The Two-Edged Sword of Film and Web Series Censorship in India: A Constitutional and Human Rights Critique

THE TWO-EDGED SWORD OF FILM AND WEB SERIES CENSORSHIP
IN INDIA: A CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS CRITIQUE.
7.4/ .5 (HR 1) The National, Regional and International Perspective of Human Rights.
Submitted by-
Pranoy Goswami.
Unique ID-
SM0117037.
Faculty-in-Charge-
Dr. Kasturi Gakul.
Associate Professor of Law.
National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam.
December, 2020.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 9
1.1 Aims and Objectives 11
1.2 Scope and Limitation 11
1.3 Literature Review 12
1.4 Research Questions 13
1.5 Research Methodology 13
2. ORGANISATIONAL EVOLUTION 14
OF FILM AND WEB SERIES
CENSORSHIP IN INDIA AND
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
2.1 Organisational Set-Up for Film 14
Censorship in India
2.1.A Judicial Pronouncement 15
with respect to Censorship
of Films in India
2.2 Framework for Web Series 18
Censorship in India
2.2.1 Judicial Precedents for 19
Censorship of Web Series in India
3. Constitutional Challenges to the Idea of 20
Free Speech in Films and Web Series
4. The Human Rights Dimensions of Free 21
Speech and its Significance to
Censorship in India
5. Overreach of the “Reasonable 24
Restrictions”: A Threat to Artistic
Liberty in Films and Web Series
2
6. Suggestions for Improvement in the 26

Standards of Film and Web Series
Censorship in India
7. Conclusion 28
I. TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
A.I.R. All India Reporter

A.L.D. Andhra Legal Decision
3
Anr. Another
Art. Article
CBFC The Central Board of Film Certification
CPC Code of Civil Procedure
FCAT Film Certification (Appellate) Tribunal
HC High Court
I&B Information and Broadcasting
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
Id. Immediately Proceeding (Cited Authority)
IPC Indian Penal Code, 1860
IT Information Technology
MeitY Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
Ors. Others
OTT Over-The-Top Platforms
Para. Paragraph
S. Section
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
SC Supreme Court
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
v. Versus
II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
List of Cases
Apparel Export Promotion v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 S.C.C. 759.

Bobby Art International, Etc. v. Om Pal Singh (1996) 4 S.C.C. 1.
Hoon and Ors.
F.A. Picture International v. The Central Board A.I.R. 2005 Bom. 145.
of Film Certification
Gurdeepinder Singh Dhillon v. Union of India CWP-8089-2020.
Justice for Rights Foundation v. Union of India WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 11564 of 2018.
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India A.I.R 1971 SC 481.
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. A.I.R. 1993 SC 1971.
Professor Manubhai D. Shah
4
Padhmanabh Shankar v. Union of India and WRIT PETITION No. 6050 of 2019 (C).
Ors.
Phantom Films Private Limited v. CBFC and WRIT PETITION (L) No. 1529 of 2016.
Ors.
Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574.
Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra 1965 A.I.R. 881.
Secretary, Ministry of I & B v. Cricket (1995) 2 S.C.C. 161.
Association of Bengal
Shashank Shekhar Jha and Anr. v. Union of WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1080 of 2020.
India
Shree Raghavendra Films v. Government of (1995) 2 A.L.D. 81.
Andhra Pradesh
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi (2005) 8 S.C.C. 534.
Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa (2001) 1 S.C.C. 582.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan A.I.R. 1997 SC 3011.
Statutes
 Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955.

 Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970.
 Cable Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
 Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983.
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2012.
 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011.
 The Cinematograph Act, 1952.
 The Information Technology Act, 2000.
 The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Constitutions
 The Constitution of India, 1950.
Declaration
5
 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
Treaties
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
CANDIDATE’S CERTIFICATE
I, the undersigned, hereby solemnly declare that my Project Paper titled: “The Two- Edged
Sword of Film and Web Series Censorship in India: A Constitutional and Human Rights
Critique”, submitted to National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam, in partial
fulfilment of the FYIC B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) Semester VII obligations, is an authentic and bona
fide research work undertaken by me. I sincerely hope that this work shall be helpful in adding to
the body of pre-existing research in the relevant fields, and help in the future formulation of
policies for a more dynamic rule for film and web series censorship in India. All the information
declared hereby is true to the best of my knowledge.
6
Pranoy Goswami.
Unique ID: SM0117037.
Place: Hooghly, West Bengal.
Date: 17. 12. 2020.
