HOW TO CRACK THE CODE OF

CLAT?

Submitted by: Submitted to:

SHIVANGI TIWARI Mr. JEEVAN SAGAR

Roll no: 136

Hidayatullah National Law

University
New Raipur (C.G.)
 Sivanandam |I

Declaration

I, S. S. Shri Lakshmi hereby declare that, this project entitled, ‘Censorship in Indian

Media’ submitted to Hidayatullah National Law University (Raipur), is record of an original

work done by me under the guidance of Mrs. Alka Mehta, Faculty Member, H.N.L.U.,

Raipur and that no part of this work has been plagiarized.

Signature of the student Signature of the Examiner

S.S. Shri Lakshmi Mrs. Alka Mehta

Semester: I (faculty of English language)

Roll no:
 S i v a n a n d a m | II

Acknowledgements

I, SHIVANGI TIWARI, would like to humbly present this project to Mr. JEEVAN

SAGAR. I would first of all like to express my most sincere gratitude to Mr. JEEVAN

SAGAR for his encouragement and guidance regarding several aspects of this project. I am

thankful for being given the opportunity of doing a project on ‘HOW TO CRACK THE

CODE OF CLAT?.’

I am thankful to the IT lab assistants and the library staffs for facilitating my research by

helping me obtain the required material that was so integral to my completing this project.

I am thankful to my parents for their constant support and loving encouragement.

Last but definitely not the least; I am thankful to all the teaching and non teaching staff for

their support, tips and valuable advice whenever needed. I hereby present this project with a

humble heart.

SHIVANGI TIWARI

Semester I

Section B22
 S i v a n a n d a m | III

Table of Contents

 Declaration.....................................................................................................................I

 Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................II

 Abstract........................................................................................................................IV

 Introduction...................................................................................................................1

 History of Censorship in Indian Media.........................................................................3

 Censorship in Indian Television.....................................................................................4

 Central Board of Film Certification..............................................................................6

 Censorship in the Indian Internet..................................................................................8

 Indian Censorship in Comparison with Global Society................................................9

 Conclusion....................................................................................................................12

 References....................................................................................................................14
 S i v a n a n d a m | IV

Abstract

This paper reviews the violation of the fundamental right to speech and expression by the

government of India vis-à-vis censorship in the country’s media.

In the first section of the project, the author defines censorship and talks about the history of

censorship in Indian media.

In the second section, the author goes on to discuss the abuse of authority by The Central

Board of Film Certification in India. The censorship that is prevalent in India’s social media

platforms is also discussed. Further, the Indian media is compared to that of other nations

around the world.

The last section of this project covers the effect that the continued censorship has had on the

Indian media and the future of India regarding the same.

Sivanandam |V
Sivanandam |6
 Page |1

Introduction

Last year, at least 21 cases of censorship were reported against broadcast and print media in

India1. Reporters without Borders has ranked India a lowly 136 out of 180 countries

(provisional data from 2017), stating that “journalists and bloggers are attacked and

anathematized by various religious groups that are quick to take offence”

Not only this, but in the first four months of last year, 22 cases of attacks against journalists

were reported. The bulk of these cases occurred in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu

and Chhattisgarh, where civil society activists, lawyers, intellectuals and journalists have

been hauled up for allegedly siding with the Maoists. In the case of Tamil Nadu, at least 55

cases were slapped on people who were allegedly speculating about the health of the ex-chief

minister J Jayalalithaa.

The Editors Guild of India, which represents both magazine and print editors, has released

information, that in far flung areas like Jharkhand, bureaus have been disbanded and

stringers2 are hired to collect information so that the media houses may deny any liability of

attachment with those journalists when the government questions their actions.

Cases of censorship not only result in the news channels publishing insufficient or misleading

news, but they also decrease the amount of trust that the civilians hold in their information

sources and makes them question the role that the government has played in this information

reaching them.

