The recent Bombay High Court verdict allowing the Anurag Kashyap movie ‘Udta Punjab’ to be released with just one cut has been celebrated by movie makers and viewers as a victory against censorship in movies. While we are also pleased by the verdict and some of the principles talked about by the judge while giving it, we do not want to get euphoric about what it means for the fight against censorship. The honorable High Court has spoken up strongly for creative freedom and against ‘censorship’ instead of certification, but upheld one cut which was as per existing guidelines. The court has done its best but courts interpret existing laws and give verdicts. The underlying laws have to be modified in order to truly stop censorship by the CBFC.

A number of news articles and headlines raved about how there will only be a single cut now, that of a scene showing Shahid Kapoor urinating into the crowd. The movie makers have conceded to this order and movie buffs probably don’t care much about seeing Shahid Kapoor relieve himself, so how does it matter, you might ask? It matters because 1 unreasonable cut is still unreasonable, even if it has come down from 13 or 89 even more ridiculous cuts. The relevant section of the Cinematograph Act which was quoted by the CBFC as the reason for this cut states that The Board of Film Certification should make sure ‘human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity’ [Cinematograph Act of 1952, Section 2(vii)]. The Cinematograph Act does not however define ‘vulgarity, obscenity or depravity’. The story line of a certain movie might require a certain character to be shown doing vulgar or depraved things. Are we to write and consume only stories in which all the characters including the villains are gentlemanly or ladylike?

Apparently in a country where public urination is common enough that many walls have signs warning people not to do it there, adults should not be allowed to view a movie scene depicting an actor urinating. I personally don’t want to see Shahid Kapoor take a leak but I can always look away if I don’t like that scene. I don’t need Pahlaj Nihalani’s invisible hand covering my eyes.

Better look away. The CBFC can save you from exposure to this vulgarity only once the CCTV footage is out

While we are relieved that we can see a mostly non-mutilated version of ‘Udta Punjab’, we are also afraid that this verdict will make the public celebrate the successful treatment of a symptom and forget that we were seeking a more permanent cure. The Shyam Benegal committee’s recommendations must be implemented by the government as soon as possible. It should not go back into cold storage because the hoopla over one big movie has died down. Even implementation of the committee’s recommendations will only be the first step towards a cure as the committee’s purview was to make changes to how the CBFC works within the ambit of the Indian Cinematograph Act of 1952. The fight against censorship will end only once the act itself is changed. As long as the Act remains in its present form, it is bound to be misused. The best we can hope for would be to have fewer instances of misuse.

If you want to see how the current law can be and was misused, see the following link: The principles for guidance in certifying films and the list of cuts to ‘Udta Punjab’ citing section numbers (detailed on the linked webpage)