Bench says film censor’s proposed excisions, other than one pertaining to a child’s abusive remarks in the film, cannot stand in the absence of any stated ground.
Updated 22 Oct, 2026
The Sindh High Court has directed the Sindh Board of Film Censors to reconsider within 10 days the certification for screening of Ghost School in the province.
A two-judge constitutional bench headed by Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed also overturned an earlier decision of the board to remove various expressions and scenes from the film.
British-Pakistani filmmaker Seemab Gul and one of the associate producers Muhammad Yousuf Rehman, through their counsel Moiz Baig and others, have petitioned the SHC impugning the decision of the board.
The counsel submitted that Ghost School was a fictional narrative of a 10-year-old girl discovering that the only school in her village has closed owing to rumours of its being haunted.
They argued that the Sindh Board of Film Censors had subjected the film to eight excisions for the purpose of a certificate for public exhibition under the Universal (U) category as per the Sindh Motion Pictures Act 2011 read with the Sindh Censorship of Film Rules 2014.
They submitted that the film had been cleared for unrestricted exhibition without any excision by the Central Board of Film Censors and Punjab Board of Film Censors, but the Sindh board had declined certification.
In August, the SHC had ordered the board to decide the matter afresh strictly in accordance with relevant law and rules after providing petitioners a meaningful opportunity of hearing.
However, they maintained that as per the decision of the board communicated to the petitioners on Sept 11, they were directed to delete the expressions Biradri ka wadera, Wadera, Kameene, Haram khor and Manhoos siyasatdan wherever they appeared as well as a child’s abusive remark in the school and book and school burning scenes in the closing sequence.
In its order, the bench noted: “A term of social description such as “wadera”, a mild political epithet, mildly abusive words such as “kameene” or “haram khor”, and the depiction of a school’s burning in a film condemning such acts, do not all stand on the same footing and no single unexplained direction can justify them all.”
The bench further said that in its earlier order, the SHC had directed the board to record cogent and intelligible reasons for whatever conclusion it reached, but neither the decision in question nor respondents’ comments reflected anything of the sort and in the absence of any stated ground, the excisions, other than the one pertaining to the child’s abusive remarks, cannot stand.
The court directed the board to reconsider within 10 days the certification of the film and either issue a certificate sanctioning the film for unrestricted public exhibition without requiring any further excision.
It said if the “board is of the view that retaining any one or more of the other identified excisions warrants the film being awarded a certification in a category higher than U, shall afford the petitioners a personal hearing and pass a speaking order relating to its specific concern in each instance”.
Originally published in Dawn, October 21st, 2026