In conclusion, we hold that such censorship allows the government to become tyrannical as

they face no questioning or opposition from the media or the fourth pillar of democracy. As a
 Sivanandam |2

result of this, the decisions taken by the government have no repercussions and the concept of

democracy in itself becomes void as they are not held liable to the people of the nation.

________________
1
Bhushan, Sandeep, NDTV India ban: There’s a rise in number of cases where media is the target, http://www.
hindustantimes.com/analysis/ndtv-india-ban-there-s-a-rise-in-number-of-cases-where-media-is-the-target/story-
rMWa1dJDayWDXXFUDUF4kN.html (accessed on: 4th August, 2017)
 Sivanandam |3

2
A newspaper correspondent who is retained on a part-time basis (accessed on: 4th August, 2017)

Chapter One
History of Censorship in Indian Media:

Although the Indian media today is ranked poorly in terms of freedom of expression, the fact

remains that the media has grown greatly since the British times.

One of the most influential events of the second millennium was the invention of the printing

press by Johannes Gutenberg. The printing press facilitated the quick making of books by

transferring ink onto an immediate surface medium, such as paper or cloth. One of the

earliest books to be widely printed by this press was the Bible, after which novels and

theorems on inventions began to be published using this versatile machine.

The British entry into India brought about wide spread knowledge regarding mass media

(including postal and telegraph services) however, it remained accessible only to a niche

group of Indians, and was otherwise used only for the service of the British diaspora.

The fact always remained that it was never easy for an Indian to express his views, especially

if it was anti-British, during the colonial period. Often times, these Indians were jailed or

tortured and were used as examples to help subdue further opposition.

Laws like the Vernacular Press Act (1878) that curbed media dissent and censored the

contents of the newspapers were passed by the British parliament in order to discourage

information dissemination regarding the workings of British Raj to the Indian man.

Despite there being so many barriers to the free speech of the media, nationalist Indian

newspapers such as Kesari (Bal Gangadhar Tilak), Commonweal (Anne Besant) and Bombay

Chronicle (Pherozeshah Mehta) played a large role in the Indian freedom struggle. These
 Sivanandam |4

newspapers wrote articles on discriminatory British politics and educated the common Indian

man on his rights, thus leading to the subsequent freedom revolution.

Censorship in Indian Television:

Before 1991, the year of liberalisation, Doordarshan was one of the only channels available

on Indian television. This channel acted as an agent of the incumbent government by

supporting and explaining the multiple reforms brought about by that particular government.

As a part of liberalisation however, several private players entered the Indian market and

began to give the viewers a different perspective on the same topic. This can be seen even

today, with the spread of not only national news channels, but also several regional news

channels delivered in the local languages of different Indian states. Examples of such

channels include- Manorama news, Mi Marathi, Odisha TV, Zee Punjabi etc.

The government uses several different mechanisms to curb the powers of the Indian media.

The apex body that oversees the systematic functions of each section of the media in India is

the Federal Communications Commission or the FCC. The most heavily government-

regulated entities are the broadcast media. Television and radio media professionals are

subject to a host of rules and regulations that yield hefty fines if violated.

The print media, such as newspapers and magazines, remain largely unregulated. However,

issues involving such offenses like slander can result in large payouts to people that sue the

publications.

Especially due to the draconian Indian law of ‘sedition’ that is present as a part of the Indian

Penal Code even today, several media houses are fearful that their news might be interpreted
 Sivanandam |5

as sedition and thus refrain from taking a harsh or an opinionated stand on the incumbent

government’s action.

On August 7th 2015, the incumbent government threatened to revoke the licenses of three

Indian television networks, accusing them of having “cast aspersions on the integrity of

India’s judicial system.” The government claimed that by showing interviews during news

broadcasts that criticized the execution of Yakub Memon, hanged last month for bombings in

Mumbai in 1993 that killed 257 people, these news channels had cast aspersions on the

Supreme Court of India.

