DSS criticises censor board over cuts suggested for Phule film
The Dalit Sangharsh Samiti (DSS) State committee has criticised the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for asking the makers of the recently released Phule film to remove several scenes following an objection from the Brahmin Federation.
DSS State convener Arjun Bhadre, addressing a press conference in Kalaburagi on Wednesday, said that earlier, the film was scheduled to release on April 11 to mark the birth anniversary of Jyotiba Phule. As the CBFC suggested cuts, the film release date was rescheduled to April 25.
Mr. Bhadre said that the biopic on social reformer Mahatma Jyotirao Phule was made after carrying out extensive research and referring multiple books and historical sources.
He said that the film director wanted to show the historical truth. But the Central Film Certification Board instructed him to replace 12 scenes, including the shots in which a man carries a broom and boys throwing cow dung on Savitri Bai.
Several lines of dialogues mentioning the words Kshudra, Peshwa, Mang, Mahar have also been removed from the film, he added.
Mr. Bhadre said that the censor board did not object to a single scene or dialogues from the film, The Kashmir Files. But it has raised objections to real incidents shown in the film Phule. This shows the double standards of the board, he claimed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
No fetters: On Thug Life, extra-judicial bans
In ensuring the screening of the film Thug Life — thespian Kamal Haasan plays the lead role — in Karnataka, the Supreme Court of India has unequivocally asserted a fundamental free speech principle that certified films cannot be stifled by protests or a recourse to 'hurt sentiments'. Following Mr. Haasan's comment in a pre-launch event, that Kannada was born from Tamil (it is factually inaccurate as both languages have been known to share a proto-Dravidian ancestor), the film has faced an extra-judicial ban in Karnataka; the Karnataka High Court had suggested that he apologise. The Supreme Court's directions however repudiate this 'moral' position taken by the High Court, bringing into focus the judiciary's role as a guardian of due process. After the film was certified by the CBFC, there should be no fetters on its release, and, therefore, the extra-judicial ban violated the rule of law. The film certification framework, governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and its rules, is designed to safeguard creativity, while maintaining a balance between constitutionally mandated free speech and reasonable restrictions. The CBFC, equipped to vet films with these legal standards, is solely tasked with doing so. Amorphous groups claiming 'hurt sentiments' to intimidate a film's release have no role in this. Giving in to such claims risks violating free speech rights and hurting the livelihoods of actors, artists, technicians and workers. The top court rightly characterised extra-judicial bans as a direct infringement on film-makers' constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression. By emphatically rejecting the extra-judicial ban, the Court has reiterated its positions that maintaining law and order in the face of divergent views is the state's responsibility. It is vital to understand that certified and regulated freedom of speech, as assessed by the CBFC, is distinct from hate speech, which finds no constitutional protection and can be legally restricted. This crucial distinction underscores that legitimate artistic expression, once cleared by the designated authority, deserves state protection. Moving forward, the Court's directions should pave the way for the state to provide institutional safeguards against unofficial bans overriding the CBFC's certification and release. These could include holding theatre owners accountable for unwarranted cancellations of scheduled releases, policing guidelines that distinguish lawful dissent from illegal intimidation and also allowing for citizens to watch a certified film without fear.
New Indian Express
3 days ago
- New Indian Express
Karnataka assures SC of security if Kamal Haasan's 'Thug Life' movie is released in state
NEW DELHI: The Karnataka government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court it would ensure law and order and provide security to all stakeholders if actor Kamal Haasan's film Thug Life is released in the state. The assurance came in a detailed affidavit submitted in response to the court's directive a day earlier. "In the event the producers of the film decide to release the movie in the State of Karnataka, the state government is duty bound and will give protection and security for such release and for the people connected therewith, including the cast, director, producers, the exhibitors, and the audience," the affidavit stated. The top court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Bengaluru resident M Mahesh Reddy, who alleged that the film, despite receiving a CBFC certificate, was effectively barred from release in Karnataka due to threats from fringe groups and the inaction of the authorities. A two-judge vacation bench of the Supreme Court is expected to hear the matter on Thursday. On Tuesday, the vacation bench led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan on Tuesday had pulled up the state government, saying the rule of law must prevail. 'Mob and vigilantes cannot be allowed to take to the streets. Rule of law has to be established and guns cannot be put to people's heads to stop them from watching the movie,' the bench observed. It said once a film is certified by the CBFC, it must be allowed to release across the country. The Karnataka government, in its three-page response, pointed to a letter issued by the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) on May 30, expressing displeasure over Haasan's remarks at a promotional event, where he allegedly said Kannada was born from Tamil. The chamber had sought an apology from the actor.
