Who Will Censor Those Who Censor?

Should there be censorship for OTT platforms?

Vani Tripathi Tikoo
Member, Central Board of Film Certification

I have constantly argued for creative freedom and that the lens of film certification should not be used for OTT. Consuming OTT content has always been a more personalised experience as compared to theatres, where it is a collective exercise. However, in the post-Covid scenario, OTT viewing has become more of a family affair.

As far as regulating OTT content is concerned, there are no industry standards and no regulatory code put in place. The streaming services themselves have not taken cognisance of the responsibility that they should be a part of. There is a need for some regulations. The industry should come together and create a kind of consciousness that whatever content they put out, there should be some kind of a filter that looks at the content. And the filter also has to be social responsibility. You cannot dissociate from that responsibility in a hypersensitive democracy like India. Even countries like the United Kingdom, Singapore and some European countries have some kind of code and industry standard put together for digital content.

ALSO READ: Censorship Tandav Is A Serial Killer

Prakash Jha
Film-maker

I prefer to have guidelines, which can be self-monitored. I have never been in favour of censorship. Who will decide what I will see, what I will say and what I will eat. The interesting thing is, who will censor the one who does the censor? Everyone has his or her own different perspective. I have often faced problems getting censor certification for my films. It is difficult to say how different board members from different regions and social backgrounds will view the subject. I respect social conscience more. If anyone crosses all these limits, laws exist to deal with it. Society as a whole is stronger and wiser than the state. Let it have the freedom to accept or reject.

Swara Bhasker
Actor

I personally don’t believe in censorship. I think that any modern, progressive and democratic society shouldn’t have censorship. We should have certification. I am all for certification and it should be very clear what kind of content which age group should watch. But I find censorship to be very silly and childish. It’s a whole mentality that belongs to a bygone era. You are telling me that at the age of eighteen we can vote, we can marry, we can drive and even consume alcohol, but we can’t watch a particular kind of film. Isn’t that juvenile? One of the basic requirements for the creation of good art is freedom, in an atmosphere which is not under any kind of fear or backlash. In this kind of forcibly sterilised environment, you will not be able to create anything. Art is a kind of creation where you are giving life to an idea of yours. Censorship is a bad concept. You cannot create art in a sterile environment.

Ranvir Shorey
Actor

I definitely think that there should be no censorship. Generally, we need to move to a more open and free society instead of one with more restrictions. I believe that individual freedom is very important and as a society, that is the direction we should take. Having said that, as creators of any work of art like cinema, people also need to own up their creations. If your work does show bias, then you will be called out. You have to take the responsibility for whatever you are showing. I am against censorship but I am all for self-regulation. If you are fair in your conduct, the chances of fingers being pointed at you or your creation are less.   

Abha Singh
Lawyer-social activist

OTT occupies an amorphous position in the legal sphere. While films are subject to stringent regulatory controls, OTTs are unrestrained. This is because the concept of OTT is fairly new and unique. People are fast switching to OTTs from cable television and even movie theatres because of its easy accessibility and the versatile content it offers. Apart from entertainment, many shows explore socio-political issues, which have become instrumental in awareness generation and shaping of attitudes. Thus, OTT content is also political, make it imperative that its freedom of expression is duly protected under Article 19.

At the same time, this freedom has been grossly misused. Extremely vulgar language, nudity and grotesque violence has become a selling point for these shows. This can have a harmful impact on the psyche of the masses, particularly the youth, and adversely impact public order, decency or morality, which are reasonable restrictions under Article 19. Another concern is the distinction made with films, which often have to edit out their most sensational scenes to obtain certification from the censor board. Many regard this provision as discriminatory and anti-competitive, as films are disadvantaged with censorship controls. Thus, there is a need to establish an unbiased regulatory body in order to level the playing field as well. 

Is it right to force film-makers to change/delete scenes?

Vani Tripathi Tikoo

Even in films, we don’t censor content; we only certify it. And if we feel something is offensive, we discuss it with the film-maker. A discussion is important and it can lead to a collaborative decision. As we differentiate between censoring and certification, age-appropriate certification is important, and also to create literacy about such classification. For example, when we talk about parental control, and a U/A certification, audiences under 13 years are not allowed in a theatre. Nobody really adheres to it.