Not only was this a hasty decision on the part of the government, but it also quickly proved

the government’s low tolerance for opposition. After all, isn’t the purpose of law to listen to

both sides of the debate thoroughly before making a specific decision? In cases such as these

especially in those involving the trial of an alien enemy, the support of the media is a huge

requirement due to the fact that the government in intrinsically biased in the favour of the

State in such cases. When the media is censored by the government regarding these issues

this results in the tipping of the hypothetical judicial scales.

 Sivanandam |6

Chapter Two

Central Board of Film Certification:

Movies have been considered one of the most potent tools of expression since their inception

decades back. It has been seen as a medium through which a larger picture of the society is

depicted on screen. It has been a source of introspection and has often tended to bring about a

positive change in the society.

Movies often break the boundaries and depict atypical or idealistic situations in order to open

up different paradigms of thought to the society. However, due to the heavy censorship that

the Indian film industry faces, breaking social stereotypes via entertainment forums has

continuously become more difficult.

The current chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in India is Shri

Pahlaj Nihalani. Immediately after his appointment as the chairperson in the year of 2015,

Nihalani issued a strict set of guidelines against things like swearing (even in A rated films)

and vowed to make sure that religious beliefs weren’t disrespected by films.

Freedom of speech and expression is one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed under the

Indian constitution. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies 3

of which India prides itself to be a part of. It has been widely accepted that cinema being a

mode of expression of thoughts gets construed under the protection provided under Article

19(1)(a). It is true that article 19(2) lays down reasonable restrictions on the grounds of

interests of sovereignty, security, decency, morality etc. but the interpretation of the same

seems to be distorted by Pahlaj Nihalani.

 Sivanandam |7

The Cinematograph Act of 1952, which dictates the laws regarding the Indian cinema

industry, was derived from colonial censorship laws. But the world has changed dramatically:

audiences no longer run out of movie halls like they did watching The Arrival of a Train,

fearful of the locomotive advancing towards them. The average ‘visual literacy level’ has

gone up dramatically in this age of 24x7 access to some form of audiovisual media.

Under the Cinematographic Act of 1952 which regulates the Indian movie industry, there is

very little scope for censorship by the CBFC. Only those movies that fall into the scope of

reasonable restrictions can be asked to review and remake those parts of their film. However,

this is not the case today- whereby the censor board blatantly misuses the powers handed to

it. Neither the judiciary nor the incumbent government has taken active steps to curb its

powers, which shows the high level of creative insensitivity that this nation has.

Recently, this circus of censorship reached its peak when the movie ‘Lipstick under my

Burkha’ was not certified by the CBFC, thus effectively preventing the screening of the

movie. A copy of the CBFC’s letter to the film’s producer Prakash Jha states: “The story is

lady oriented, their fantasy about life. There are continuous sexual scenes, abusive words,

audio pornography and a bit sensitive touch about one particular section of society, hence

film refused.” 4

Similarly, other movies in the industry such as the Malayalam movie ‘Ka Body Scapes,’ the

English movies- Unfreedom, Dazed in Doon and the documentary- Inshallah, Football have

all been prevented from being screened in Indian movie theatres.

________________

3
Sarkar, Subhradipta, Banning Films on Article 19(1)(A), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/fban.htm
(accessed on: 8th August, 2017)
4
Censor Board Refuses to Certify Lipstick Under My Burkha, http://www.thehindu.com/entert
ainment/movies/censor-board-refuses-certificate-to-lady-oriented-lipstick-under-my-burkha/article1735393
9.ece (accessed on: 6th August, 2017
 Sivanandam |8

Censorship in the Indian Internet:

Unlike that in the case of films, censorship, in the official sense of the word, is currently not

in place in India when it comes to social media. However, Section 66A of the Information

Technology Act states that: "Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a

communication device

(a) Any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character,

(b) Any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance,

inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill

will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,

(c) Any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or

inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such

messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years

and with fine."

From the above definition of the Act, we can deduce that there are several subjective terms

mentioned in the act, such as “grossly offensive” or “causing annoyance”, hence resulting in

a lot of loopholes in this section. Several common persons came under the scanner for what

they posted on social media, thanks to this Act. Consequently, there were a lot of protests and

loud uproars over individuals’ freedom of speech and expression being curbed by the law.

