Udta Punjab Case Explained | Phantom Films v CBFC (2016)

Case 23 of 30 in Law Easy's Media Law series. Phantom Films v. Central Board of Film Certification, Bombay High Court, decided 2016. FACTS The film Udta Punjab showed drug addiction among the youth of Punjab. The producers asked for an adult certificate, but the Revising Committee demanded 13 cuts, including removing the names of Punjab and its towns, references to elections and politicians, close shots of drug injections and abusive words. WHAT THE COURT HELD In June 2016 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in a judgment by Justice S. C. Dharmadhikari, set aside all the cuts except one and a change in the disclaimer. The film's central theme was the menace of drugs, a few shots of injections do not glamorise drug use, and stray lines do not insult a whole state. The Board must certify films according to law, not demand unnecessary cuts, and it was directed to issue an adult certificate within 48 hours. EXAM POINT Certification applies legal standards; it does not exist to make every film flattering. PREVIOUS CASE: Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India - https://youtu.be/-VNUm2rcrEo NEXT CASE: Viacom 18 Media v. Union of India - https://youtu.be/pAr0NCYUV5w FULL PLAYLIST (all 30 cases in order): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLY-t71WbMh6k COMPLETE LECTURE (all 30 cases, 1 hour 52 minutes): https://youtu.be/8AFvktrLPM4 Made for LL.B. students and for CLAT PG, UGC NET Law and judiciary exam preparation. Subscribe to Law Easy for the full law course. Notes: https://www.thelaweasy.com #MediaLaw #UdtaPunjab #LawEasy