ABSTRACT
The CoVid- 19 pandemic has raged long and hard. It has capsized a whole lot of industries to go
along with the impending doldrums on the Indian economy, and the entertainment industry has
not been spared either. However, the tet offensive to this has been the surge in the consumption
of online content, in the form of films, short features and the latest cherry, the dynamic and
lengthy web series format, which has managed to encapsulate compelling storylines and keep
their viewers busy and apprised of the native and international realities as well. With the
increasing popularity of artistic freedom and liberty given to the creators, the question of how
far films and web series must be “censored” has assumed prime importance. The I & B
Ministry’s latest guidelines, as a follow-up to bolster the Code of Conduct and the MoUs signed
by key virtual content operators and film distributors has been branded as “arbitrary” and
“detrimental” to the operation of freedom of speech and expression in our country. Proponents
of the move, meanwhile, have argued that films and web series have been trampling the
freedoms provided to them and going on “excesses”, with propaganda, obscenity and ideas
sparking public outrage as the causes enlisted. The instant paper seeks to lay an evolutionary
pen picture of the idea of censorship laws in India, and understand the functional-s of the I & B
7
Ministry, the CBFC and judicial activism in this regard. The researcher aims to identify the
persistent threats to free speech in the garb of protecting the democracy, and how it contravenes
the requisite provisos of the Constitution of India, along with international human rights
instruments that work in tandem. The final part of the paper shall provide a cloister of
suggestions, which ought to be adopted by the competent authorities to strike a balance between
human rights and governmental decision-making prowess in India.
Keywords: Code of Conduct, I & B Ministry, CBFC, free speech, judicial activism.
-: 1. INTRODUCTION:-
“There are a lot more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and
silent encroachments of those in powers rather than by violent and very sudden usurpations.”
- James Madison.
Quite possibly the second largest teeming ground for films, serials, commercials and web series
in the world, India, and its niche entertainment industry, represents a citadel basking in glitz,
with the aspirations of a billion strong populace. The name of “Mumbai” might find precedence
while taking a cursive glance through the annals of cinematic history in India. Even though
“Bollywood”, based primarily in Mumbai, is the chief aggregator of revenues from the
production and distribution of films, regional film industries preserve the creative ambitions of
content produced in languages such as Telugu, Tamil, Bengali, Malayalam, Kannada, Assamese,
Bhojpuri, Punjabi, among others.
8
The estimated value of the film industry in India, cutting across the barriers of states, stories and
languages, stands at a gigantic 183 billion INR, as of 2019.1 In addition to the humdrum demand
for songs, drama, and generally “mass” levels of cinema, the films made in India are as vast and
vibrant as those of Hollywood. With a whopping 9,600 plus screens 2 (of which around 2950 are
single screens, while the multiplex giants occupy the rest of the numbers), the recent addition of
OTT (Over-The-Top) Platforms to cater to an even greater and unhinged stream of content and
wade it across to the dynamic population is a shot in the arm.
Since inception, “cinema”, an umbrella term inclusive of films, web series and allied content, has
had the potent force of questioning dominant power structures, authorities, prevailing norms, and
presenting a radical or subtle alternative to the cues, as the case may be. Ironically, ours is a land
that has historically celebrated the free, the rational, and often, the risqué as well. Commonplace
folk might bow their heads in reverence to the naked sadhus, feel astounded at the sensibilities of
Khajuraho, or secretly covet the ideas in the Kama Sutra 3; however, films and web series have
always been tied down with a cautionary “public order” and “morality” tag.
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)4, under the wings of the Ministry of I & B, has
been imbued with the onerous responsibility of censoring films, as well as adducing
certifications in order to decide the viewing compass for relevant age groups. Pursuant to the
objectives and role given to the CBFC, the OTT platforms have now been brought under the
scanner. In July, 2020, Piyush Goyal, the minister for commerce and industry, batted for an idea
of self-regulation across the miasma of OTT platforms 5, and the hullaballoo mooting for
1
Sandhya Keelery, “Film industry in India- statistics and facts”, Statista, September 30, 2020, https://
www.statista.com/topics/2140/film-industry-in-india/.
2
Ajita Shashidhar, “Single screen cinemas are shutting down, but there are still not enough multiplexes”, Business
Today, October 3, 2019, https://www. businesstoday.in/opinion/perspective/india-will-continue-being-acountry-
with-lowest-number-of-film-screens/story/382700.html.
3
Uday Bhatia, “100 years of film censorship in India”, Live Mint, July 14, 2018,
https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/j8SzkGgRoXofPxn57F8nZP/100-years-of-film-censorship-in-india.html.
4
“About Us”, Central Board of Film Certification, accessed December 13, 2020,
https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/main/about-us.html.
5
Kirtika Suneja, “Self-regulate OTT platforms: Piyush Goyal to industry”, Economic Times, July 11, 2020,
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economic/policy/self-regulate-ott-platfors-piyush-goyal-to-
industry/articleshow/76910852.html.
