial certificate issued by the CBFC is attached at the end of the blog as Appendix – I].
Obscenity according to the Supreme Court
The courts in India have had multiple opportunities to evaluate the idea of “obscenity” under the Indian laws. The observations have been in a variety of contexts ranging from book bans like in the case of Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra[2] where the court held the following:
“Speaking in terms of the Constitution it can hardly be claimed that obscenity which is offensive to modesty or decency is within the constitutional protection given to free speech or expression, because the article dealing with the right itself excludes it. That cherished right on which our democracy rests is meant for the expression of free opinions to change political or social conditions or for the advancement of human knowledge. This freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions which may be thought necessary in the interest of the general public and one such is the interest of public decency and morality. Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code manifestly embodies such a restriction because the law against obscenity, of course, correctly understood and applied, seeks no more than to promote public decency and morality. [Emphasis Supplied]”
We have seen various regressive positions being paraded around in the Indian national media. However, the Supreme Court has had various observations which have been highly progressive in terms of defining the cultural background of India. In one of the other movie contexts, the movie ‘Satyam Shivam Sundaram’ was sought to be restricted and the court while evaluating the same observed the following in the case of Raj Kapoor and Others v. State and Others[3]:
“The world’s greatest paintings, sculptures, songs and dances, India’s lustrous heritage, the Konaraks and Khajurahos, lofty epics, luscious in patches, may be asphyxiated by law, if prudes and prigs and State moralists prescribe paradigms and proscribe heterodoxies. It is plain that the procedural issue is important and the substantive issue portentous”.
The Supreme Court has also had the opportunity to specifically evaluate obscenity and vulagarity in the context of reality based films like Udta Punjab which according to reports is based on the raging drug problem in Punjab. There was a very popular case nicknamed the “Bandit Queen case” since the movie was based on the true story of Phoolan Devi, the victimised village girl who turned to be a dreaded dacoit. In the case of Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon and Others[4], the Court held the following:
“First, the scene where she is humiliated, stripped naked, paraded, made to draw water from the well, within the circle of a hundred men. The exposure of her breasts and genitalia to those men is intended by those who strip her to demean her. The effect of so doing upon her could hardly have been better conveyed than by explicitly showing the scene. The object of doing so was not to titillate the cinemagoer’s lust but to arouse in him sympathy for the victim and disgust for the perpetrators. The revulsion that the Tribunal referred to was not at Phoolan Devi’s nudity but at the sadism and heartlessness of those who had stripped her naked to rob her of every shred of dignity. Nakedness does not always arouse the baser instinct. The reference by the Tribunal to the film “Schindler’s List” was apt. There is a scene in it of rows of naked men and women, shown frontally, being led into the gas chambers of a Nazi concentration camp. Not only are they about to die but they have been stripped in their last moments of the basic dignity of human beings. Tears are a likely reaction; pity, horror and a fellow-feeling of shame are certain, except in the pervert who might be aroused. We do not censor to protect the pervert or to assuage the susceptibilities of the over-sensitive. “Bandit Queen” tells a powerful human story and to that story the scene of Phoolan Devi’s enforced naked parade is central. It helps to explain why Phoolan Devi became what she did: her rage and vendetta against the society that had heaped indignities upon her.”
Conclusion
The ultimate test of finally observing whether Udta Punjab was violating our moral norms has to be in the context of the current social values. In B.K. Adarsh v. Union of India,[5] the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed very tastefully that decency or indecency of a particular picture, sequence or scene cannot depend upon the nature of the subject matter, but the question is one of the manner of handling of the subject-matter and sociological or ethical interest or message which the film conveys to the reasonable man, and that the approach of the Court would be from the perspective of social pathological phenomenon with a critical doctor keeping the balance between the felt necessities of the time and social consciousness of a progressive society eliminating the evils and propagating for the cultural evolution literary taste and pursuit of happiness in social relations, national integration and solidarity of the nation and the effect of the film thereon. In the said case, it was also observed that the sense of decency or indecency have to be kept in view in adjudging whether the motion picture would stand to the test of satisfying a reasonable man in the society that it would not deprave or debase or corrupt his moral standards or induce lewdness, lasciviousness or lustful thoughts.
Therefore, the Bombay High Court observed in the case of Phantom Films Private Limited and Another v. The CBFC and Another,[6] that the movie Udta Punjab does not breach our societal norms and that the audience is mature enough to learn the ultimate lesson that drugs aren’t good for us rather than learning to abuse more drugs!
To sum it up:
Chitta vich udd-de honge Punjab de gabru;
Par sikhan ta mainu inna hi hai ke;
Chitta da darr da da dasse!
APPENDIX – I
Latest posts by Team Clat Possible (see all)
- Last few days – What Not to do before CLAT 2019 - May 22, 2019
- Kashmir burning: The Burhan Wani or many Burhan Wanis? - July 20, 2016
- US ELECTIONS: TRUMP OR HILLARY? - July 20, 2016