Let us consider a case study. In the year of 2012, the arrests of two girls- Shaheen Dhada and

Rinu Srinivasan5 shook the very ideals that our nation as democracy is based on, due to the

reason for which they were detained in prison for an arbitrary period of 24 hours.
 Sivanandam |9

The complainant Bhushan Sankhe, who was a member of the Shiv Sena, had taken offence at

Dhada's post on social networking site Facebook regarding the shutdown following Bal

Thackeray's death. Allegedly she had suggested that his death need not require a total

shutdown and that we should remember other leaders such as Bhagat Singh or Sukhdev

instead. Rinu Srinivasan had simply 'liked' the comment on Facebook. The girls' subsequent

arrest had sparked a nationwide outrage which embarrassed the Maharashtra government and

forced them to take immediate conciliatory measures such as suspending those police officers

who had arrested the girls in the first place.

The fact that the police detained a girl solely based on an opinion that she shared on

Facebook and another girl because she agreed to that said opinion, in itself portrays India in

the wrong light to the international community. The vigilance of the civil society in this case

made sure that the fundamental rights of these two girls weren’t further violated.

________________
5
http://www.news18.com/news/india/thackeray-fb-post-case-closed-against-palghar-girls-588170.html (accessed
on 7th August, 2017)

Indian Censorship in Comparison with Global Society:

The Committee to Protect Journalists release a report every year regarding the most censored

countries in the world. Eritrea has been declared the most censored country, followed by

North Korea and Saudi Arabia. Other countries such as Iran and Myanmar are also a part of

this infamous list.

On the other hand the Reporters without Borders organisation released the 2017 World Press

Freedom Index which placed Norway as the most progressive nation in terms of its

transparency when it comes to media. Norway is successively followed by Sweden and

Finland in the list. Other nations amongst the top ten names include Switzerland, Belgium

and Iceland.
 S i v a n a n d a m | 10

In the same list, India is placed 136th. Although most of India’s neighbours such as Sri Lanka,

Pakistan and Bangladesh fare worse than India on the list, it remains that India is far behind

than several other developing countries on the list.

Happenings such as the jailing of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Student Union president

Kanhaiya Kumar for alleged sedition against the country, prevention of the filming of several

movies or cases such as the blacklisting of news channels in support of people like Yakub

Memon only decrease the quality of the image that the global community holds regarding the

situation of censorship in India.

A report by ‘The Hoot’ released on World Press Freedom Days concerning the attacks, bans

and censorships in India, mentions that India today faces an overall sense of shrinking liberty.

They also state that the Indian press can never truly be free due to the restrictions on the

rights of citizens to information, internet access and online freedom as well as several

personal freedoms.

The report describes 2016 as the year when sedition ‘went viral’ with 40 cases being filed

against individuals or groups in various courts6. It was also the year whereby the Supreme

Court passed several orders on defamation and sedition.

Further, other reports go on to summarise India in manners such as this:

“With Hindu nationalists trying to purge all manifestations of “anti-national” thought from

the national debate, self-censorship is growing in the mainstream media. Journalists are

increasingly the targets of online smear campaigns by the most radical nationalists who-

________________

6
Johari, Arefa, Attacks, Bans, Censorship: On World Press Freedom Day, A Report on India’s ‘Shrinking
liberty’, https://scroll.in/article/836394/attacks-bans-censorship-on-world-press-freedom-day-a-report-on-indias-
shrinking-liberty
 S i v a n a n d a m | 11

-vilify them and even threaten physical reprisals. Prosecutions are also used to gag journalists

who are overly critical of the government, with some prosecutors invoking Section 124a of

the penal code, under which “sedition” is punishable by life imprisonment. No journalist has

so far been convicted of sedition but the threat encourages self-censorship.