9
censorship of OTT content found liking amidst a section of the public, with allegations that
Indian sensibilities and realpolitik was being hurt, at the expense of protecting artistic freedom.
This has consequently resulted in a petition6 being filed before the Supreme Court, calling for
judicial intervention to excoriate the government for its failure “to address the blatant portrayal
of facts, often twisted and served as per convenience”, in the name of virtual freedom. With the
Supreme Court subsequently petering guidelines to the IAMAI, of which major online streaming
services are a part, the I & B Ministry was quick to issue a gazette notification which seeks to
“supervise” and “regulate” streaming platforms.
The first part of the current paper seeks to study the evolution and subsequent interpretation of
film censorship laws in India, through legislative mandates and landmark judicial precedents.
The second part identifies the constitutional challenges to the idea of free speech in cinema, and
juxtaposes it with the dynamic conceptions of free speech and artistic liberties enshrined in the
UDHR and the ICCPR, respectively. The final part of the paper elaborates the probable scenarios
that may arise on account of such extensive governmental spirit, in nullifying the very essence of
artistic liberty, and suggests a harmonious construction of India’s constitutional safeguards with
its international human rights obligations.
1.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Aims
The aim of this paper is to present a legal critique of cinematic censorship in India, which
extends across the length and breadth of the country. The aim extends towards the
identification of loopholes in the existing system of cinematograph laws, particularly those
that call for outright censorship or deletion of scenes and extracts. The finality shall be to
assay if certain modifications can be made to the issues to prevent possible misuse by the
CBFC, or by the Central and State governments, to stifle dissent.
Objectives
6
Shashank Shekhar Jha and Anr. v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1080 of 2020.
10
1.1.1 To study the correlation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India with relevant provisos
in the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
1.1.2 To analyze the judicial pronouncements favouring/ opposing film censorship in India,
and the rationale behind it.
1.1.3 To identify India’s current posturing of film and web series censorship with respect to its
commitments under the UDHR and the ICCPR.
1.1.4 To examine how a balance can be brought through which the diktats enshrined in the
Constitution hang in a balanced scale along with the call for artistic liberty and
interpretation.
1.2 SCOPE AND LIMITATION
The scope of this paper is limited to studying the impact of censorship in India, and whether
it hurtles free speech, or serves as an essential check to prevent the thin red line between art
and exploitation, in the light of universally accepted standards of Human Rights. The scope is
further limited to a critical study on India’s legal and societal positioning alone, and is not a
comparative study with the prevalent rules and regulations of censorship in other countries.
1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW
 Bruce Michael Boyd, “Film Censorship in India: A ‘Reasonable Restriction’ on Freedom
of Speech and Expression”, Journal of the Indian Law Institute 14, No. 4 (October-
December, 1972), 501-561, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43950156.html.
One of the biggest paradoxes of the human character in India is the exhibition of
contradictory attitudes, especially in the case of censorship of literature and the arts alike.
Interrogating the contentions of what “free speech” is in practice versus what it ought to
be through the lens of the Constitution, the paper exposes how the State legitimises the
use of “reasonable restrictions” to often crush an opposing artist or institutional voice
under the schema of public ordre. This paper proposes that along with the debunking of
an Orwellian system of governance in India, an update of the Cinematograph Act is the
need of the hour, to fit the bill for a more “non-grey” interpretation of Article 19(2) of the
Constitution of India.
11
 Satyam Rathore, “A Critical Overview of Censorship of Indian Cinema in light of the

Role of CBFC”, Bharati Law Review (July-September, 2016), 218-225,
https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/AAA76064-88887D-43A3-8EFB-
A11D35C73C2F.pdf.
Cinema is a comprehensive amalgamation of creative efforts and ideas, on the big and the
small screens. Cinema has often been seen as a critical medium, one that calls for
brainstorming after plating even the most servile of realities in a palatable manner. The
author examines the communion of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 with the Constitution
of India. The author goes on to highlight the several instances where the power to censor
films has been misused in order to suit the vested interests of those in power. The author
finally studies a slew of judgements through the hierarchies of the erstwhile and present
court system in India, arriving at the conclusion that the apex court has always adopted
checks and balances approach to underpin the importance of freedom of speech and
expression as a fundamental right. The author presents a thoroughgoing suggestion of
implementing codes for the CBFC to regulate and monitor its own exercise of powers
from time to time, for protecting the rights of writers, directors and performers galore too.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.4.1 How has the Cinematograph Act, 1952 treated the subject matter of film censorship,
through its modus operandi, till date?
