Cinematograph Act, 1952
Introduction
Censorship has been a highly debated topic for a long time ever since the inception of
visual acts. Thus, it has been commonly defined as an act or a mechanism that establishes
a system of restriction over public expression of ideas, opinions, and conceptions. The
main objective of censorship is to restore and control what kind of morals and values are
portrayed amongst the public at large as the portrayal of an idea or opinion which is
inconsistent with the social morals and norms have the capacity to incite violence as well
as the breeding of wrong ideals. The government controls various portals of media via
censorship.
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) executes this very objective of
censorship. This article will also deal with the role of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and
the setting up of CBFC under it. The Cinematograph Act, 1952 was enacted by the
Parliament to ensure that films are exhibited in accordance with the limits of tolerance of
Indian society i.e. within the walls of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Indian
Constitution.
DEFINITION
A law designed to establish guidelines for certifying movies for public screening and to
regulate the screening of films using cinematic equipment.
HISTORY
The Indian Cinematograph Act was put into effect in 1920, seven years subsequent to the
release of India’s first film, “Raja Harishchandra,” directed by Dadasaheb Phalke.
Initially, censorship boards operated as distinct entities under the supervision of police
chiefs in cities such as Madras (now Chennai), Bombay (now Mumbai), Calcutta (now
Kolkata), Lahore (now in Pakistan), and Rangoon (now Yangon in Myanmar). Following
India’s independence in 1947, these regional censor boards were amalgamated into the
Bombay Board of Film Censors. The enactment of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 led to
the restructuring of the Bombay Board, establishing the Central Board of Film Censors.
What is the Cinematograph Act, 1952?
The CBFC is a statutory body which regulates the public exhibition of films in India
according to the provisions under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
The Cinematograph Act of 1952 enshrines certain guidelines that tame the public
expression of ideas, opinions and imagination via films by filmmakers. Cinema has
opened up to new possibilities and debatable themes in the social and political arenas.
With the rapid technological advancement, it is easy to abuse the wonders of technology
and portray themes that are hurtful to social conformations.
Film censorship and Legislative development in India
The film censorship is technically a Colonial concept. Initially in British India silent films
were a source of private entertainment. However, with the passage of time cinema
became an Indian fancy. Thus, regulations had to be put on the exhibition of films. The
first Cinematograph bill was proposed in 1917 with the purpose of protecting public
morality from the exhibition of objectionable films.
It is interesting to note that the Indian legislative Council opposed the passage of such a
bill for the sake of liberty. Regardless, the colonial state approved the Cinematograph Act
in 1918. This Act came into effect from 1 August 1920 and it inaugurated the concept of
film censorship in India. The 1918 Act dealt with two issues:
1. the licensing of cinema houses.
2. the certification of films according to its suitability for public exhibitions.
A separate authority was set up; without the authority’s permission, no film could be
exhibited.
Post India’s independence in 1947, the new government felt the necessity to retain film
censorship. However, few amendments were made to the Cinematograph Act 1918 in
1949. Two categories of film certification were created, ‘A’ certificate for restricting
viewership to adults and ‘U’ certificate for an unrestricted exhibition. The 1949
amendment also provisioned for the setting up of a central censorship board instead of a
regional one. In 1951 the Central Board of Film Censor was formed by the Ministry of
Information and broadcasting.
Subsequently, a consolidated statute, the Cinematograph Act was enacted in 1952 which
empowered the central government authority to constitute a censorship board.
Formation of CBFC
The Central Board of Film Censors was renamed into the Central Board of Film
Certification on June 1, 1983. This board implements and follows the provisions under
the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The chairperson and other members are appointed by the
Central Government.
Board certifies films without which they are not eligible for public exhibition. Section
5B(1) of the CA, 1952 empowers the CBFC to examine and implement principles of
sovereignty and integrity of India while certifying a film. It also requires the board to
check works against the security of the States, friendly relations with foreign States etc.
Objectives of Film Certification
Section 5B(2) lays down the principles to be followed by the CBFC while sanctioning
films. The guidelines require the CBFC to ensure that-
1. the medium of film conforms to the values of the society.
