Have you ever wondered if a film or a collection of songs you’ve seen or heard has gone through the official censorship process in India? This is a crucial question for creators, consumers, and anyone concerned about the content being legally released. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, empowers citizens to seek such information. This article explores a case where an RTI applicant sought details about the censor board approval for a collection of songs, highlighting how the RTI Act can be used to uncover information about content certification and the challenges that may arise.
Background: What Information Was Sought
In this particular RTI case, the applicant had a serious concern: they believed an unauthorized individual had obtained approval from the censor board for a collection of songs. To substantiate their claim and seek clarity, the applicant provided the Public Information Officer (PIO) with crucial evidence. This included a script of the songs, an audio cassette, and a video album created person they suspected of being unauthorized. The core of their RTI application was to obtain the name and address of this individual who allegedly secured the censor board’s approval.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) initially responded that a mandatory certificate was required for the information to be provided. Since the applicant had not enclosed the certificate issued Central Board of Films Certification (CBFC), the PIO deemed it impossible to furnish the requested details. The PIO also pointed out a crucial fact: if the video was being sold in the market without the necessary certification, it could be legally declared as illegal. This response highlighted the importance of proper documentation in RTI applications, especially when dealing with regulatory bodies like the CBFC.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
Undeterred, the appellant took the matter to the Central Information Commission (CIC). Before the CIC, the appellant argued that they had submitted the lyrics of the songs, and the PIO should be able to identify the specific film or collection of songs because the CBFC maintains records of such lyrics. The PIO, however, reiterated their earlier stance. They explained that the CD/DVD submitted appellant lacked any censorship certificate. This made it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to identify the specific content from the vast number of certifications processed annually. The PIO stated that the CBFC passes over 6000 such CD/DVDs every year, making it a monumental task to trace a particular piece of content without its official certification details.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The Central Information Commission (CIC) ultimately rejected the appeal. The Commission’s reasoning was straightforward and practical. They acknowledged that with the CBFC certifying over 6000 short films and similar content annually, it was an unreasonable expectation for the PIO to identify a particular film or collection of songs and confirm its approval status without the essential censorship certificate. The absence of this certificate made it impossible for the authorities to verify the appellant’s claims. This decision underscores the importance of providing all necessary supporting documents and specific identifiers when filing an RTI application, especially when seeking information from large public authorities processing a high volume of records.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Provide Complete Documentation: Always ensure your RTI application includes all relevant documents, certificates, or identifying details. In this case, the absence of the censorship certificate was the primary reason for the denial of information.
- Lesson 2: Be Specific in Your Request: While the appellant provided the script and audio-visual material, a more specific identifier like a film title, producer’s name, or even a reference number related to the alleged approval could have strengthened their case.
- Lesson 3: Understand the PIO’s Limitations: Public Information Officers are bound information available to them and the procedures in place. When dealing with high-volume data, they may require specific pointers to locate information efficiently.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Public Authority: Determine which public authority holds the information you seek. For censor board approvals, it would be the Central Board of Films Certification (CBFC) or a relevant regional office.
- Draft Your RTI Application: Clearly state the information you are seeking. Be as specific as possible and attach any supporting documents you have.
- Pay the Fee: Submit the prescribed RTI application fee.
- Await the PIO’s Response: The PIO is expected to respond within 30 days as per Section 7 of the RTI Act. If you are not satisfied or do not receive a response, you can file a First Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act.
Sample RTI question you can use:
“Please provide the details of the censorship certificate, including the certificate number, date of issue, and the name of the applicant, for the collection of songs titled ‘[Song Collection Title]’ produced by [Producer’s Name, if known], as evidenced attached script/audio/video [mention what you are attaching].”
Conclusion
The RTI Act is a powerful tool for transparency and accountability. While this case highlights the challenges of obtaining information without proper documentation, it also emphasizes the importance of citizen engagement in seeking clarity on matters of public interest. the requirements and employing a strategic approach, citizens can effectively utilize the RTI Act to access information, including details about censor board approvals, and contribute to a more informed society. Remember, a well-drafted RTI application with all necessary supporting evidence significantly increases your chances of success.