1.4.2 What has been the role of the judiciary in evaluating the extensions of free speech, a
cherished human right, with the oft-called for regressive move of censorship in films and
web series?
1.4.3 What are the operational chinks in the current laws mandating censorship of films and
web series, and how can it be addressed?
1.4.4 Is it possible to bridge the concept of “reasonable restrictions” that vie for censorship,
through Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India, when read in consonance with Article
19 of the UDHR and Article 19 of the ICCPR respectively?
1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
12
In this project, doctrinal research was employed as a mode of research methodology.

Doctrinal research is a research in which secondary sources of research are used, and
materials are collected through libraries, archives, etc. Books, journals, articles, newspaper
reports, virtual compendiums, websites were used for the assimilation of materials. A critical
style has been adopted while making this project, because the subject matter is a mix of
antiquity (in the case of mere censorship of films) and novelty (since the idea of censoring
web series and other online content is a recent one), and through a critique, the researcher has
been able to relate the similarities and differences between a constitutional and human rights
perspective, with an addendum to provide a holistic solution for the same in the period ahead.
A uniform mode of citation, in consonance with the Chicago Manual of Style (Notes +
Bibliography) has been adopted through the course of the paper.
-: 2. ORGANISATIONAL EVOLUTION OF FILM AND WEB SERIES

CENSORSHIP IN INDIA AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS:-
2.1 ORGANISATIONAL FRAMEWORK OF FILM CENSORSHIP IN INDIA
Freedom of speech and expression, which corresponds to the brocade of artistic liberties, is one
of the quintessential fundamental rights necessary for the sustenance of creative pursuits in
various shapes and forms. The power to regulate cinema, in its myriad forms, rests with the
Union Parliament, under Entry 60 of the Union List, and Schedule VII. In addition, the states do
enjoy a miniscule level of jurisdiction under Entry 33 of the State List, which deals with the
regulation of motion pictures7.
7
Satyam Rathore, “A Critical Overview of Censorship of Indian Cinema in light of the Role of CBFC”, Bharati
Law Review (July-September, 2016), 218-225, https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/AAA76064-
88887D-43A3-8EFB-A11D35C73C2F.pdf.
13
To accompany the regulation of cinema through a corroborative piece of legislation, the

Cinematograph Act came into existence in 1952. 8 The key function of the Act is to enumerate a
list of provisions for the exhibition, monitoring, censorship, coalescing and distribution of
cinematographs in an effective manner. The Act, under S. 3 9, establishes a body named the
Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The Board works as a subsidiary wing of the I &B
Ministry to help in the national regulation of the cinematic medium, in line with the Ministry’s
objective to ensure “the dissemination of free speech through mediums, visual and written, and
in forms, unbiased and original.”
Let us now take a look at the specifics. Nowhere through the running pages of the Act does the
Board get an all-inclusive power to censor films or web series as per their discretion. If one were
to read S. 5(B)10 of the aforementioned Act, it enlists “specific conditions” that are in tandem
with the idea of “reasonable restrictions”11 that have been provided in the Constitution of India.
The Board can thus command the applicant, i.e. the one who has applied for getting his/her film
certified, to remove the scene(s) that are identified as objectionable. This shall follow the process
of modification of the specified parts and resubmitting the content for a fresh review by members
of the Board, and specific guidance must be provided in this regard.
Presently, the Act is also aided by the Cinematographic (Certification) Rules, 1983 and the
Government’s guidelines dating back to December 6, 1991. The categories for the determination
of standards and the certification of films in India are four-fold:
 “U” (Unrestricted Exhibition);

 “U/A” (Universal Adult, while parental guidance is advised to children below 12 years of
age);
 “A” (Adults only);
 “S” (Screening restricted to a specific class of persons, or groups).
8
Madhavi Goradia Divan, Facets of Media Law (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2nd Edition, 2013), 272-273.
9
Cinematograph Act, 1952, S. 3, https://www.legislative.gov.in/sites/default/file/A-1952-37.pdf.
10
Cinematograph Act, 1952, S. 5 (B) (1), https://www.legislative.gov.in/sites/default/file/A-1952-37.pdf.
11
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 19 (2).
14
A stringent reading of the rather implicit measures relating to “censorship” provides negligible
ground for the Board to exercise its absolute will in determining the “final cut” 12 of a movie. It is
imperative to note that the essential function of the CBFC is to regulate and monitor the film
through “certification”. Historically, there are examples littered which speak of the Board’s
tyranny, often under compulsion from the Ministry, to abhor the essential idea of “regulation”
13
and turn into a moralistic lapdog, a move that has been vitriolic to the enhancement of artistic
liberty and dissenting views in the country.
