Explore Business Standard
Veteran screenwriter-lyricist Javed Akhtar has expressed his disappointment that movies reflecting the reality of society face hurdles from regulatory bodies in India, while those rife with vulgarity seem to slip through the cracks. Speaking at an event on Friday, Akhtar said it is a bad audience that makes a bad film successful. "In this country, the fact is that vulgarity will still be passed by (the film regulatory bodies), they do not know that these are wrong values, a male chauvinistic view that is humiliating women and is insensitive. What will not be passed is something that shows the mirror to society," he said at the inaugural session of Anantrang mental health cultural festival. Akhtar said films merely try to depict reality. "A film is a window into society through which you peek, then close the window, but closing the window will not fix what is happening, he cited. Talking about the impact of hyper-masculinity portrayed in films on mental health, Akhtar said that the
Film personalities belonging to various movie organisations will stage a dharna before the office of the Central Board of Film Certfication (CBFC) on Monday to protest the Board's decision to decline certification to the film Janaki Vs State of Kerala' (JSK). The CBFC revising committee had verbally directed the makers of the Suresh Gopi-starrer film, JSK, to change the name of the titular character, as Janaki is another name of Goddess Sita. Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA) general secretary B Unnikrishnan told reporters here on Friday that people belonging to the entire film industry will take part in the protest before the CBFC office in Thiruvananthapuram. Terming the CBFC's decision as arbitrary,' he wondered why the name change was being suggested after the film was cleared by the regional panel of the censor board. The film was given U/A certification and was sent to the CBFC office in Mumbai, from where the change was suggested. We fail to understand the criterio
The Centre has strongly objected to social media platform X's characterisation of the 'Sahyog' portal as a censorship tool, calling the claim both unfortunate and condemnable. In a detailed response submitted before the Karnataka High Court, the Centre countered the claims made by X Corp in its petition challenging India's information-blocking framework. The government asserted that the petitioner had misinterpreted the provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, particularly Sections 69A and 79(3)(b). X Corp has argued that Section 79(3)(b) does not authorise the government to issue content-blocking orders in a manner that bypasses the safeguards outlined in Section 69A, its corresponding blocking rules, and the Supreme Court's ruling in the Shreya Singhal case. However, the government contended that Section 69A explicitly allows the Centre to issue blocking orders under specific conditions and provides multiple safeguards for online content restriction. It stated that thi
The Information and Broadcasting Ministry is examining the existing statutory provisions and the need for a new legal framework to regulate "harmful" content amid complaints of "obscenity and violence" being shown on digital platforms. In its reply to a parliamentary panel, the ministry said there is a growing concern in the society that the constitutional right of "freedom of expression is being misused to showcase obscene and violent content on digital platforms". It told the Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology headed by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey that while certain provisions exist under the current laws, there is a growing demand for a stricter and effective legal framework to regulate such harmful content. It said, "This ministry has taken note of these developments and is in process of examining current statutory provisions and need for a new legal framework." The ministry said that many high courts and the Supreme Court, MPs and statutory bodies like
TikTok said it will have to go dark this weekend unless the outgoing Biden administration assures the company it won't enforce a shutdown of the popular app after the Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld the federal law banning the app unless it's sold by its China-based parent company. The Supreme Court in its ruling held that the risk to national security posed by TikTok's ties to China overcomes concerns about limiting speech by the app or its 170 million users in the United States. The decision came against the backdrop of unusual political agitation by President-elect Donald Trump, who vowed that he could negotiate a solution, and the administration of President Joe Biden, which has signalled it won't enforce the law which was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support beginning Sunday, his final full day in office. TikTok should remain available to Americans, but simply under American ownership or other ownership that addresses the national security concerns identifie
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would hear in January a plea which has raised the issue concerning pre-censorship of films. The apex court had in April 2017 sought responses from the Centre and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on the plea filed by veteran actor-director Amol Palekar. The matter came up for hearing before a bench of justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan. "Why should all such petitions be filed directly before the Supreme Court," the bench asked. The counsel appearing for the petitioner said the pleadings in the matter were complete. "It is our respectful submission that documentaries do not fall within the definition of cinematograph as defined under the Act (Cinematograph Act)," the lawyer said. When the lawyer referred to the prayers made in the plea, the bench observed it also relates to pre-censorship of films. The petitioner's counsel said the government had notified the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 in August last year but that doe