Bombay high court refuses to order certification of Kangana Ranaut’s ‘Emergency’

The two-judge bench underscored the importance of judicial propriety, stating that it could not override the decision of another high court. The judges also noted the substantial financial investments made in the production of the film, emphasizing that the matter should not be left unresolved indefinitely. Despite acknowledging the significant monetary stakes involved, the court held firm in its decision, directing the CBFC to resolve the objections by September 18, 2024​. During the court proceedings, the CBFC’s counsel sought additional time, citing the upcoming Ganpati festival as a reason for the delay. However, the court dismissed this justification, stressing that the certification process could not be further postponed due to external factors. The court criticized the CBFC for not working efficiently and emphasized that festivals should not be used as grounds for delaying official duties. The CBFC, on its part, stated that it had not yet issued a final certification due to the pending objections and ongoing legal disputes. This situation left the film’s release date in limbo, further complicating matters for the filmmakers who had already invested crores of rupees into production and marketing efforts​. The court’s refusal to expedite the certification process for “Emergency” highlights the ongoing struggle between filmmakers’ right to freedom of expression and the sensitivities of various communities. While the CBFC is tasked with ensuring that films adhere to cultural and moral standards, the intervention of external groups in the certification process raises questions about the extent to which artistic freedom is protected in India. Kangana Ranaut’s team reacted strongly to the court’s decision, accusing the CBFC of unlawfully withholding the film’s certification and alleging that political and communal pressures were influencing the board’s actions. Ranaut, known for her outspoken stance on political issues, has often faced criticism and legal challenges over her portrayals and commentary, which some argue cross the line between artistic license and historical accuracy​. The controversy surrounding “Emergency” is not an isolated incident. Indian cinema has frequently been a battleground for debates on free speech, censorship, and historical representation. Films that touch upon politically sensitive subjects often face similar hurdles, as seen with movies like “Padmaavat” and “Udta Punjab,” where community backlash and political influence have played significant roles in shaping their final content and release schedules. The delay in “Emergency’s” certification also serves as a cautionary tale for filmmakers attempting to explore contentious historical or political narratives. It underscores the need for clearer guidelines and greater autonomy for the CBFC to function without undue external pressures, thus safeguarding the creative freedom of artists. The Bombay High Court’s refusal to order immediate certification for Kangana Ranaut’s “Emergency” highlights the complex interplay of legal, social, and political factors that influence film production in India. While the court’s decision is rooted in procedural propriety and respect for prior judicial orders, it also brings to the fore the challenges faced by filmmakers in navigating the sensitive terrain of historical representation. As the CBFC deliberates on the objections raised, the future of “Emergency” hangs in the balance, awaiting a resolution that will hopefully uphold both artistic expression and community sensibilities. The broader implications of this case continue to spark debate on the limits of creative freedom and the role of censorship in Indian cinema, making it a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse on artistic rights and responsibilities​.