“In the past, there was a lot of ping-pong, as a film went back and forth from the Tribunal to the Review Committee. Many agencies, departments and tribunals today, are redundant. If CBFC can be competed with, then what’s the point? I always wondered why we needed the FCAT. If [a filmmaker] has a problem with the board’s decision, he can go to court,” he says, adding that the industry has too many agencies, which, when not exploited to their potential, leaves the industry with “buildings, offices, and infrastructure that is not required.”

In a bid to make a case, Agnihotri highlights that following the appointment of Prasoon Joshi in place of the controversial Pahlaj Nihalani, “there has been no controversy” associated with their decisions. “In fact, we passed Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s controversial film Padmaavat,” he says, matter-of-factly.

Poll

Who will win the Punjab Elections?

BJP 32.86%

AAP 41.43%

INC 25.71%

Submit

View All In Poll

Nihalani, whose reign as chief of the Board was mired in controversy given his tendency to demand for arguably unnecessary cuts, is, surprisingly, not in favour of the decision. “FCAT was an option for filmmakers to get justice, and that layer has been abolished. Dropping the Tribunal is risky, expensive, and time-consuming because a filmmaker will now need to pay an advocate, and wait for the decision of the court. It makes the CBFC the supreme power. If somebody wants to harass a filmmaker, then the option of appealing to FCAT [at a nominal fee], is no longer available,” says Nihalani, adding that should the government perceive the tribunal as a redundant body, then the CBFC’s entity too should be questioned. “If they feel OTT platforms and television don’t require certification and can function through self-regulatory bodies, why not have the same process for movies too? Or, follow in the footsteps of [American films], where a film’s suitability is decided upon by a self-regulatory body comprising industry members.”

The FCAT was constituted in 1983