Today(26th Sept), the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) informed the Bombay High Court that Kangana Ranaut’s film ‘Emergency’ can only be released if specific cuts suggested by the revising committee are made. This response follows a plea from Zee Studios seeking the release of the censor certificate, after the film’s initial September 6 release was postponed due to protests from the Sikh community over alleged misrepresentation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The release of Kangana Ranaut’s much-anticipated film Emergency has hit a roadblock after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) recommended a series of cuts and edits. The Bombay High Court was informed of these developments during a hearing today(26th Sept), where the CBFC explained that the film’s certification is contingent on the filmmakers agreeing to make these changes. The hearing was prompted by a petition filed by Zee Studios, seeking the immediate release of the censor certificate for the film, which was originally scheduled for release on September 6, 2023.
Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, representing the CBFC, informed a bench consisting of Justices BP Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla that the film had undergone scrutiny by the CBFC’s Revising Committee.
“The revising committee of the CBFC recommended several cuts for the film.”
– said Chandrachud during the hearing. The committee recommended these edits after considering protests from the Sikh community, who claimed that Emergency misrepresented their beliefs.
Zee Studios, co-producers of the film, responded through Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani, who submitted documents detailing the committee’s recommendations. According to Jagtiani, the filmmakers were presented with a list of 11 modifications that needed to be made before the film could be cleared for release. This document outlines a mixture of cuts and insertions designed to address concerns raised by the community.
“The 11 proposed modifications include certain cuts and additions to the film. It is now up to the filmmakers to decide whether to accept these changes or contest them.”
– explained Jagtiani during the court session.
The controversy surrounding Emergency erupted when certain factions of the Sikh community voiced objections to specific scenes in the film, accusing it of misrepresenting their beliefs and historical events. These protests led to widespread discussions about the content of the film and its portrayal of the political events surrounding India’s Emergency period.
In their plea, Zee Studios argued that they had been informed on August 29, 2023, that the film was eligible for certification. However, despite this notification, the CBFC had not yet issued a physical copy of the censor certificate, leading to the postponement of the film’s release.
“The Court was hearing a petition from Zee Studios, the film’s co-producers, requesting the release of the film’s censor certificate.”
-explained a source close to the case.
This delay compounded the frustration of the filmmakers, as the release date had already been postponed due to the controversy.
During an earlier hearing on September 4, the Bombay High Court had issued a directive to the CBFC, instructing them to take into account objections raised by the Jabalpur Sikh Sangat and other concerned parties. Despite these instructions, the CBFC did not finalize a decision by the given deadline, prompting the court’s continued involvement in the matter.
“During the previous hearing, the Court noted that despite its September 4 order directing the CBFC to address objections from the Jabalpur Sikh Sangat and other stakeholders regarding the film’s content, the CBFC had not reached a decision.”
-the court noted in its statement.
Given the missed deadline, the High Court expressed concern and directed the CBFC’s Revising Committee to deliver its final decision by September 25, 2023. This date has since passed, and the court adjourned the matter to September 30 for further hearings.
Now, it remains to be seen whether the filmmakers, including Kangana Ranaut and the team at Zee Studios, will agree to the CBFC’s suggested modifications or choose to challenge the decision in court. Should they opt to comply with the changes, the film is likely to receive its censor certificate and move forward with a new release date. However, if the producers contest the cuts, the dispute could prolong the release even further, potentially impacting the film’s box office prospects.
“Following the submission, Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani, the counsel representing Zee, submitted that he would take instructions on whether the cuts should be made,”
-said a source present at the hearing.
This statement indicates that the decision lies in the hands of the filmmakers, who must balance artistic integrity with regulatory approval.
The film Emergency has been one of the most talked-about projects in Bollywood, with Kangana Ranaut not only starring but also directing and producing the movie. Set against the backdrop of the 1975 Emergency imposed by former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the film delves into a turbulent period of India’s political history. However, the inclusion of specific scenes related to the Sikh community has sparked debates and legal challenges, delaying its release.
The Central Board of Film Certification, commonly referred to as the Censor Board, plays a crucial role in regulating the content of films in India. Filmmakers must submit their projects for review, where a committee assesses whether the movie complies with guidelines related to public order, morality, and the sentiments of various communities.
In the case of Emergency, the Revising Committee has taken a stand to ensure that the film does not hurt religious or community-based sentiments.
“The submission was presented to a bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla by advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, representing the CBFC.”
-the court proceedings recorded.
The CBFC’s suggestion for 11 edits comes in response to protests and demands that the film be altered before it is deemed suitable for public viewing. These recommendations must either be implemented by the filmmakers or legally contested.