2 years ago, panel said recast entire certification process, no one listened

The Mudgal committee was set up following the controversy over the Tamil Nadu government’s ban on Kamal Hassan-starrer Vishwaroopam. However, almost one-and-a-half years later, the recommendations have remained on paper, with no action being taken by the previous UPA government — which had set up the panel — or the current NDA government.

The Mudgal panel referred to “errors” cited by producers, directors and film industry associations in the manner in which films are certified by the screening committee.

“At certain locations, members of such advisory panel lack any form of cinematic understanding, they perceive their role to be that of a Censor Board, to cut and chop scenes and, in some cases being affiliated to some political, religious or social group, impose without restraint, such political, religious or personal opinions upon content permissible in a film,” the report said.

It cited instances to buttress its point: panel members objecting to “use of words such as boyfriend or kiss” in a scene, or “even the uncharitably humorous representation of a political figure”.

It recommended that this panel — it wanted it to be renamed screening committee — should comprise only such members who “by reason of their profession, qualifications or experience” in the field of art, cinema, drama, law, etc, are fit to judge the effect of a film on the public.

Underlining the need to fix guidelines on the basis of which a film is certified, the Mudgal panel, while terming it the “most vexed issue which the committee encountered”, suggested that there must be a provision to protect “artistic and creative expression on one hand while on the other requiring the medium of cinema to remain socially responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society”.

The committee also recommended a revised classification of public screening of films, beginning with ‘U’ for unrestricted to ‘S’ for restricted to members of any profession or class or persons.

Noting that many times, after fringe elements, or sometimes publicity seekers, object to a film, the state governments decide to ban it suo motu or under the influence of such elements, the panel recommended that there should be adequate checks and balances to ensure that such action is not taken without first giving the film producer an opportunity to be heard and challenge the proposed ban.

It also said the jurisdiction of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) should be widened to ensure that any person who is aggrieved with the decision of the Censor Board can approach it instead of filing a case in a court.