Censored by the cable guy
DNA India (via) reports that the Bombay high court on Wednesday restrained cable operators and service providers from showing any film with an ‘A’ (adults only) certificate on television.
The order - which takes immediate effect - relies on a provision in the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, which prohibits operators from showing any material “unsuitable for unrestricted public viewing” and requires cable operators to block any film on any channel certified as ‘A’ or for a particular class or profession by the Central Board of Film Certification. The effective result of this is that only films with a ‘U’ (unrestricted viewing) certificate can be beamed into people’s homes.
In November 2004 the court had restrained satellite television channels from beaming movies or programmes without obtaining appropriate certification from the censor board and the channels have been complying with this, and do get the necessary censor certificate and show it before screening the film.
However, self-appointed activist, Pratibha Naithani entered a public interest petition arguing that this “skewed” interpretation defeats the purpose of the Act. “How can a film that has been certified as an adult film be shown on TV, which is watched by the entire family, including children?” claimed Naithani’s lawyer MM Vashi, whose own children clearly never sleep.
Iqbal Chagla, who appeared for a satellite channel, pointed out that policing what people can view in the confines of their homes amounts to a violation of their fundamental rights. “Will we now only see programmes suitable for children?” he said.
The court also criticised the police for failing to act on complaints registered by Naithani.
In an editorial, the paper goes on to raise some of the unanswered questions and issues with both the Act and the ruling.
To start with, there is the question of classification. Even some fairly innocuous films have got an “Adult” rating, similar to films with much more sexually graphic or violent content. This will, at one stroke, equate a wide range of films as unsuitable for television screening. Moreover, as the television channels who were party to the suit argued, these films are telecast from overseas and beamed to scores of countries. Cable operators can do little to stop the broadcasts.
To apparently counter that point, the court has made it mandatory for Indian cable operators to “blank out” the screen whenever adult films are shown. This is easier said than done. It is akin to telling the newspaper delivery boy to read and cut out offensive photographs from the publications he distributes.
And then there’s the practicality…
This order however will not be easy to implement. As it is, pirated versions of the latest Bollywood movies are openly shown by cable operators across Mumbai. When the state cannot stop that—a clear offence under Indian law—how will it ensure that the provisions of this new order will be implemented?
Maybe the police should spend even less time responding to the likes of Naithani and spend a bit more time following up real criminals.
Tuesday 27 Dec 2005 | Paul | India
I would wish and hope that righteous, selfimportant, immaculately conceived prudes like Ms. Naithani would stick to teaching political science and not try and enforce moral codes which smack of a defunct, self-defeating, gandhi-ish mindset. In this enlightened age, individual choice is more important, and Ms Naithani would do well to indulge in moral self-policing behind her own closed doors. I am sure that like myself there are many more young people in India who are able to function by their own, perfectly acceptably set of ethics, morals and principles.