The government has also introduced new foreign funding regulations to limit international

influence. Coverage of regions that the authorities regard as sensitive, such as Kashmir,

continues to be very difficult, and there are no protective mechanisms. On the first day of a

wave of protests in Kashmir in July 2016, the internet was cut by the military and was often

interrupted thereafter to prevent communication between protesters and prevent coverage by

the media and citizen journalists. Journalists working for local media outlets are often the

targets of violence by soldiers acting with the central government’s tacit consent.”
 S i v a n a n d a m | 12

Conclusion

Censoring movies, television channels or other sources of media in the name of maintaining

public peace, respecting emotions of people etc. are simply unacceptable in this day and age

of free expression. It is always the best that the viewers themselves watch it and form their

own opinion. General public in a country like ours may be devoid of proper education but not

always of common sense. It is groups with tampered prejudices who deliberately distort the

subject matter and mislead other people to serve their own purposes.

Conversely, no group takes the role of a proper guide. Subsequent to an elaborate analysis of

all those incidents, judgments and laws, the activities and rationale of having a Censor Board

becomes highly debatable. If at all we need to have such a body, it needs to be more

autonomous rather than to be a puppet in the hands of the Government. Besides, scrapping

movies regardless of clearance from the Censor Board is not only an arbitrary act but a

dangerous trend of heightened intolerance. It is imperative to enact a new law regarding this

issue.

In the prevailing circumstances, it is better to have a rating body than a Censor Board of the

very nature we have at present. The extent of censoring power should be very limited. The

most important criteria regarding such body should be that the Government can forward its

recommendations but the decision must be taken by it independently. The power of

censorship delegated to the States has to be narrowed down drastically.

The power to impose restrictions is not the power which is available for exercise in an

arbitrary manner or for the purpose of promoting the interest of those in power or suppressing

dissent. While we enthusiastically profess right to information, we cannot sit back and ban
 S i v a n a n d a m | 13

films and thus, censor information. If artists, journalists and film makers of India are to

exercise their right to free speech appropriately, the utmost necessity is to do away with the

restrictive clauses under Article 19(2).

If at all, any limiting line is to be drawn in the extreme cases, it shall be left to the judiciary

on which the country has reposed enormous faith since inception. Also, the judiciary has to

surge off the recent hiccups and deliver consistently upholding the right as it had done all

through.

On a whole, the test for allowing restrictions upon free speech should strive to be somewhat

more stringent. Legal restraints upon individual freedom of speech should only be tolerated

where they are absolutely necessary to prevent infliction of actual harm. Therefore, it can be

aptly concluded, if democracy has to evolve, that screening of films and documentaries can

never be denied for reasons based on mere speculation because banning motion pictures is

equivalent to banning the right of freedom of speech and expression.

Some developments regarding the topic are encouraging indeed; nevertheless, we have

greater heights to scale.

 S i v a n a n d a m | 14

References

 Rathore, Satyam, Bharti Law Review (July-Sept, 2016), A Critical Overview of

Censorship in Indian Cinema in the Light of Role of CBFC.

 Two Mumbai girls arrested for Facebook post against Bal Thackeray get bail,

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/2-mumbai-girls-in-jail-for-tweet-against-bal-thacke

ray/1/229846.html

 Sarkar, Subhradipta, Right to Free Speech in a Censored Democracy,

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/sports-and-entertainment-law-journal/issues/07/r

ight.pdf

 BBC News- http://www.bbc.com/news/338

 Bose, Adrija, How Media Censorship Is Bringing Journalists Out On The Streets Of

Kashmir, http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/10/05/how-media-censorship-is-bring

ing-journalists-out-on-the-streets_a_21551958/ 44154

 Press Trust of India- http://gadgets.ndtv.com/social-networking/news/over-650-social-

media-urls-already-blocked-in-2017-compared-to-just-10-in-2014-ahir-1732606

 http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/editorial-it-is-time-to-talk-about-film-censorship-

in-india-2283031
 S i v a n a n d a m | 15

 Chauhan, RS, Clamping Down on Creativity, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-

ed/clamping-down-on-creativity/article17739798.ece