2.1.1 JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CENSORSHIP OF FILMS
In the case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India14, the idea of censorship, validated under the
Cinematograph Act, was challenged on the ground that it violated Art. 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution. The appellant claimed that the remedies for censorship were “specific” and
“exhaustive” under S. 5 (1) (B) of the Act, and the CBFC’s blatant refusal to certify the film
without an alleged 21 cuts was contraband to the provisions of the Constitution. However, the
SC defended the move by the CBFC, stating that the operation of freedom of speech and
expression is incomplete without the alliance of “reasonable restrictions”. The Court adopted a
set of principles relating to the decision given in Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra15.
Although the Udeshi case revolved around the censorship of a book, for its graphic depiction of
sex and brutality, under S. 292 of the IPC, the principles derived there-from were to apply,
mutatis mutandis, in the instant case. The erstwhile Chief Justice went on to observe that
censorship, in congruence with public morality, is valid and “justified”.
A decade and a half later, the SC seemed to take a more dynamic approach towards the
implementation of “film censorship” in India. In Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram16, the SC
12
Divan, Media Law, 273.
13
Bruce Michael Boyd, “Film Censorship in India: A ‘Reasonable Restriction’ on Freedom of Speech and
Expression”, Journal of the Indian Law Institute 14, No. 4 (October-December, 1972), 511,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43950156.html.
14
A.I.R. 1971 SC 481.
15
A.I.R. 1965 SC 881.
16
(1989) 2 S.C.C. 574.
15
overturned the judgment of the Madras High Court, which had curiously revoked a “U”
certificate that had been granted to the Tamil film, Ore Oru Grammathile. The film, a scathing
commentary on the reservation policies in place in Tamil Nadu back then, had caused protests
from the fringe groups, which in turn demanded a complete ban on the release. The Madras High
Court, fearing that the film could cause widespread resentment and supposed violence, revoked
the “U’ certificate. When the matter reached the SC through an appeal by the film’s producer, the
Bench concluded that the problem of “hostile audience” and “public outcry” is no ground for the
states to withhold an expression of idea. It concluded that artistic freedom and unblemished
interpretation is a “liberty guaranteed by the State to its citizenry.”
The ‘90s was perhaps the most turbulent period for films in India. Owing to rapid changes in the
socio-economic milieu and some mishaps in the form of the Babri Masjid demolition, the riots
and bombings in Bombay, among others, the idea of “censorship” had acquired a new meaning
altogether. In Sree Raghavendra Films v. Government of Andhra Pradesh17, the exhibition of
the Mani Ratnam blockbuster, “Bombay”, in its Telugu version was suspended, with a demand
for censorship and a proposed 97 cuts, in accordance with S. 8 (1) of the A.P. Cinemas
Regulation Act, 1955, despite being branded fit by the CBFC for exhibition with an “A’
certificate. The SC eventually found out that the state authorities who had called for cuts had not
even watched the movie, hence such an exercise was deemed “arbitrary”.
In 2004, the Bombay High Court excoriated the CBFC for its abrupt censorship demands, in the
case of F.A. Picture International v. Central Board of Film Certification 18. In contrast to the
CBFC’s proposal to censor the film “Chaand Bujh Gaya”, the Court harked:
“Censorship in a free society can be tolerated within the narrowest confines and strictly within
such limits which are backed by an established constitutional standing, through certain order.”19
17
1995 (2) A.L.D. 81.
18
A.I.R. 2005 Bom. 145.
19
Id., 148.
16
The most recent example of the CBFC going overboard with its power to censor was seen when
the orders for 89 cuts20 were passed for the sensational movie, Udta Punjab. The film focussed
on the menace of illegal drug trafficking in the state of Punjab, and was well-received by critics.
However, in spite of certifying the film with an “A” tag, the CBFC demanded the alteration of a
character’s name in the film; that of the dog referred to as “jacky chain” through the running
minutes. In Phantom Films Private Limited v. CBFC and Ors. 21, the Bombay HC examined
every single deletion that was reported by the CBFC and concluded that scenes from the film
must not be abruptly cut out due to the depiction of sale of drugs in the aforementioned state or
judged through an objective lens of cuss words. Justice Dharmadhikari notably concluded:
“The very art of freedom is to think and to act differently. Implicit therein is a freedom to react
and respond to different situations differently and distinctly. The very charm of democracy is
that there are multiple thoughts and expressions. The subject matter of free speech beckons a key
calling for human rights: the ability to express oneself in one’s own thought pattern and facts.”22
2.2 FRAMEWORK FOR CENSORSHIP OF WEB SERIES IN INDIA
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which was notified by the
Department of Electronics and Information Technology, was the first step in creating an
environment of “regulation” and “due diligence”23 on content available online. However, in
response to an RTI application dated October 25, 2016 24, the I & B Ministry had asserted that the
CBFC was only concerned with the certification of films seeking a release in theatres, and as
such, it had no say on the content available on OTT platforms.
