BEFORE THE FILM CERTIFICATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Dated-06.03.2019

ADDeal No. 27/2018

Present: CHIEF JUSTICE (RETD.) MANMOHAN SARIN, CHAIRPERSON,

FCAT
MS. P00NAM DHILLON, MEMBER, FCAT

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUSHPINDER KAUR APPELLANT

VERSUS

CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM RESPONDENT

CERTIFICATION(CBFC),MUMBAI

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 5C OF THE CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952 (37 0F 1952)

AGAINST THE DECISION OF CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION (CBFC)
IN RESPECT OF HINDI MOVIE MOO£~JVASJ SHUDRA TO KHA£SA.

FORTHE APPELLANT: Harpreet Singh Jamalpur (Executive

Prouder)
Baba Kamal (Director)
Atinderpal Singh (Ex. M.P.)

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mahesh Kumar (RO, CBFC Delhi)

ORDER

Chief Justice (Retd.) Manmohan Sarin:-

1. This is an appeal preferred by the Appellant assailing the order dated

13.10.2018, passed by the Revising Committee of CBFC refusing Certification for

 the Hindi film ``Moolnivasi Shudra to Khalsa". The rationale given by the

Revising Committee for declining Certification is as follows.

"The Revising Committee unanimously felt that the film is unnecessary

distortion of major historical facts and it is factually misleading. The

presentation of various references in the film can potentially disturb the social

harmony and national integration" .

a 2. This film had been viewed by the Examining Committee of CBFC earlier. The

Committee noted that the film depicted Indus civilization, Aryan invasion, slavery

and atrocitl.es upon aborigines by Aryans, including on the Shudra women. The

impact of Manu laws and Varna system on the society. The film depicted

revolution by Sikh religious leaders, and the adoption of the Khalsa Panth.

3. The Committee was of the view that the film has several factual

misrepresentations and seeks to attach religious connotation to many historical

developments. The presentation was crude and divisive, which can pose a threat

a to social harmony among different communities in India.

4. In the circumstances of the case, the Chairperson of CBFC exercising its

power under Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification Rules 1983) suo-moto

referred the film to the Revising Committee. The Revising Committee thought it

appropriate to seek opinion of two experts, namely, Dr. R.K Cheema and Dr.

Usha. R. Vijyalakshmi, with regard to the historical aspects of picturization in the

film. The said experts in the written notes submitted found factual errors in the
 film. It was also noted that the title of the film ``Shudra to Khalsa`` itself was

misleading since Sikhism had not evolved from Shudras and neither the Sikh

community is made up of Shudras. The basic tenet of Sikhism is uplifting of

downtrodden, protecting the weaker sections and imbibing self-respect with

humane approach. The said experts had concluded that the film contains several

historical distortions.

5. We viewed the film on 22nd December, 2018, when the concerns of the

Tribunal were made known to the Appellants. The Appellant, however, contended

before us that it had not been given an opportunity of being heard before the

Revising Committee. We find from the covering letter to the Impugned Order

dated 30.10.2018, that reproduced the cyclostyled format of being ``provided an

opportunity of hearing before Revising Committee/not availing of the same".

6. The same does not clarify or indicate if the opportunity was given, and then

not availed. The Appellant asserted before us that opportunity was not given and

® the film is based on historical facts, which the Appellant wished to substantiate.

The Appellant sought an opportunity to be given for the same. In the fitness of

things, the Tribunal directed the Registry to make available to the appellant

opinions of the two experts, who had given their views to the Revising

Committee.

7. The Appellant sought one-month's time to present its case on the historical

perspective of there being no historical distortions in the film. Further, Appellant

 wanted to submit a detailed disclaimer and voluntary cuts which they proposed
C'

to offer to address the concerns and objections 4" the impugned order. The

Registry of FCAT duly provided to theAppellant, the . experts'opinion and the

matter was directed to be re-notified on 23rd January, 2019.

8. Formal notice had also been issued for the said date bearing No. 2/27/2018-

FCAT dated 16th January, 2018. However, an email was received from Mr.

Harpreet Singh Jamalpur (Executive Producer) of the movie on 22nd January, 2-

19 in the late evening thatthere had been bereavement in his family on 17th

January 2019. He sought ad].ournment and week's time for submissions to be

fi I ed .

9. The Secretary of the Tribunal vide communication No. 2/27/2018-FCAT

dated 6th February, 2019 noted and intimated that the Appellant had failed to file

its submissions on the historical perspective. However, further time upto 28[h

February, 2019 was granted to file the same, failing which the matter would be

a decided on the basis of the existing record.

10. The Registry has reported that the Appellant has failed to file submissions on

the historical perspective to substantiate its version as portrayed in the film,

Neither the disclaimer nor the voluntary cuts proposed have been filed despite

the opportunity provided.

 11. Considering the material on record including opinion of experts as

available, and the findings of the Revising Committee of CBFC as noted

hereinabove, we are of the view that the impugned order does not call for any

interference in appeal. Besides the Appellant, despite opportunity being given,

has failed to prosecute the appeal.

12. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

fl
---i-----------

1--_
rty\`!`,!th
(POONAM DHILLON) /.
MEMBER (FCAT)

r-i
niEEE Ctll` , •J `--3u-
/,ctfu,` /..(`
(CHIEF JUSTICE (RETD.) MANMOHAN SARIN)
CHAIRPERSON (FCAT)