After being held up at the Bangladesh Film Censor Board since 2019, Shonibar Bikel has recently received positive response from the Board, although its theatrical release has once again been put into an uncertainty as the Appeal Committee of the Board has decided to review the movie (Prothom Alo, 7 February 2023). Shonibar Bikel is not the only case and many other movies in Bangladesh have been subject to censorship. Last year, famous Bangladeshi artists held protests to express their discontent over censorship regulations, claiming that such broad restriction by censorship undermined artists' ability to perform and speak out. These instances shed light on the need to appraise the laws surrounding censorship in Bangladesh.

Some specific laws in Bangladesh govern censorship of movies. These laws outline the role of the Board to scrutinise films and provide approval for release in alignment with standards of public morality. Notable legislation in this area includes the Cinematograph Act of 1918 which controls the regulation of cinematic exhibitions and the Censorship of Films Act of 1963 (as amended in 2006) which regulates the censorship of cinematograph films. 

The Board determines whether or not a movie is appropriate for the general audience. The Board is comprised of members designated by the government to examine/review and certify films for public screening in Bangladesh (section 3 of the Censorship of Films Act of 1963). The members of the Board come from all areas of life and include social-workers, government officials, educators, journalists, and filmmakers. The Board is broadly guided by rule 13 of the Censorship of Films Rules (1977) and the Code for Censorship of Films (1985) in its function of certifying films. The Board may refuse to provide their clearance to a public exhibition for several grounds, including security, law and order, international relations, religious sensitivities, immorality or obscenity, bestiality, crime, and plagiarism. The aggrieved person has the option to file an appeal against such decision.

Now proceeding to the crux of the issue, what are the shortfalls in these censorship laws or the censorship Board? Firstly, the rules need to provide clear criteria or qualifications for the Board members. Many of them need to gain more technical knowledge of film. Moreover, the grounds for possible censorship could be more specific as the present formulation provides the Board wide discretionary powers. For example, the censorship legislation from 1985 uses vague terms like "vulgarity" as a ground for rejecting an application. The legal grey area surrounding what constitutes an adult scene remains unresolved. Consequently, the provision is subject to interpretation by the Board and may result in the misuse of powers.

In addition, it has been argued by academics and activists that the censorship laws do not reflect the society's evolving norms and values, resulting in censorship decisions that are out of step with modern sentiments. The most prominent example of the outdated nature of these laws is that they still follow the categorisation system. Moreover, the certification process needs more transparency and the public needs to be informed of the certifications given to films and reasons for refusal.

In contrast to censorship, a rating system like in the USA and the UK, which reflects a form of self-regulation by the film industry, is seen as a better alternative. A film rating system indicates a film's suitability for different age groups and serves as a guideline for parents. This rating system is voluntary and not legally binding, allowing filmmakers to create their chosen content.

In short, censorship limits cinema's ability to depict society accurately. Hence, there is a need to revise the film certification laws by introducing a more comprehensive system that categorises films based on age suitability and allows inclusion of other appropriate labels to highlight religious and/or political content. This would provide a more inclusive certification framework and allow the audience to make informed decisions about the films they choose to watch without curtailing artistic freedom.

The Writer is Official Contributor, Law Desk, The Daily Star.