HC dismisses PIL questioning CBFC power to recertify films

The Delhi High Court today dismissed a PIL questioning the powers of the censor board to recertify a film after it has undergone changes, saying the plea was "entirely misconceived".
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar said the petition was based on a "complete misconception, bordering on ignorance, of the manner in which the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) functions" and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner "for wasting judicial time".
The petition claimed that the CBFC did not have to power to recertify a film even if it undergoes changes later for screening on television channels.

However, the court refused to accept this contention, saying once a film has been modified, it ceases to be the original movie as far as certification by CBFC is concerned. "It would be deemed to be a fresh film," the court said.
The plea, filed through advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, contended that movies with adult certification are recertified for public viewing, including children, on TV with hardly any changes made in them.
It said that such recertification and screening of the film on TV was a violation of the Cinematograph Act and the Cable TV Network Act.

However, on being asked by the bench, the lawyer could neither orally, nor in the petition point out such instances when unmodified adult-rated movies were shown on TV during timings when even children are watching.

The court said when allegations of violation of statutory provisions are made, instances of such violations must be pointed out.
It said the courts ought to "deprecate" the practice of filing of PILs by merely relying on the statutory provision and not pointing out the violations, as was done in the instant case.
As the petitioner was not able to point out the instances of violations, the court slapped him with the cost of Rs 50,000, half of which has to be deposited with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
The remaining amount has to be deposited with the advocates' welfare fund, the bench said.