2. creative freedom or artistic expression shall not be unreasonably curbed.
3. the certification must be responsive to social change.
4. the film must provide clean and healthy entertainment.
5. the film must be cinematical of a decent standard and is of aesthetic value.
6. The CBFC must judge the film in its entirety and not from a one-track biased
perspective.
Organizational setup of CBFC
The CBFC is a bi-level association. It is headquartered at Mumbai and has 9 Regional
Offices. These Regional Offices assist in the examination of films.it is interesting to note
that the members of the Advisory Panel are from different walks of life who are
nominated by the Central Government.
Board of CBFC
The actual statutory power to certify films lies with the Board of CBFC. The main CBFC
Board consists of a Chairman and other members 12 to 25 in the number who are
appointed by the Central Government1. It is interesting to note that there are no prescribed
minimum qualifications required to be a member of the CBFC as under the
Cinematograph Act. Tenure of members is also very flexible and no maximum or
minimum tenure is set. The tenure is in fact subjected to the pleasure of the Central
Government. The Central Government can terminate tenure whenever possible on
reasonable grounds. The chairman, however, holds office for a period of 3 years only. On
exception, the chairman continues until his successor is appointed.
Regional Offices of CBFC
The nine Regional Offices have a particular regional officer who supervises it. They are
situated at Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai, Guwahati, Cuttack, Mumbai, Hyderabad, New
Delhi and Thiruvananthapuram.
Functions of the CBFC
The provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, determines whether a film is fit for
public exhibition or not. The CBFC must satisfy this question on the basis of a few
parameters while certifying a film. There are 4 categories under which the CBFC can
classify and certify a film or even may not sanction the film at all. The CBFC has the
liberty of reasonable discretion.
1. S- (special) for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any class
of persons
2. U- for unrestricted public exhibition or Universal viewership
3. A-(adult) for public exhibition restricted to adults only (persons who have attained
majority, completing their 18 years of age)
4. U/A- for unrestricted public exhibition with an endorsement of caution to the parents
or guardians of children below 12 years of age.
1
Entry 60 of the Union List reads, "Sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition. "In the Assembly,
Ambedkar explained that the purpose of inserting this item in the Union List was to ensure" a uniform
standard" of censorship and to protect producers whose films "may not be sanctioned by any particular
province by reason of some idiosyncrasy. "The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act of 1949 made two changes to
the Act of 1918. First, the regional Boards were replaced by the Central Board of Film Censors (Central Censor
Board), a censorship authority headquartered in Bombay. 5 Second, the British practice of issuing "U" and "A"
certificates was adopted
Under the provisions of the Act, just like the Board can decide to not certify a certain film
or even disapprove a particular scene of the film; it is competent enough to even order the
deletion of a film in its entirety or a particular scene. Sometimes the Censor Board take
steps to assess the reactions of the public in order to determine whether the principles on
the basis of which films are certified need any change or not. There are provisions under
the CA, 1952 that empower the CBFC to:
1. hold symposia or seminars of film critics, community leaders, film writers and any
other relevant person engaged in the film industry.
2. Facilitating local or national surveys in order to understand the impression of different
types and genres of films and their impact on the public mind.
Process- A film is examined by an Examining Committee appointed by the Regional
Officer to whom the application is delivered, in accordance with the Guidelines for
Certification of Films for Public Exhibition under Section 5-B of the Act. The Examining
Committee comprises of members of the Advisory Panel and an Examining Officer.
Thereafter, the Chairman may, of his own motion or on the request of the applicant, refer
the application to the Revising Committee constituted by the Chairman himself and
comprising of members of the Board or of the Advisory Panels. The guidelines based on
which the film is to be examined are broadly in consonance with Article 19(2) of the
Constitution under which reasonable restrictions may be imposed 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 where there is defamation, contempt of court
or the likelihood of incitement of an offence. Upon examination, the film may be
sanctioned
Film Certification Appellate Tribunal
• The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) is a legislative body established
by Section 5(D) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, under the Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting.
