'Don't act like a grandmother': Bombay High Court directs CBFC to release 'Udta Punjab' with one cut

The Bombay High Court has allowed the release of Udta Punjab, a Bollywood film based on the theme of drug menace in the state, by only asking for one cut and change in the disclaimer to be presented in the film. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had suggested 13 changes in the film which would have amounted to taking away the essence of the film, the court noted.

The scene in which actor Shahid Kapoor is shown peeing in front of the public will have to be deleted by the filmmakers and the disclaimer changed to included what has been suggested by the board and the court.

The film is scheduled to be released on June 17. The board has been told to give the necessary certificate forthwith.

A division bench of Justice SC Dharmadhikari and Justice Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, while setting aside 12 cuts said “In today’s world, film makers are forthright and direct in their presentations, not only in technical areas but also in their story. There is a marked difference from earlier generation of film makers. Just because they are not soft, subtle and slow in the presentation they cannot be punished so harshly.”

“Do not act like a grandmother. Change as per the times now. The CBFC need not be over-sensitive in the matter of art. The CBFC cannot stop creative people abruptly as it may discourage them. This will kill creativity. These days filmmakers are brutal, direct and straightforward. One need not treat them harshly just because of this,” the court said.

The CBFC had suggested 13 cuts for the film including removal of the word Punjab from the signboard of the film title and other objections which included deletion of expletive words and certain scenes. The producer of the film, Phantom Productions, had argued that all the scenes and the language used were an integral part of the film in order to project the characters in the film and if they were deleted, it would take away the essence of the film and message the makers want to convey through it.

The bench going through each of the suggested cuts said “Taking an entire view of the film and message that the film wants to depict—the menace of drug abuse in the state—which the authorities have also not been able to curb, the makers cannot be stopped abruptly. It will have a disturbing effect in the long run. By interfering in their work again and again, it will downgrade their work and creativity.”

The bench also supported the film’s makers and director in depicting the drug menace in Punjab and refuted the claim of the board that it will malign the image of a fertile state. The court said, “Punjab is a land where the Green revolution took place; its citizens are known for their hard work in the farms. The state is also known for its culture and religious backdrop. The nature of depiction in the film is not in any way deemed to be insulting to the citizens of the state. Punjab is a land of freedom fighters and warriors. The film seen in its entirety is not seen to be targeting a particular state or its citizens.”

Regarding the use of cuss words in the film by its characters, the court observed, “The use of such words should be left to the film makers. Over a period of time, through experience, they will understand whether the use of such content is required to promote the film or not. However, it can also be said that sometimes spoken words have a larger impact, every film has to be seen differently.”

The court also clarified that the film was not made keeping in mind the elections or favoring any political outfit and, thus, the suggested cuts regarding use of words like MP, MLA was not justified. Reprimanding the board for suggesting cuts which are not based on reality and holding that they were contrary to the rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (B) of the Constitution of India, the bench said “Power of the board has to be used consistently and in consonance of the Constitution of India and directions laid down by the Supreme Court. Art must render obscenity trivial so that it does not have effect on society.”

The court also expressed displeasure to the producers and board for wasting courts precious time, it said, “This euphoria around the film which is generated could have been avoided, the parties ought to have realised that time of the court is precious and in matters like this there is hardly any cause.” The High Court bench also refused to stay its order on a plea made by CBFC counsel Advait Sethna to enable the board to appeal against it in the Supreme Court.