Prakash Jha

If we have submitted the work to the censor board for certification, and if that is the only way one can publicly exhibit one’s film, then I guess one has to abide by the rule. Of course, there are forums you can appeal to if you are not happy with the decision of the board.

Swara Bhasker

It’s just not okay to delete scenes, unless there is a scene that is going against the constitutional values and propagating violence and going against humanity or propagating hate crime. I think we are becoming a very brittle society. I sometimes say that India is a country of 130 crore hurt sentiments. It looks like across all communities and societies we are united in our intolerance.

Ranvir Shorey

I don’t think that it is a good precedent. I think, if a content producer has shown bias, he should be called out if people perceive it that way. This is the relation between a piece of art and the audience. Neither should impinge on each other. The creator’s freedom should be intact and the viewers should also feel free to express whatever they want to. That, for me, is an ideal and free society.

Abha Singh

Our constitutional scheme envisages a balance of freedom of speech with reasonable restrictions. This is unlike American jurisprudence where the extent of free speech that is constitutionally protected is much broader. Through ‘reasonable restrictions’ our Constitution recognises the fact that no freedom is absolute and necessitates some kind of responsibility. Thus, certain restrictions on the extent of creative freedom permissible are valid. There have been instances where films have depicted, in the quest for sensationalism, scenes which have the potential to breach peace, hurt religious sentiments etc. In such cases, preserving public order takes precedence. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, famously known as the Bandit Queen case, clarified the scope of State intervention stating, “A film that illustrates the consequences of a social evil necessarily must show that social evil…a film that carries the message that the social evil is evil cannot be made impermissible on the ground that it depicts the social evil. At the same time, the depiction must be just sufficient for the purpose of the film.” Even in the Padmaavat case the court has recognised the need for artistic freedom stating that “when art dies, civilization will be destroyed”. Thus, our censors must allow a greater degree of creative freedom to artists and interference in their work must be restricted to rare cases of extreme necessity only.

Doesn’t censorship infringe on the right to freedom of expression and creative licence?

Vani Tripathi Tikoo

Like I keep saying, creative freedom is important but it comes with a responsibility. For example, in Tandav, one dialogue, “When a lower caste person sleeps with an upper cast person, it is basically to take revenge”, is a hypersensitive statement to make. I don’t think the film-maker was aware of the consequences of statements like these and it was extremely irresponsible. Political stories will always evince some reaction because that is how our country is. We love to argue on politics, but I feel the reaction should lead to a meaningful debate as to what kind of content is responsible and what is hurtful. At the end of the day, we should be able to differentiate between provocative and hurtful. If a certain kind of sentiment is hurtful to a certain segment of society or a religious group, I think that should absolutely not be done. Having said that, I always feel OTT is democratisation of content and that democratisation shouldn’t be taken away.

Prakash Jha

I wouldn’t comment on this at the moment. Who has seen what will happen tomorrow? Let it go. We must still wait.

Swara Bhasker

It absolutely does and I feel, in any case, our right to freedom of expression is not absolute as compared to the US or European countries where there is a wider kind of freedom of expression. Ours is already very heavily curbed in India even constitutionally. On top of that, in the last seven to eight years, our institutions and public offices just don’t seem to be interested in preserving the personal liberties of the citizens anymore.

We have really come to a place where we have got bullied by the mob. It happened in 2018, when there was such a hue and cry on the film Padmaavat. There were people threatening to cut off Deepika Padukone’s nose. They went to the set and vandalised it and had beaten up Sanjay Leela Bhansali. But nothing happened to those people. The various governments in power, nobody bothered to do anything. Now, Richa Chadha is getting death threats for Madam Chief Minister. This is totally unacceptable.

It makes you speechless looking at the situation. It is harassment and it feels like we are now okay with bullying. Nothing shocks us anymore. The same thing is happening with Tandav. My point is even if there is a problem with a scene, there is a way to address that. Sadly, this kind of behaviour is coming from people who are in power and it is dangerous. We have very unpleasant examples around us when we go down the ideology of dogma and bigotry and uninformed ignorant hate. I don’t want to give the example of Iran, but it is a country that is not very far from us and we have seen what happens when you let the mob triumph in an unchecked manner and when you let the ideology which is all about dogma flourish. We have seen what has happened with the example of Iran right in front of us.