• The FCAT considers appeals from applicants who have been harmed by a Central
Board of Film Certification order (CBFC).
• The FCAT was founded in 1991, and it is based in New Delhi.
• In most cases, an appeal to the FCAT of a CBFC order is followed by a second
evaluation of the film by the Censor Board.
• An aggrieved party has 30 days from the date of the CBFC order to submit an appeal.
• An appeal against an FCAT decision can be made to the Minister of Information
and Broadcasting or through the legal system of the country.
• The Chairman of the FCAT is usually a retired Supreme Court judge. He or she is
aided by other Tribunal members.
• The Indian government abolished the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal
(FCAT) in 2021.
Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023
• It proposes to amend the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
• It has provisions for harsher penal provisions for film piracy.
• It introduces new sub-age categories for films.
• To bring about uniformity in the categorisation of films and content across platforms.
• The certification once given will be perpetual rather than the 10 years limit as of now.
• The act will be aligned with the Supreme Court judgements.
• Recertification of the edited film for television broadcast.
• Only Unrestricted Public Exhibition category films can be shown on television.
• It will make the act provisions in line with the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganisation Act, 2019 to maintain uniformity.
New Sub-age Categories for Film Classification
• It will classify films on the basis of age group instead of rating them “U” (unrestricted
public exhibition), “A” (restricted to adult audiences), and “UA” (unrestricted public
exhibition subject to parental guidance for children below the age of 12).
• Added new categories – ‘UA-7+’, ‘UA-13+’, and ‘UA-16+’ in place for 12 years.
Stringent Laws Against Piracy
• The act of piracy will be a legal offense and even transmitting pirated content will be
punishable.
• A violation of the aforementioned two provisions will attract an imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than three months, but may extend to three years.
• In addition to imprisonment, an offender shall also be liable to a fine not less than ₹3
lakh but which may extend to 5 percent of the audited gross production cost.
• However, certain “fair use” exemptions enumerated in the Copyright Act, 1957 will
apply to the two offences, implying that unauthorised exhibition of films can be
allowed for private use, reporting of current affairs, or for the purpose of critique or
where the copyright owner has consented.
• With such provisions, the Bill attempts to bring the Cinematograph Act into line with
existing laws that cover piracy or aspects incidental to it, namely the Copyright Act
and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Re-certification- Currently, films certified ‘A’ are prohibited from exhibition on television.
• At present, a cable television network wanting to broadcast a film certified ‘A’ is
required to follow the ‘programme code’ of the Cable Television Network Rules,
1994, which contains an exhaustive list of material which a programme must not
contain.
• According to the amended provision, anyone willing to exhibit a film “or such other
media as may be prescribed” certified ‘A’, may make an application to the CBFC,
which may issue a new certificate to the film.
• While re-certifying a film, the board may direct the applicant to carry out “such
excisions or modifications in the film as it may think fit”.
Duration of certificate- The 1952 Act provided for a certification granted by the CBFC
to an applicant to be valid for a period of 10 (ten) years. Under the Amendment Act, that
validity period of 10 (ten) years has now been extended to perpetuity.
Judicial Pronouncements
Bandit Queen (1994)- Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon & Ors (1996)
4 SCC 1. (see here)
The Bobby Art International, a film production company, in 1994, made a film
called Bandit Queen based on the true story of a well-known bandit- Phoolan Devi
('Devi'). The film narrated the instances of gang rape, brutality and violence suffered by
Devi.
The film contained some explicit scenes of gang rape and frontal nudity and therefore, the
Board agreed to grant Adult only (A) certificate to the film on the condition that all scenes
depicting nudity, rape, any form of violence or indecency would be deleted or modified.
after the case reached the appellate tribunal which held that such scenes are permissible
and granted 'A' certificate to the film without any deletion or modification.
Thereafter, a member of a specific community filed a petition in the Delhi High Court
challenging the exhibition of the film on the ground that it depicted the protagonist in an
abhorrent and questionable manner and degraded the status of womanhood in India.
Besides, he contended that his rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 have been infringed.
