A comprehensive review of the outdated cinematograph law is the need of the hour. Appointing another new committee to suggest mere tweaking of rules and procedures is only an eye wash. If the government is genuinely reformist, it should transform the ‘ruling party-controlled’ Censor Board into a professional, autonomous and accountable body. The constitution of the expert committee headed by Shyam Benegal has once again raised hopes about overhauling of the outdated film regulation regime in the country. But, these hopes were short-lived as one looks at the limited mandate given to the committee. After the much-hyped announcement about the setting up of Benegal Committee to ‘revamp’ film censorship, few days back, a casually-drafted, header-less, unsigned communiqué appeared on the websites of Ministry of I&B and NFDC which revealed the committee’s terms of reference: One thing which was repeatedly emphasized in the one-page communiqué was that everything – from Committee’s recommendations to suggestions of film viewers – should be “within the ambit of existing Cinematograph Act, Rules and Guidelines”! This means the committee can, at best, suggest amendments to the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, so as to streamline the internal functioning of Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and lay down some principles to give contemporary interpretation to the ‘film certification guidelines’. The Mukul Mudgal Committee In 2013, the Mukul Mudgal committee gave its 17-page report along with a draft Cinematograph Bill, 2013. Except few new suggestions such as introduction of 12+, 15+ ratings in place of ‘U/A’, pre-screening of lyrics, expanding the jurisdiction of appellate tribunal etc., there is nothing modern about Mudgal recommendations. The committee retained the regressive ‘govt.-controlled’ scheme of colonial era. It didn’t venture to rectify the fundamental defect in the present scheme, i.e., absolute lack of autonomy for CBFC and hegemony of central government on almost all aspects of film censorship i.e., appointing ‘their own men’ to man the Board and advisory panels, ‘revisional’ powers over the decisions of ‘statutory’ board, ‘notifying’ film certification guidelines etc. Surprisingly, there was no discussion at all on the way the committee sought to perpetuate the same old set-up, characterised by overwhelming State dominance and organised patronage. Seen in this backdrop, the narrow remit given to the Benegal committee is particularly appalling and reflects the insincere and ad hocist approach of government towards film censorship reform. No debate on the fundamental flaw Debates on film censorship in India had been sporadic and mostly forgotten by the end of the day. Often, they are centred around emotional statements by film celebrities or occasioned by some controversies e.g., ‘Viswaroopam’ episode in 2013 or the recent ‘national-level’ debate on pruning a kissing scene in the ‘U/A’-rated film, ‘Spectre’. A sustained and meaningful debate on the core issues affecting film censorship is conspicuous by its absence. What is fundamentally wrong with Indian film censorship was painstakingly analysed by Khosla Committee, way back in 1969 itself. It recommended a clear cut remedy too, i.e., to make the film regulation board, ‘independent’ and ‘autonomous’. The Khosla report, which even won the accolades of Supreme Court, concluded thus: “…Here we may reiterate the most important defect, namely, the lack of responsibility which the present system entails…The rigidity of a code drawn up by a superior power, the inhibition and lack of flexibility…constant fear of interference…are features which not only destroy the efficiency of the board but arouse almost universal condemnation of its decisions. It is important, therefore, that state censorship should be exercised…by an independent body which has been given sufficient authority and a sufficient sense of responsibility to deal with the matter finally and irrevocably.” Given the reluctance of successive governments in parting with their control over a ‘cultural institution’ like Censor Board, it is hardly surprising that the Khosla recommendations were completely ignored and died their natural death. Interestingly, for an RTI query, the Ministry of I&B replied that it doesn’t have a copy of Khosla report! In 2013, in the wake of controversy around certification of an adult comedy (‘Grand Masti’), Smt. Leela Samson, former chairperson, CBFC, in an e-mail to the then Minister, I&B aired her exasperation about the quality of ‘advisory panel’ members who actually certify films. The poignant words of Smt.