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Indian Express
In protecting ‘Thug Life', Supreme Court has protected more than entertainment
The cinema screen is no stranger to censorship in India — both lawful and unlawful. What has changed, however, is the form of silencing. Increasingly, it is not only formal state bans but the louder and more insidious forces of the mob — self-appointed vigilantes who threaten theatres, intimidate viewers, and police speech. The case of Thug Life, a Tamil feature film starring Kamal Haasan, is a troubling iteration of this pattern. The Supreme Court's recent intervention is not merely about one film, but a timely reminder of the constitutional bulwarks protecting free expression, and the enduring obligation of the state to uphold them. The Supreme Court is presently seized of a petition filed by one Mahesh Reddy, who sought protection for the film's screening in Karnataka. Despite receiving certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the film could not be released in the state. The reason: Pro-Kannada groups issued threats of violence in response to Haasan's recent public remark that Kannada was born out of Tamil. This provoked an intense backlash, and theatre owners, fearing arson and protest, pulled the film. Not only did the Karnataka High Court, when approached, fail to dismiss the 'extra-judicial ban' in the State, but shockingly nudged Haasan to apologise — a move that the Supreme Court found wholly inappropriate. In transferring the matter from the High Court to itself, the bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, on June 17, made it abundantly clear that law and order cannot be hijacked by public sentiment. 'We can't allow mobs to take over,' the Court said. That statement, though directed at the Karnataka state government, reverberates far beyond this individual case. This is not the first time that India's highest court has come to the rescue of filmmakers facing illegal censorship. Nor is this the first time that states, despite repeated judicial warnings, have failed in their constitutional duties. In Union of India v. K M Shankarappa (2001), the Court laid down the principle in no uncertain terms: Once an expert body such as the CBFC has considered the impact of a film on the public and cleared it, it is no excuse to cite law and order problems by the state governments. The job of the respective states is to protect expression, not shrink from it. 'The executive cannot sit in appeal or revision over [a certification],' the Court warned. Yet, time and again, states have violated this boundary. In 2011, Aarakshan, a film starring Amitabh Bachchan addressing caste-based reservation, was banned in Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh despite CBFC clearance. The Supreme Court intervened, noting the state's duty was not to muzzle expression but to maintain law and order. In 2018, the Padmaavat controversy unfolded similarly, as several states rushed to ban the film due to community outrage. The Court stepped in again, reiterating that once a CBFC certificate is granted, the presumption is that all constitutional standards, including concerns around public order, have already been accounted for. More recently, in 2023, the film The Kerala Story faced a blanket ban in West Bengal and a de facto ban in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court stayed the West Bengal order and directed Tamil Nadu to ensure security for screenings. It also recommended a disclaimer to address concerns regarding the film's factual accuracy, but refused to entertain demands for a ban. It was, as always, a call to protect speech, not please sentiment. The common thread in all these cases, including Thug Life, is not the controversy over content, but the constitutional clarity on process. The law places faith in a regulatory framework. The CBFC, supported by a statutorily empowered Appellate Tribunal for appeals, is tasked with certifying films. When a film passes that test, no state government can step in to unilaterally nullify it, either directly or by failing to prevent others from doing so. When the law protects cinema, it protects more than entertainment. It defends imagination, dissent, and truth-telling. In a nation as diverse and fraught as ours, films do what few institutions can: They provoke thought, evoke empathy, challenge dominant narratives, and give voice to those on the margins. The Supreme Court has once again affirmed that freedom of speech is not an empty promise. It comes with the expectation that the state will act, not to judge or justify the expression, but to protect the space in which it can exist. As Justice Manmohan aptly put it, whether to watch a film or not is a personal choice. The right of filmmakers to express their views is constitutional. The right of the audience to disagree is democratic. But the right to suppress is neither constitutional nor democratic. The writer is a Delhi-based Advocate and research fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