The Delhi High Court, in Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon & Ors., (1996) 4
SCC 1, 13. subsequently while holding that, the scene of violent rape was disgusting and
revolting and it denigrated and degraded women and that the scenes of nudity were
indecent, ordered the Board to grant A certificate to the film only after the required
modifications and deletions.
The petitioner preferred an appeal against this judgment in the Hon'ble Supreme Court
which set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court and held that the scenes depicting
frontal nudity, indecency or even immorality were an important artistic expression (in the
present case) for narrating the true story of Devi and that the producer's right guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a) cannot be restricted only because it poses threat to the moral
system of the society.
Raj Kapoor vs. Laxman (14.12.1979 - SC): MANU/SC/0211/1979
Subject Matter: Certification of films.
Relevant Section: Section 5A: The applicant for the certificate to whom the rights in the
film have passed shall not be liable for punishment under any law relating to obscenity in
respect of any matter contained in the film for which certificate has been granted.
Summary Judgment:
Facts: The complainant alleged that the film Satyam Shivam Sundaram was fascinating,
misleadingly foul and beguiled the guideless into degeneracy and that obscenity,
indecency and vice were writ large on the picture, constituting an offence. The Magistrate
after examining some witnesses took cognizance of the offence and issued notice to the
appellant-producer of the film. Thereupon the appellant moved the High Court on the
score that the criminal proceeding was an abuse of the judicial process and that no
prosecution could be legally sustained as the film had been duly certified for public show
by the Central Board of Film Censors. The High Court however dismissed the petition
and so appeal present.
Held: The Supreme Court held that a certificate issued under Section 5A of the
Cinematograph Act amounts to a justification in law for public exhibition of a film and
the initiation of criminal processes for obscenity is not sustainable if the film has been
passed by the censor board. However, the court also maintained that the bar is not
absolute, and the filmmaker has to participate in the legal proceedings and claim the
safeguard
Manisha Koirala-II vs. Shashilal Nair and Ors. (17.10.2002 - BOMHC):
MANU/MH/1184/2002
Subject Matter: Revisional powers of the Central Government.
Relevant Section: Section 5E: The Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette suspend a certificate granted to the film if it was being exhibited in a
form other than the one in which it was certified.
Key Issue: Whether the suit filed against the Defendant for breach of contract, invasion
to right of privacy, tort of defamation and malicious falsehood is justified?
Summary Judgment:
Facts: A film, titled ‘Ek Chhoti Si Love Story’ was the subject matter of dispute. The
story of the film was about an adolescent boy who was obsessed with a girl who was 26
years old and shared an intimate relationship with a man. Plaintiff, an actress, played a
central character in the film. The Defendant was the Director of the film. The film had
been cleared by the Censor Board with ‘A’ certificate. Plaintiff had acted throughout the
movie except for the four scenes, which were enacted by a double and to which the
Plaintiff has objected as being vulgar and obscene. Thereafter a letter was addressed by
Defendant to the Plaintiff in regards to the film, informing, that portions of the film has
been shot by a duplicate, which involves a certain level of physical exposure, stating that
If she has any objection to any particular section, they stand to replace it with alternate
shots. Therefore, Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant for breach of contract,
invasion to right of privacy, tort of defamation and malicious falsehood.
Held: Firstly, it is apparent that there was a story board and the Plaintiff was aware that
the film was sensitive and would require certain degree of exposure. There is no material
before the court to establish as a term of contract and the letter does not amount to a
binding contract and only serves as intimation that the scenes shot with the double, if
objected to would be replaced by alternate shots, which has been done with Defendant
and on other hand the fact that the Plaintiff has agreed to act in the film after being aware
of the theme, the same would not amount to a case of defamation. In the same what is
sought to be contended is that the scenes involving the film artist would result in an action
of malicious injurious falsehood by associating the Plaintiff with the scenes which she
had not enacted. It is difficult for this court to appreciate on the facts of this case that the
Defendant is liable for malicious falsehood. However, the scenes of which objection is
taken do not involve the Plaintiff’s presence, therefore the court came to the conclusion
that the tort of defamation is not proved, it will be difficult to hold that there is an
invasion of the Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
