Udta Punjab: The film that challenged Indian censorship norms

Udta Punjab, a Bollywood film giving an unvarnished view of the drugs trade in Punjab, won a general release in India after a court challenge questioning cuts ordered by the Central Board of Film Certification. A review of film certification is due to be discussed by parliament.

Shahid Kapoor in the indie film Udta Punjab, released with only one cut despite CBFC attempts of wider censorship. Courtesy Balaji Motion Pictures.
Powered by automated translation

Udta Punjab (Punjab Flying High) might make history as the movie that brought a revolution to Indian filmmaking.

The hard-hitting Bollywood drama, which exposed the scale of Punjab’s drug problem, was released in June after a court battle against India’s Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) that had ordered 94 cuts.

The board had deemed the film unfit for public viewing because of its strong language and scenes of violence and drug-taking. The CBFC also argued that setting the film in the northern state of Punjab would damage the region’s reputation and discourage tourism and investment.

Of even greater concern for the government-appointed organisation, however, was the depiction of a thriving narcotics trade fuelled by police corruption and incompetence.

The CBFC had demanded the filmmakers add a disclaimer that the film was fiction, stating that the Punjab government was doing its utmost to curb drugtaking. As a prolific indie filmmaker who challenges the status quo, Anurag Kashyap, the film’s co-producer, refused to comply.

The powers of CBFC include "guiding a filmmaker for excisions or modifications in the film as it deems necessary before granting it a certificate," says Ameet Naik, a media and entertainment lawyer from Mumbai who represented the Udta Punjab case. The board also acts as a censor, working within the guidelines of India's Cinematograph Act (1952), which has only been updated twice since its inception, the last time, 25 years ago.

Certification can only be refused to a film that poses a threat to India’s sovereignty, uses too many profanities without context, or is indecent and immoral, according to the act. In the past, the vague nature of these categories has given CBFC members plenty of scope to impose a set of moral values on filmmakers.

Excessive censorship has shown the board's conservativism, leading to spats with filmmakers: the James Bond film Spectre (2015) had kissing scenes reduced; Aligarh, which recounts the story of a gay college professor, was approved only with an adult rating because the board believed homosexuality should not be discussed with a teenage audience.

But the producer of Udta Punjab won the day and the film was released in June with just one cut. The court ruled that dialogue and lyrics with explicit words should be permitted because a film is a work of art, which "should be viewed in its entirety". "Suggesting many cuts would be counter-productive," and would "discourage" filmmakers, it added.

However, the subsequent fate of some Hindi films that applied for certification does not suggest the Udta Punjab case changed the CBFC. The film, Haraamkhor (The Wretched), was declined certification in June because of its "unacceptable" theme of a married teacher's relationship with his teenage student. Ironically, the movie has been doing the rounds in the film festival circuit for a year and was praised "for skillfully combining drama and light humour to tackle important social themes", says co-producer Guneet Monga.

“It’s heartening when people at international fests tell me about being a commendable voice from the Indian film community.

“But when I come home and don’t get a certification for my film in my own country, I almost feel like I lead a bipolar life.”

The film community has been vocal in proclaiming Indian censorship outdated. “I don’t see any point in a bunch of individuals deciding what the audiences should see or not see in this age,” Monga says. “Censoring doesn’t help when unedited copies can be distributed digitally.”

Films refused general release are sometimes released on YouTube.

CBFC member George Baker, 70, says: “If there is no censorship, pornography will become an evening pastime for kids... The CBFC looks at social sensibilities, which cannot be ignored for freedom of expression.”

Even before the Udta Punjab controversy, the Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting established the Shyam Benegal Committee (SBC) to look into revising the 1952 act, with a government minister promising filmmakers in June, "radical changes soon".

The findings will be discussed in parliament next month. If implemented, “it would achieve a twin-goal of protecting freedom of expression of filmmakers and ensure that the role of CBFC is limited to certifying films,” says Naik.

The SBC has recommended the CBFC’s power to cut is curtailed. As a certification body, the CBFC is not responsible to ensure the aesthetic composition of a film or “clean and healthy entertainment”, it concluded.

The SBC’s guidelines would close loopholes in the act. A new “adult with caution” category for films with nudity, violence and explicit content would not allow much room for the CBFC to exercise its preferences, says Naik.

If a film still cannot be certified under the categories, the onus for editing and changes will lie with the filmmaker, obviating the censorship role of the CBFC. If parliament agrees, filmmakers will get new certification guidelines after decades of waiting.

Priti Salian is a freelance journalist based in Bangalore.