The Kerala High Court has rejected as “illegal” Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Chairman Prasoon Joshi’s decision to refer to a second revising committee the Malayalam film 'Puzha Muthal Puzha Vare’, based on the incidents surrounding the 1921 Malabar "rebellion” which the film director and Hindu groups claim involved the “genocide” of Hindus. The High Court agreed with director Ali Akbar's contention that the chairman’s decision to refer the film to the second revising committee was outside the scope of his powers under the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, which say that where the chairman disagrees with the decision of the majority of the committee, “the Board shall itself examine the film or cause the film to be examined again by another revising committee and that the decision of the Board or the second revising committee, as the case may be, shall be final”. Setting aside Joshi's decision, the HC Single Judge Bench of Justice N Nagaresh said when the first revising committee had cleared the film by a majority “with seven modifications”, the chairman had the option to either accept the recommendations of the panel or, if he disagreed with the decision of the committee, refer the matter to the Board for examination of the film. However, “in this case, the chairman himself has referred the film to a second revising committee.The said action of the chairman is illegal and is in violation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983”, the HC said in its December 24, 2022 ruling. Akbar had submitted his film to the CBFC for certification in May 2022. As per the procedure, the Board’s regional office then constituted an examination committee consisting of the regional officer, CBFC, Thiruvananthapuram as examining officer and four advisory panel members. In its recommendation to the CBFC chairman, three of the members recommended denial of certification to the film on the ground that it contained “visuals as well as dialogues which are likely to endanger public order”, while the other two recommended “UA Certification (Unrestricted Public Exhibition with Parental Guidance for children below the age of 12 years)”. The CBFC chairman then referred the movie to a revising committee, which, by a majority decision, opined that the film “can be certified with an adult rating with seven modifications”. This committee also had a historian from the Indian Council of Historical Research as one of its members. However, the chairman again referred it to a second revising committee which “unanimously agreed” that the film can be given adult certification subject to 12 cuts, following which Akbar approached the High Court. Akbar contended that though the modifications suggested by the second committee were 12 in number, in effect, the total number of excisions will be much more and they “will undermine the very soul of the movie”. He added that “the action of the respondents infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution”.