Subsequently, the idea of including OTT content under the Indecent Representation of Women
(Prohibition) Act was also mooted. Curiously though, OTT players like Hotstar and Voot had
20
Tejas Mehta, “Bollywood’s A-Listers vs. Udta Punjab’s 89 cuts by the Censor Chief: 10 facts”, NDTV India, June
08, 2016, https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/udta-punjab-producers-take-censor-board-to-court-1416790/.
21
WRIT PETITION (L) No. 1529 of 2016.
22
Id., at 41.
23
Pranoy Goswami, “Free Speech vis-à-vis Self-Regulation: The Curious Case of OTT Platforms in India”, Cup of
Court- GNLU, September 19, 2020, https://www.cupofcourt.law.blog/2020/09/19/free-speech-vis-a-vis-self-
regulation-the-curious-case-of-ott-platforms-india/.
24
RTI Application, vide MOIARB/R/2016/50541.
17
been practising the norms of “self-regulation”, with the display of CBFC certificates before the
start of the series, as well as the cautionary “no smoking”/ “consumption of alcohol is injurious
to health” phrases during the streaming of the series. However, giants like Amazon Prime,
Netflix and Sony LIV had refrained from such banners, asserting their stand for an unbiased
narrative and factual representation of the grim scenarios, vouching for human rights validation.
It becomes crucial to note that S. 67 A and S. 67 B of the IT Act, 2000 elaborate on the penalties
and modes of imprisonment for publishing or transmitting obscene material, material that is
sexually provocative, or any material which depicts children in gross acts. It could be argued that
the scope of the IT Act could also be extended to determine the questions of obscenity and
alleged graphic depiction of character arcs or situations in the web series, across platforms.
In October, 2020, the government finally issued a gazette notification, in pursuance of its
objective to regulate the content on OTT platforms. While a clear-cut path has not been laid
down for the time being, it has been asserted by the notification 25 that films and series on web
platforms, along with online news and platforms engaged in the distribution of world affairs and
news related to governance shall be under the purview of the I & B Ministry.
2.2.1 JUDICIAL PRECDENTS FOR CENSORSHIP OF WEB SERIES IN INDIA
With the growing demand for consumption of content through OTT, the clarion calls for
“censorship” in their scenarios also saw a boost. In Justice for Rights Foundation v. Union of
India and Ors.26, the appellant, an NGO, sought a clear set of guidelines for regulation of OTT
platforms. It was argued by their counsel that cable or DTH operators have to display the
censored content on their networks, and the OTT platforms must fall under the same bracket.
The SC concluded that the presence of adequate safeguards in the form of IPC, the
Cinematograph Act and the like did not call for an additional regulatory burden on the Ministry
of I & B. The effect of such a move could be deleterious and far-reaching, the Court had stated.
25
Lata Jha, “Content creators await govt.’s OTT regulation”, Live Mint, November 26, 2020,
https://www.livemint.com/industry/media/content-creators-await-govt-.-s-ott-regulation-11606357318377.html.
26
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 11564 of 2018.
18
The year 2020 saw a change in the courts’ approach towards the issue-at-hand. In Gurdeepinder
Singh Dhillon v. Union of India 27, popularly known as the Paatal Lok case, the petitioner
sought the censorship of specific scenes in the web series, “Paatal Lok”, on account of
gratuitous violence and sexual depravity. However, the pleading extended to a possible
regulatory framework for other OTT players like Netflix, ZEE5, etc. Invoking S. 499 and S. 500
of the IPC, which makes the dissemination of defamatory content a criminal offence, the
counsels stated that the Sikh community, as well as people from the North-East had been shown
in poor light. The Punjab and Haryana High Court took cognizance of the contentions, and
issued guidelines for a smooth “censor” of the scenes and episodes which were brought into
question. Post the SC’s judgment in the Shashank Shekhar28 case, a notice had been issued to
the IAMIM and the Ministry of I & B decided to take the plunge of issuing the gazette
notification, therefore. The move followed the SC’s request for guidelines from the Ministry.
