Mukesh Bhatt, on behalf of film industry, demands Pahlaj Nihalani’s removal

"Pahlaj Nihlani can only do harm to the industry", said Mukesh Bhatt.

By: IANS | Mumbai | Updated: June 9, 2016 5:38 pm
Mukesh Bhatt, Udta Punjab,Udta Punjab controversy, Mukesh Bhatt latest news,Pahlaj Nihalani, Central Board of Film Certification, CBFC Pahlaj Nihalani, entertainment news Mukesh Bhatt said that Pahlaj Nihalani kept delaying the process for Udta Punjab despite being a ‘film man’ by taking time to watch it and not giving written approval even after watching it.

Film Producers’ Guild of India president Mukesh Bhatt on Wednesday appealed to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to remove Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) chief Pahlaj Nihalani as, he said, Nihlani can ‘only do harm to the industry’.

“This is a manipulative game; a corrupt system is prevailing in our CBFC which I have to say with a lot of shame. And if despite knowing that, Pahlaj Nihalani still sits on the chair, it is a matter of shame for him as well as for us. I appeal to the ministry that he should be removed immediately.”

WATCH VIDEO: Udta Punjab Controversy: Youth Has The Right To Know Drugs Are A Menace, Says Shahid Kapoor

 

“I say this on behalf of the entire film industry as president of the Film Producers’ Guild of India. Film industry does not want him to sit there because he doesn’t deserve to,” Bhatt said at a press conference organised by the Indian Film and Television Directors’ Association (IFTDA) over the censor board’s objections to upcoming film Udta Punjab.

Bhatt said Nihalani kept delaying the process for Udta Punjab despite being a ‘film man’ by taking time to watch it and not giving written approval even after watching it.

He said that the producers have invested close to Rs.60 crore in the film, which is under threat.

WATCH | Ravi Shankar Prasad Reacts To The Udta Punjab Row & Nihalani’s ‘Modi’s Chamcha’ Comment

 

“Who is going to pay this? Is the government going to pay this? or the CBFC? I want Pahlaj Nihalani to answer. This is unpardonable.”

“In broad daylight, we have been held to ransom by a state organisation, and this is absolutely appalling. We will not take it anymore,” he added.

Udta Punjab has reportedly been suggested 89 cuts by the censor board.

For all the latest Entertainment News, download Indian Express App

  1. P
    Pat
    Jun 9, 2016 at 6:31 pm
    Mukesh mahesh are both dysfunctional . They are making money through gullible audience. Shameless and so are these actors, country and its people come first not you trashy actors and makers.
    (0)(0)
    Reply
    1. A
      alice
      Jun 9, 2016 at 5:52 am
      Mukesh Butt along with his bigger butt should be sent to stan as they are muslims with hindu names, and moreveor support terrorism, check out the bigger butt's videos.
      (0)(0)
      Reply
      1. R
        Rahul
        Jun 9, 2016 at 11:12 am
        Who are you halbreed butt to tell government wht to do? In your own time, did you listen to criticism, or took care of hurt-sensibilities? Why are you crying when you are getting back your own treatment, now that the shoe is on the other foot!
        (0)(0)
        Reply
        1. M
          Manmohan Singh
          Jun 9, 2016 at 6:03 am
          Pahlaj Nihalani is an , used by Akali Dal's bad-al and BJP's mod-i, both are dishonest and untruthful, anti mes and anti national. India is suffering from chronic disease of slavery, and can't allow freedom which every human being is enled for. Mukesh Bhatt is claiming his right. Censorship must be free from neurotics like Nihalani.
          (0)(0)
          Reply
          1. S
            Suresh Babu
            Jun 9, 2016 at 10:50 am
            What is the necessity of putting the name of Punjab in a Movie? Already the state is evolving out from Khalistan movement, it once again putting dragger on their heart to question the federal structure of India, If you are really interested to show the reality in a state you can name in other way also, by Chenab or some logical names.
            (0)(0)
            Reply
            1. Load More Comments