E-Paper
HC reprieve for film on Jat agitation
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) on Wednesday directed the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) to hear afresh an appeal filed by filmmaker Ritu Ruhil, challenging the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) order directing her to produce a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Haryana government for granting censor certification for her documentary film, Cheer Haran.The documentary film allegedly depicts true events that took place during the Jat agitation of February 2016 over Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation, and during which 31 youth lost their lives.
A division bench of justices SC Dharmadhikari and RI Chagla remanded Ruhil’s appeal for a fresh hearing after advocate Advait Sethna, representing CBFC, said FCAT had agreed to consider the appeal on its merits, although it was filed beyond the statutory limit of 60 days.
The documentary, which received accolades from viewers in United Kingdom and the United States of America, has not been released in India. “The film is a depiction of true events from a human point of view,” said her petition filed through advocate Ankita Singhania. It states that the film is based on research and hundreds of interviews of family members of victims, government officials, political leaders, representatives of social organisations, sociologists, etc.
Ruhil had in December 2017 applied for a censor certification for public exhibition of the film in India. A fortnight later, CBFC informed her that the film was viewed by the examining committee, which found it fit for unrestricted public exhibition, but with certain cuts. The committee also asked her to obtain an NOC from the Haryana government, as a precondition for granting the UA certification. Ruhil made the necessary cuts and approached the CBFC review committee and while the matter was pending, she tried to seek an NOC from Haryana government, but failed to obtain one. Eventually, on April 5, 2018, CBFC informed her that the plea had been rejected, compelling her to approach FCAT.
FCAT accepted her contention and deprecated the practice of asking filmmakers to obtain NOCs, and observed that the imposition of the condition was not tenable in law. It, however, refused to entertain Ruhil’s appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the statutory limitation of 60 days. Ruhil then moved the HC.