-: 3. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO THE IDEA OF FREE SPEECH IN FILMS AND

WEB SERIES IN INDIA:-
The aspect of free speech finds a corollary in the form of the freedom of viewers to receive
information. Freedom of information is inseparable from the branches of free speech in India. In
the case of Secretary, Ministry of I & B v. Cricket Association of Bengal 29, the SC defended the
right to “distribute opinions an information to the public at large”. Nuance negation aside, the
ambit of Article 19 of the Constitution of India is one that ought to be ever-evolving. It is of
quotidian consideration then that the SC, in Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa30 ruled that the
retention powers of the government to decide on the censorship of films as per S. 6 (1) of the
Cinematograph Act, 1952 was ultra vires the idea enshrined in the Constitution. The bench held:
“Section 6 (1) is a travesty of the rule of law which is one of the basic structures of the
Constitution… The Executive cannot sit in an appeal or review or revise any judicial order.”31
27
CWP-8089-2020.
28
Shashank Shekhar case.
29
(1995) 2 S.C.C. 161.
30
(2001) 1 S.C.C. 582.
31
Id., at 33.
19
A rather glum happening on the censorship of films, and now web series, is the hype and the
demands for an absolute prohibition on content which is radical, or in non-conformity with the
set standards of the Indian society. The CBFC often plays into the hands of the masses, with its
leakage of information32 regarding sensitive or titillating content in the cauldrons of Indian
media. However, the SC had specified in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi 33 that a
prohibition under Article 19 (2) to (6) needs to pass the test of exhaustion of viable remedies.
The issue of the ban (in Gujarat) on National Award winning feature, Parzania34, which dealt
with the Godhra riots, brought to the fore a Pandora’s box of governmental actions to curb the
instincts of free speech and unbiased, investigative approach to film making, as a sort of duty.
The scope of judicial intervention, in matters of freedom of speech and expression, is somewhat
more constrained when compared to the other fundamental rights. The Sixteenth Amendment of
196335, in fact, modified the paradigm of “reasonable restrictions” percolated in Art. 19 (2) of the
Constitution. This makes it an all-encompassing provision, subject to judicial interpretation of it.
In 1994, the then Government of India had also gone to the extent of formulating a policy
framework to eliminate violence and vulgarity in films 36, both of which are subjective parameters
used to serve the “vested interests” of the political coalitions in India.
Reasonable restrictions which can be invoked are on the grounds37 of protecting the interests
related to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or something related to the contempt of court,
defamation or inciting an offence. Now, the same restrictions are to be read with the relevant
provisions in the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
32
R.S. Chauhan, “Clamping down on creativity”, The Hindu, March 30, 2017,
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/clamping-down-on-creativity/article17739798.ece.
33
(2005) 8 S.C.C. 534.
34
Rupam Jain Nair, “Film makers hit rewind button, cut to Godhra”, Express India, February 28, 2005,
https://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php/newsid=119937.
35
Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963.
36
A.G. Noorani, “Films and Free Speech”, Econ. & Pol. Weekly 43, No. 18 (2008) :11-12.
37
Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution: A History of the Indian Experience (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999), 43-44.
20
Even though freedom of speech has been considered as an intrinsic component of civil liberties,
the question of whether it is all-means-entailing still remains unresolved. However, a
constructive effort was made by the SC in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof.
Manubhai D. Shah38, when the Court held, in its criticism of censorship in the name of political
turmoil:
“…Merely because it is critical of the State Government…there is no reason to deny or prohibit

the selection and publication of the film. Any attempt to thwart or to pulverize the same is an
offence under Article 19 (1) (a). The burden, therefore, is on the authorities, to show that the
restrictions are reasonable and foregoing through permissions in the eyes of the law.”39
-: 4. THE HUMAN RIGHTS DIMENSIONS OF FREE SPEECH AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE

TO CENSORSHIP IN INDIA:-
The idea of free speech stems from Art. 19 of the UDHR 40; and Art. 19 of the ICCPR 41. Art. 19,
para. 2 of the ICCPR42 is more elaborate and spirited in the matter of free speech achieving a
status of cult and reality. The freedom gyrating ‘round free speech and artistic liberty also calls
for imparting “information and ideas of all kinds”, along with the freedom to seek and receive
such information beyond any frontiers, and the medium for such exchange of information could
be “oral, or in writing, in the form of art”, or through any suitable form one chooses as an outlet
of media. If one were to draw inferences from General Comments on Article 19 given by the
Human Rights Committee43, any restriction(s) placed on artistic liberty (as an appendage of free
speech) must tick two boxes: firstly, such restrictions must be provided by law and secondly,
such restrictions must be necessary for the preservation of legitimacy.
38
A.I.R. 1993 SC 1971.
39
Id., at 49.
40
G.A. Res. 217 A, U.N. GAOR, 3rd Session, 1st Plenary, U.N. Doc. A/810, December 12, 1948.
41
G.A. Res. 2200 A, U.N. GAOR Supplement No. 16 of 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316, March 23, 1976.
42
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Art. 19, para. 2.
