Subscribe
Twice in a week, the screening of a documentary film on undertrial student activist Umar Khalid has been cancelled. Both screenings were planned around the sixth anniversary of Umar’s incarceration. He has been languishing in prison since 2020 without a trial after being charged under the draconian UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) and other sections of the law.
The film, Prisoner No 626710 is Present, made by documentary filmmaker Lalit Vachani, tells Umar’s story through the voices of his friends. On September 13, Umar, a researcher from Delhi, completed six years in prison, following repeated postponements of his bail hearings.
The cancelled screenings of the documentary were to take place at educational institutions. The first was scheduled for September 14 at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) in Bengaluru and the second for September 18 at IIIT Hyderabad. Ahead of the Hyderabad screening, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) issued a warning against screening a film that has not been certified by the body.
“Public Screening of a Documentary film that has not yet been Certified by the CBFC is a violation of the Cinematograph Act unless a specific exemption has been sought under the Act,” the CBFC said in its statement.
While a film that has not been certified by the CBFC cannot legally be allowed a public screening, the question is whether a private screening for a selected audience can also violate the law.
“Certification and screening of films are governed by the Cinematograph Act. Sections 3, 4 and 5A deal with the Certification Board, its power to examine films and the mode of certification. Now, these apply to public exhibitions of films. They might not apply to private screenings or viewings. The question would be whether a campus screening of a movie is 'public screening' for the purpose of the Act,” says Thulasi K Raj, advocate, Supreme Court of India.
Interestingly, two days before the screening, on September 16, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting released revised guidelines for the CBFC. The second section of the guidelines highlighted, among other factors, 'anti-national attitudes' as unpresentable. The term has been used indiscriminately by the Union government and its supporters against voices of dissent.
“The move of the CBFC to prevent the screening must be read in the context of the New Guidelines and this sends alarming signals for the state of free speech in our democracy. The guidelines, for instance, ask the Board to ensure that anti-social activities or anti-national attitudes are not present in the movies. These kinds of vague restrictions directly interfere with the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They amount to prior restraint and illegal censorship. Throttling the creative freedom of filmmakers must be condemned,” added Thulasi K Raj.
Films without certification have earlier been allowed to be screened at select festivals under Section 9 of the Cinematograph Act, under which the Union government may exempt films from the provisions of Section 2 for a particular event, said advocate and activist Harish Vasudevan. This provision was used during the controversy over film cancellations at the International Film Festival of Kerala last year, when the Union government granted last-minute exemptions for several films.
It was also during a film festival in Kerala in 2019 that documentary filmmaker Anand Patwardhan went to court and secured approval for the screening of his film Reason, only hours before it was scheduled to be shown at the festival.
“This is an obvious attempt to silence any discourse that the government finds disagreeable! CBFC’s mandate is to ‘certify’, not impose pre-emptive bans or intimidate screening organisers. Further, the certification itself is for the purposes of ‘public exhibition’, not required for any private screenings! What if BJP offices screen a 20-minute video of PM Modi’s birthday celebrations – is that a ‘public exhibition’? Will CBFC rush to prevent the screenings and formally write and advise BJP against it? Remember – Equality before Law is a constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental right. This is nothing but a brazen and blatant attempt to stifle freedom of expression and the right to protest peacefully,” said documentary filmmaker Rakesh Sharma.
Rakesh’s seminal work Final Solution (2004), made in the aftermath of the 2002 Gujarat riots, was initially banned by the CBFC, but the ban was later revoked when it was examined by a Special Committee.
“I think it is absurd that the CBFC would go to such lengths to interfere with a non-commercial, closed-door screening at an educational institution. Students watch a wide range of films for educational purposes and this is clearly an overreach of power by a state institution,” said journalist and Umar’s friend Apeksha Priyadarshini.
