Delhi High Court sends documentary on Muzaffarnagar riots to CBFC for review

 The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sent a documentary on Muzaffarnagar riots back to the censor board for reviewing the film to see if a certificate for its public screening can be granted by deleting any scene found objectionable by it.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru directed the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to pass a "speaking order" by giving reasons for any portion of the documentary -- 'En Dino Muzaffarnagar' -- that it finds objectionable.

"If the entire documentary is found violative of the certification guidelines then reasons on how the norms were violated have to be given," the court said.

It also said the CBFC members who would review the documentary shall be other than those who had viewed it earlier and the entire exercise be completed in four weeks.

The court observed, "You (CBFC) can't say the whole documentary is objectionable" while disposing of a petition filed by Meera Chaudhary, wife of late Shubhradeep Chakravorty who made the documentary.

The petition was moved alleging that no detailed reasoning was given by CBFC while denying certification to the documentary. The court said that if CBFC feels its necessary, it may call upon Chaudhary at the time of viewing.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, appearing on behalf of CBFC, assured the court that the documentary will get a fair review. During the proceedings, the ASG opposed the public screening of the documentary, saying it would lead to "flaring up of communal tension as the film is one-sided".

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Meera Chaudhary, said that the public screening of the documentary is being opposed on the mere ground that "it depicts the BJP in a poor light".

He said that CBFC's own counter affidavit says that the documentary is defamatory towards a group and body of individuals. He denied the allegation that the documentary can cause communal disharmony, saying the film is about communal harmony.

The petition had submitted that neither the censor board nor the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) had said in their orders which portions of the documentary on the 2013 riots were objectionable or violative of the guidelines.

It had sought quashing of the August 19, 2014 order of FCAT which had refused to interfere with CBFC's June 30, 2014, decision not to grant certification to the documentary.
The tribunal's observations, including that the documentary was in breach of guidelines of film certification, had also been challenged in the plea.

The petition had said that according to the tribunal, "the film has the potential to create communal disharmony and is highly and openly critical of one political party and its top leadership by name and tends to give an impression of the said party's involvement in communal disturbances".

Chaudhary had disputed the observations, saying the film is an investigative documentation of the riots in Muzaffarnagar and its socio-political fallouts. She had also contended that "the documentary shows the plight of the riot victims as well as strongly pushes the demand for timely justice, compensation for victims and punishment for criminals."

The petition had contended that both FCAT and CBFC "failed to provide a cogent reasoning for refusal to grant certification to the film".

It had alleged that the orders of FCAT and CBFC "appear to have been made to appease large political parties, who in turn want to avert the danger of unearthing the reality of riots and their political linkages".

It was contended in the petition that the film is "merely informative and is aimed at educating the masses and to make people aware of riot-based politics, particularly during elections, that is aimed to polarise voters in favour of one party".

"The movie nowhere incites or communalises the feelings of the viewers," the petition had said while also seeking an interim stay on the orders of the tribunal and the censor board.