Ranvir Shorey

It is an infringement on the right to freedom. That freedom should be upheld first. As an artiste, I worship the truth and for me, it becomes unbearable to see if the truth is being stifled in any way.

Abha Singh

Any arbitrary restraint of free speech results in a chilling effect which is harmful for any liberal democracy. The Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that freedom of speech and expression is not only a fundamental right but part of the basic structure of the Constitution. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the court adopted a strict scrutiny approach in striking down Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. It held that overbroad and vague legal provisions curtailing free speech were in violation of Article 19 and 21. In the case of Gajanan P. Lasure v. The Central Board of Film Certification, dealing with the movie Aarakshan, the Supreme Court expressly stated, “If the film is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence… It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience.”

In light of this, I believe that there are stringent protections for free speech within the law, which can guarantee protection against overbroad regulations. Usage of overbroad and ambiguous phrases such as “obscenity”, “immorality”, “religious feelings” to restrict constitutionally protected speech leaves a lot of scope for discretion and results in gross abuse of power as evidenced by cases of unnecessary ban on films such as Udta Punjab, Aligarh, NH10, among others. What we need is a simple, well-defined legislation which is narrow and specific in its application and puts films and OTTs on par. The legislature must be mindful of this. Judicial review also acts as a powerful deterrent against any arbitrary legislation. Thus, the courts must remain vigilant.

Does self-censorship work?

Vani Tripathi Tikoo

I think, before the judiciary starts taking things in its hands on what should be screened and what shouldn’t, content creators, content consumers and screening services have to come together. In fact, it is high time that they come together.

We have responded very strongly to women being objectified, and a similar stand must be taken on mindless violence that is becoming the norm on OTT platforms. Violence and use of abusive language is something that the OTT content creators need to regulate themselves. The kind of violence we are seeing on OTT platforms is absolutely deplorable and leaves a long-lasting impact on the impressionable minds of children and younger audience. Simply putting a disclaimer of age is not enough because OTT platforms are becoming a family watched medium. And we should absolutely take this as our responsibility as a society and content creators also need to be sensitive to this.

Prakash Jha

I have always been of the view that we should have regulations and guidelines and not a body that will sit and censor the content. It is our responsibility to make sure that law, human sensibility, cultural and religious values are not hurt and disturbed. The censor board should only classify the content concerning its suitability for different age groups.

Swara Bhasker

Self-censorship should come from a place of responsibility. But that’s not what is happening now. What is happening now is self-censorship out of fear. And that is a terrible thing, it’s almost like bullying people into submission.

Ranvir Shorey

I like to call it self-regulation. I would not call it censorship. Self-regulation is a must for every individual. No society can function without regulation. How can people coexist without regulation? Don’t we follow self-regulation in our daily lives? For an artiste and a content-maker, there has to be some regulation too. Obviously, showcasing bias cannot be the objective of art. The objective is to express the truth. If you are showing bias, the audience has the right to say that this is not the truth. At the same time, you cannot tell the creators or the artistes that this is the truth and they have to show it like that.

Shouldn’t the viewers decide what they will watch?

Prakash Jha

Absolutely, And that is what happens. Individuals and families always have the choice to switch off the content they dislike. Indecent material can’t be widely accepted. It is not that we will not show sex, crime in films but as content producers it must be our responsibility that we do not glorify them.

Swara Bhasker

It is a very totalitarian place to be as a society. You are trying now to control how people think. I don’t know how problematic that is and what a dangerous path that is for our country. We have had two hundred years of British rule and it’s shocking that we are not allowed to value our own freedom. We have so many other social and economic problems. We have an economy that is faltering, farmers who are protesting and your greatest concern is artists, stand-up comedians, actors and writers.

I feel that even for my film Rasbhari they were just laying the ground for what they were trying to do now. There was nothing in Rasbhari that objectified children at all. If there is adult content in a certain show, then kids shouldn’t watch it. There is that famous line, “Not my cup of tea, so don’t drink it.”

Ranvir Shorey

They do have the option to not watch, the option to call it bad, and the right to express whatever they want to. But we cannot have the right to tell the creators what they should or should not make.

—With inputs from Giridhar Jha, Lachmi Deb Roy and Neeraj Jha