Question

GOOSTIOSUller
A WRONG CUT
W
Abolition of the appellate tribunal leaves the filmmaker
hanging perilously between the devil and the deep sea
TH THE ABOUTION of the film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT).
an essential layer of redressal available to filmmakers aggrieved by
VV summarily done away with. While the stated intention behind the
decisions of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has been
abolition may have been reform, under the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021, which
came into effect on April 4, its impact on already contentious practices of film certifica-
tion could be disastrous.
All films meant for theatrical and television exhibition need a censor ceruficate from
the CBFC The fate of a film depends almost entirely on the composition of the panel. If the
majonty of members are averse to ideas that provoke and challenge, the film could be in
for a large number of cuts, or even refused certification. The filmmaker is then left with
few options, each involving precious time and money: She can ask for re-certification, in
the hope of a more favourable verdict. Failing that she could appeal to the Delhi-based
FCAT, a statutory body which usually had at least one member from the film industry
Now, with the disbanding of the FCAT, the only recourse left to the filmmaker is to approach
the high court. That path is strewn with difficulties. It assumes that the filmmaker is able
to hire a lawyer, and get entangled in an already overburdened legal system. More prob-
lematically, it also assumes that judges and lawyers will have an informed view on film
certification Successive boards have been hobbled by a paucity of knowledge. The bla-
tantly political appointees, placed on the board specifically to safeguard the government's
Interest, usually ensure that the dictum of when in doubt, cut out", is followed blindly.
without bringing any awareness of the changing times and mores to the table. This is
precisely why, despite the formal change in nomenclature from the "Censor Board" to
the "Central Board of Film Certification", most members are unaware that their mandate
is certification, not censorship.
The Cinematograph Act came into being in 1952. Over the years, attempts have been
made at bringing much-needed changes in its guidelines. In the last decade, committees
formed under Justice Mukul Mudgal and veteran filmmaker Shyam Benegal have sug-
pested changes. But given the choppy quality of existing certification, and a state not only
unwilling to cede control but intent on increasing its heavy footprint in the realm of arts
and ideas, it is not surprising that no real reform has taken place. The abolition of the FCAT
leaves the filmmaker hanyping penlously between the devil and the deep sea​

Answer 1

Answer:

$\huge\fbox \red{A}\fbox \blue{N}\fbox \pink{S}\fbox \green{W}\fbox \orange{E}\fbox \pink{R}$

GOOSTIOSUller

A WRONG CUT

W

Abolition of the appellate tribunal leaves the filmmaker

hanging perilously between the devil and the deep sea

TH THE ABOUTION of the film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT).

an essential layer of redressal available to filmmakers aggrieved by

VV summarily done away with. While the stated intention behind the

decisions of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has been

abolition may have been reform, under the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021, which

came into effect on April 4, its impact on already contentious practices of film certifica-

tion could be disastrous.

All films meant for theatrical and television exhibition need a censor ceruficate from

the CBFC The fate of a film depends almost entirely on the composition of the panel. If the

majonty of members are averse to ideas that provoke and challenge, the film could be in

for a large number of cuts, or even refused certification. The filmmaker is then left with

few options, each involving precious time and money: She can ask for re-certification, in

the hope of a more favourable verdict. Failing that she could appeal to the Delhi-based

FCAT, a statutory body which usually had at least one member from the film industry

Now, with the disbanding of the FCAT, the only recourse left to the filmmaker is to approach

the high court. That path is strewn with difficulties. It assumes that the filmmaker is able

to hire a lawyer, and get entangled in an already overburdened legal system. More prob-

lematically, it also assumes that judges and lawyers will have an informed view on film

certification Successive boards have been hobbled by a paucity of knowledge. The bla-

tantly political appointees, placed on the board specifically to safeguard the government's

Interest, usually ensure that the dictum of when in doubt, cut out", is followed blindly.

without bringing any awareness of the changing times and mores to the table. This is

precisely why, despite the formal change in nomenclature from the "Censor Board" to

the "Central Board of Film Certification", most members are unaware that their mandate

is certification, not censorship.

The Cinematograph Act came into being in 1952. Over the years, attempts have been

made at bringing much-needed changes in its guidelines. In the last decade, committees

formed under Justice Mukul Mudgal and veteran filmmaker Shyam Benegal have sug-

pested changes. But given the choppy quality of existing certification, and a state not only

unwilling to cede control but intent on increasing its heavy footprint in the realm of arts

and ideas, it is not surprising that no real reform has taken place. The abolition of the FCAT

leaves the filmmaker hanyping penlously between the devil and the deep sea