MUMBAI: Bombay high court Thursday said creative freedom and the freedom of expression could not be curtailed and the censor board could not refuse to certify a film just because there was an apprehension of a law and order problem.
Expressing its displeasure with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for not taking a decision on the issuance of certificate to the Kangana Ranaut-starrer ‘Emergency’, a division bench of Justices B P Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla said, “You have to take a decision one way or the other.You must have the courage to say this film cannot be released. At least then we will appreciate your courage and boldness. We don’t want CBFC to sit on the fence.” The court ordered that a decision be taken by September 25.
CBFC’s counsel Abhinav Chandrachud had earlier told the court that the board’s chairman had referred the movie to the revising committee for a final decision. He said there was an element of apprehension of public disorder.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises, the producer of the movie, seeking direction to CBFC to issue certificate.
The biographical drama, earlier scheduled for release on September 6, got caught in a controversy after Sikh organisations raised objections and accused the film of misrepresenting the community and historical facts.
The court asked if CBFC thought people were so naive that they would believe everything shown in a movie. “We don’t see why people are so sensitive. Movies make fun of my community all the time. We don’t say anything. We just laugh and move on,” Justice Colabawalla said in a lighter vein.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel Venkatesh Dhond said CBFC was stalling just to buy time and ensure the movie was not released before October, when elections are to be held in Haryana.
Questioning the political angle, the bench asked if the petitioner was claiming that the governing party was itself against Ranaut, who is co-producer of the film. “The co-producer herself is a BJP MP. So you are saying her own party is against its member?” the court asked. Dhond claimed that the governing party was willing to displease a sitting parliamentarian just to appease a particular section of society. pti
Expressing its displeasure with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for not taking a decision on the issuance of certificate to the Kangana Ranaut-starrer ‘Emergency’, a division bench of Justices B P Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla said, “You have to take a decision one way or the other.You must have the courage to say this film cannot be released. At least then we will appreciate your courage and boldness. We don’t want CBFC to sit on the fence.” The court ordered that a decision be taken by September 25.
CBFC’s counsel Abhinav Chandrachud had earlier told the court that the board’s chairman had referred the movie to the revising committee for a final decision. He said there was an element of apprehension of public disorder.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises, the producer of the movie, seeking direction to CBFC to issue certificate.
The biographical drama, earlier scheduled for release on September 6, got caught in a controversy after Sikh organisations raised objections and accused the film of misrepresenting the community and historical facts.
The court asked if CBFC thought people were so naive that they would believe everything shown in a movie. “We don’t see why people are so sensitive. Movies make fun of my community all the time. We don’t say anything. We just laugh and move on,” Justice Colabawalla said in a lighter vein.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel Venkatesh Dhond said CBFC was stalling just to buy time and ensure the movie was not released before October, when elections are to be held in Haryana.
Questioning the political angle, the bench asked if the petitioner was claiming that the governing party was itself against Ranaut, who is co-producer of the film. “The co-producer herself is a BJP MP. So you are saying her own party is against its member?” the court asked. Dhond claimed that the governing party was willing to displease a sitting parliamentarian just to appease a particular section of society. pti