Live
- Dhankhar a govt spokesperson, biggest RS disruptor: Kharge
- Fire breaks out at petrol pump
- Facial recognition-based attendance in Sectt from today
- TGPSC to be restructured on par with UPSC
- Gabba pitch to have pace and bounce
- Not taking a break after Olympics left me emotionally drained
- SSC public exams from March 17 to 31
- Pathetic state of Zoo Park-Aramghar underpass turning deadly for commuters
- Losses galore for PCB if it pulls out of Champions Trophy over hosting deadlock
- Govt to support plot owners in build homes
Certify, not censor
The Bombay High Court will pronounce on June 13 its order on the petition filed by Phantom Films, the makers of Bollywood film Udta Punjab, challenging the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) suggesting 13 cuts for the film set for release on June 17.
​Mumbai: The Bombay High Court will pronounce on June 13 its order on the petition filed by Phantom Films, the makers of Bollywood film Udta Punjab, challenging the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) suggesting 13 cuts for the film set for release on June 17.
A division bench of Justice SC Dharmadhikari and Justice Dr Shalini Phansalkar Joshi suggested the producers to follow one cut asked by the board’s order - to delete a scene which depicts a character urinating in public, to be amended.
The court came down heavily on the Censor board for suggesting multiple cuts saying under the Cinematography Act, there is no word as Censor, the board has only to Certify the film.
“Let people who are the best censors, do the censoring,” it said. The producers' counsel Ravi Kadam said, “Yes, we will amend this scene, it can be done. But we don’t agree to the cuts suggesting deletion of the use of cuss words.
Many things are integral part of the film and it cannot be removed.” The producer also agreed to add a disclaimer stating that makers or the cast of the film do not support the use of expletives words.
During the hearing, the court questioned the board as to why it was suggesting 13 cuts which would take away the essence of the film. It said, “Sometimes, to open the eyes of the public to the menace, you have to be direct.
If the film does not have content, it will not go forward. The creative minds will learn from their mistakes, why are you worried about this. Being critical will not help, we want creative people to survive and grow.”
The court also refuted the claim of the board that the use of the word 'Punjab' in the film was defaming the state and glorifying the problem of drug abuse there. “It is sometimes required to provoke the audience to convey a message like this. It’s not only that people are abusing drugs, but the film will also help NGOs and doctors who are helping there.”
As regards to the language used in the film, the court was in agreement with the producers that the words are used to portray the characters. “If two truck drivers are talking to each other they will surely not use polished language as some other person would have. Even the producers are aware of better language, but they are conveying a certain character,” it felt.
Source: Agencies
