New Delhi: The Narendra Modi government’s decision to dissolve the the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) with immediate effect has led to widespread outrage among members of the film industry.
Set up in 1983, the statutory body, constituted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, heard appeals by aggrieved filmmakers against Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) orders. In the past few years, it played an instrumental role in the release of some films.
However, the Ministry of Law and Justice abolished the tribunal earlier this week, along with other appellate bodies and transferred their functions to the judiciary. Now, filmmakers will have to directly approach the concerned high courts to challenge a CBFC order.
Several members of the film fraternity called out the move to abolish the tribunal, with filmmaker Hansal Mehta calling it arbitrary and restrictive.
“Do the high courts have a lot of time to address film certification grievances? How many film producers will have the means to approach the courts? The FCAT discontinuation feels arbitrary and is definitely restrictive. Why this unfortunate timing? Why take this decision at all?,” Mehta tweeted.
Vishal Bhardwaj, filmmaker and music composer, said it was a “sad day for cinema”.
Such a sad day for cinema
FILM CERTIFICATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ABOLISHED | 6 April, 2021
— Vishal Bhardwaj (@VishalBhardwaj) April 6, 2021
https://t.co/FUXut8TRJd pic.twitter.com/qN6dT6wmtc
— TheRichaChadha (@RichaChadha) April 6, 2021
Legal experts, meanwhile, noted that this could increase the delay for filmmakers awaiting clearance and may also lead to censorship.
“This move is likely to increase delay, costs and indeterminacy for filmmakers who earlier approached the tribunal for relief” Apar Gupta, lawyer and executive director of the NGO Internet Freedom Foundation, told ThePrint.
Divya Kesar, a Supreme Court advocate, said: “The purpose of any tribunal is faster disposal of justice. Removal of FCAT will lead to an invariable delay and will make it a long drawn process for filmmakers and actors. This will lead to stalling and could indirectly lead to more censorship for the film industry.”
“One will be discouraged to try new things in movies and documentaries as the mechanism that existed for a long time — a specialised tribunal for specific purposes — the FCAT has been abolished,” Kesar added.
ThePrint reached the information and broadcasting ministry spokesperson but he refused to comment on the matter.
Also read: Emergency-era censorship affected films so badly that even a spot of blood was cut out
FCAT has intervened for several filmmakers in the past
Based in Delhi, FCAT was headed by a chairman who was either a retired judge of the high court or someone qualified to be a high court judge. It comprised four members appointed by the central government, usually experts such as lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats.
In the past few years, several filmmakers have approached the tribunal against CBFC orders.
In 2017, director Alankrita Shrivastava approached FCAT after the film certification body refused to certify her movie ‘Lipstick Under My Burkha’ for release. The tribunal then ordered the CBFC to issue an ‘A’ certificate after suggesting a few edits.
Filmmaker and producer Anurag Kashyap had also approached the statutory body after his film ‘Udta Punjab’ was not given clearance for release in 2016.
Kashyap approached FCAT a second time for the movie ‘Haraamkhor’, starring Nawazuddin Siddiqui, in the same year after the CBFC found the subject matter of the film “very provocative”. It was cleared by the body for release with a U/A certificate.
A major decision that was taken by the tribunal recently, was regarding the popular Hollywood movie ‘Joker’. In October 2020, FCAT deemed the movie unfit for universal satellite viewing because of its violent themes.
Also read: CBFC has no intellectual morality to decide what people can watch: Bombay High Court
Tribunals abolished by govt, powers vested with HCs
The dissolution of the FCAT follows the government’s efforts to streamline tribunals across the board.
In February, the Centre introduced a bill to abolish some tribunals where the public at large is not litigant in the Lok Sabha.
“With a view to streamline tribunals, the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2021 is proposed to be enacted to abolish certain tribunals and authorities and to provide a mechanism for filing appeal directly to the commercial court or the High Court, as the case may be,” read the bill, introduced by the Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur.
After the bill did not get a nod from the Parliament, an ordinance was issued — the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021 — which was promulgated by President Ram Nath Kovind Sunday.
With this ordinance, existing appellate authorities under nine acts were abolished and their powers were vested in high courts.
The nine laws are: Cinematograph Act, Copyright Act, Customs Act, Patents Act, Airports Authority of India Act, Trade Marks Act, Geographical Indications of Goods (registration and protection) Act, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act and Control of National Highways (land and traffic) Act.
The ordinance also scraps the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and high courts will now also take up patent, trademark, copyright and geographical indication disputes.
However, experts believe this will increase the burden on high courts.
“This tribunal — IPAB — was constituted to reduce the backlog in the high court. For a long time, this tribunal wasn’t able to function as efficiently as it was meant to but over the last one year, it has led to a high amount of disposal of cases. Now with the abolishment, everything goes back to the high court and we will go back 20 years. Matters will now remain stuck in the logjam, waiting to be heard, which will cause great prejudice to the right holders,” Hemant Singh, IP litigator and managing partner of Inttl Advocare, said.
(Edited by Rachel John)
Also read: Picture abhi patriarchy hai: Studying Bollywood’s sexism disease
How can the government channel appeals directly to the HIGH COURT without any capacity increment? In fact, as of today, High courts across India have 40% vacancies while the central government sits over 45 names (which it is supposed to simply forward to SC collegium), for time ranging 6 to 14 months. 10 judges who have been approved by the collegium are not being appointed for time ranging 7-19 months without giving any reason.
Does it make sense purely from a governance point of view? Shouldn’t Indians expect govt to at least do whatever little it has in its hands directly to make judicial process smooth?
Does the govt want the high courts to be perennially clogged & the common citizen always in the queue or perhaps on their knees for having even a shot at accessing justice?
The BJP and Modi have no idea on how to run a government. The court system in India is 30 years backlogged with cases and this will only delay justice further! Another wrong move by the government!