Is pre-censorship of films useless in internet era: SC

NEW DELHI: Is pre-censorship of films by Central Board of Film Certification still required when there is no restriction on content on television and internet? The Supreme Court, on Monday, agreed to examine the issue and sought response from the Centre and CBFC on a plea challenging pre-censorship of film by the Censor Board.A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan decided to hear a PIL filed by veteran actor and director Amol Palekar , challenging the constitutional validity of Section 4(1)(iii) of the Cinematography Act, 1952, which empowers the Board to direct film-makers "to carry out such modifications in the film, as it thinks necessary before sanctioning the film for public exhibition".Challenging the various provisions along with rules framed by the Centre, the 72-year-old actor contended in his plea said that pre-censorship amounted to violation of film makers' fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression and the section should be declared unconstitutional. He said the law granted "unbridled" powers and "unguided" discretion to the Board to stop public screening of a film.Senior counsel Gopal Subramanium and advocate Gautam Narayan told the bench that the concept of pre-censorship, which was coined in 1952 Act, needed to be examined in the present context when there is free flow of information through internet, TV and other mediums."The Act, when enacted in 1952 and interpreted in 1970 by the apex court, could not have conceived the present-day scenario wherein dissemination of information is through a variety of media, many of which are either not regulated or if regulated not subjected to pre-censorship. In contemporary times the restrictions being imposed only on films, makes it unreasonable," the petition said.He said the Board had put unreasonable restrictions on film makers, who are asked to delete scenes from their films. He added that unqualified people, having no understanding of cinema, were being appointed on the Board, resulting in "subjective and erratic decisions"."The Board cannot be the protector of the moral compass of the society when the values and standards of society are constantly changing," Palekar said. He added that there is no pre-censorship for the contents shown on television or vis internet."There is no provision akin to Section 4(1)(iii) which is applicable to TV or to the videos available on the digital medium. There is not much distinction between TV and cinema," the film maker said.The petition stated that the differential treatment would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution which says equality before law.