The honourable Bombay High Court, in its infinite wisdom, has decreed that U/A movies are suitable for ‘unrestricted public viewing’.

About whether the films under U/A certification can be treated as ‘unrestricted public viewing’, the court yesterday observed that the films under U and U/A certification are the same class of films-open for “unrestricted public exhibition”. The only difference is U/A is with a word of caution to parents (proviso) or guardians of children to decide whether the child should be permitted to see the film or not.
[source: Cybernoon.com. For a brief explanation of Indian film censor ratings, click here.]

That’s fine. But the above clarification by the court states very explicitly that the parents/guardians of children should decide whether the child should be permitted to see the film. Doesn’t that make the parents responsible for the content their children are exposed to on television? So if a parent has to decide whether the child can watch a particular movie on TV, surely he/she can make a similar judgement in case of an Adult movie. Why are the parents deemed fit to make one decision but not the other? The court’s pronouncement does not explain this. Or if it does, can someone please enlighten me?

In my opinion, the entire issue boils down to parental control over their children’s viewing habits. It’s an important part of parental duties towards their children to ensure that the kids are not exposed to undesirable influences in their formative years i.e. until they are mature enough to understand the consequences of the decisions they take. Parents cannot shy away from this responsibility and expect the government/courts to do it for them. And the government/courts should not take on such responsibility as it has a bad habit of creating unwarranted precedents.

[Read more →]