The other day, Youreka Cinema School, the producer of the film Lakshmi-Lawrence Kadhal filed an appeal at the Madras High Court seeking its interference in the non-issuance of certificate by the Censor Board. Recently, the board denied the certificate for Lakshmi-Lawrence Kadhal, because it argued that the film has lines and scenes showing contempt for religious organisations and deemed the film not appropriate for public viewing. In the counter affidavit it filed against the appeal, the Censor Board maintained its stance.
D Balamurali of the Board's Chennai Regional Office stated that the organisation certifies movies for public viewing on TV channels and in cinema halls in adherence to the the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024.
Balamurali also added that Section 5B(2) of the 1952 Act gives the Centre the power to issues directions such as those it may deem appropriate, detailing the principles that guide the Censor Board in sanctioning movies for public screening. Using this kind of power, the Government issued extensive guidelines to help the Censor Board's examining committee and revising committee members make a decision.
Henceforth, the board has been responsible for ensuring the absence of visuals or dialogues contemptuous of organisations, such as religious or racial groups, endorsing obscurantist, communal, anti-national, and anti-scientific sentiments. It must also confirm that public order never comes under threat due to the screening of a film.
Accordingly, both CBFC committees has deemed Lakshmi-Lawrence Kadhal unsuitable for certification since the film "portrays its interpretation of various belief systems in their adaption of modern science, rituals based on beliefs, treatment of women and downtrodden and caste-based discrimination and consistently portrays one belief system in bad light and the other one as emancipating."
Further, the board's counter affidavit added, “the refusal of certification is not founded upon any stray or isolated scene or dialogue, but upon the cumulative effect of the film viewed in its entirety. The film, as a whole, persistently portrays a particular section of society in a derogatory and prejudicial manner. The potential for incitement of disharmony and social unrest is not speculative but imminent and real.”