43
Agnes Callamard, “Freedom of speech and offense: why blasphemy laws are not the appropriate response”, Equal
Voices 18, No. 7 (2006): 9-10, https://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/ev/ev18/ev-18.pdf.
21
Whenever a State party to the UDHR and the ICCPR, imposes manifold restrictions, they must
ensure that the right itself is not placed in a probative conundrum and subject to apprehension by
the citizens willing to exercise it. The reciprocity of artistic liberties with such lineages of
restrictions (ones that are “justifiable in a court of law”) helps ascertain the extent of a creator
and audience’s right to watch films and web series of their choice and privilege. The foremost
duty of the States, in the light of censorship of films and web series, must be to prohibit by law,
“any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,
hostility or violence.”44 It is safe to comprehend that a State must leave no stone unturned to
guarantee sanctity and legal protection to the right of expressing oneself. This becomes
applicable even more in the case of films and web series, and if, at any instant, censorship is
crept up to, it must meet the tests set out under Art. 19 of the ICCPR.45
India is a party to the UDHR, and it has also ratified the ICCPR. International human rights
treaties are not the exclusive law of the land in our country, they are not even self-executing. In
spite of such drawbacks, the SC has taken strides towards the implementation of international
instruments in the domestic arena. In the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan46, the Court drew
upon the UDHR and ensured its applicability, to suit the growing systems of domestic
jurisprudence. The SC opened with a rapturous legal embrace of the UDHR in these words:
“Any international convention not inconsistent with the fundamental rights (enshrined in the
Constitution of India) and in harmony with its spirit must be read into these provisions to
broaden and expand the meaning and content [thereof], to promote the object of the
constitutional guarantee. “47
Provisions of the ICCPR have previously been referred to by the Supreme Court on various
occasions. Identifying the prospects of the international human rights framework envisaged in
the ICCPR, the SC, in Apparel Export Promotion v. A.K. Chopra48, was convinced of the idea:
44
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Art. 20, para. 2.
45
Callamard, “blasphemy laws”, 10.
46
A.I.R. 1997 SC 3011.
47
Id., at 56.
48
(1999) 1 S.C.C. 759.
22
“Cases which deal with the violation of human rights, whether direct or indirect, beckon the
courts to be alive to the adoption of international instruments and conventions and to apply the
same to a given case, where there shall be no ground for inconsistency between the facets of
international law and the domestic laws in operation at that given period of time.”
The infallible list of safeguards; the auspices of free speech include the aspect of cinematic
liberty as well. As visualised under the international human rights law transcript, India’s
commitment to the protection of the visual media should have been unhinged and responsible.
The messaging of the UDHR and the ICCPR calls for a strategic rethinking of India’s stance on
the aspect of censorship, and the limits the Ministry of I & B has set in the current day and time.
-:5. OVERARCH OF THE “REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS”: A THREAT TO ARTISTIC

LIBERTY IN FILMS AND WEB SERIES:-
For censorship of films and web series to be justified {in sync with the wording of Art. 19 (2)},
the standard of judgment must be objective. In other words, a hypothesis must be drawn from an
ordinary man’s scale of interpretation. Censorship must not be on account of “the sensibilities of
a hypersensitive and emotionally flagrant man.”
In Bobby Art International, Etc. v. Om Pal Singh Hoon and Ors.49, the SC held that the CBFC
had committed an error in the conflation of sex scenes in the film. The then CJI, Justice S.P.
Bharucha had noted that the classification of sex as an immoral or perverse act is detrimental to
the cornerstone of moral considerations and free speech in India. Further, he opined that it was
not the “elements of rape, leprosy or gross acts that must be censored, but rather the handling of
such themes by the producer shall lead to a ground for clearance or disqualification.” 50
Accordingly, the film in question, Bandit Queen, was considered to be dealing with an emotional
story of how a victim had been subjected to prolonged torture by her rapists and a patriarchal
society prevalent in her state. The CBFC cleared the film with an “A” certificate.
49
1996 4 S.C.C. 1.
50
Id., at 15.
23
Adhering to the tenets of human rights justice, the Court has constantly warned the CBFC to not
exceed it limits on account of a potential fear of “violence”. However, the sorry reality is that a
slew of films, like Deepa Mehta’s Fire, Water, Lipstick under my Burkha, Deshdrohi have all
been subjected to the whims and fancies of the CBFC. Through the coinage of a volatile term
like “public interest” and “decency”, the Board has often indulged in pusillanimity. This has
resulted in a visceral and tainted practice of “pre-censorship” of artistic thought, as opposed to a
neutral narrative that seeks to protect human rights. In the case of Padhmanabh Shankar v.
Union of India and Ors.51, the Karnataka HC had ruled that the concept of pre-censorship is
arbitrary, and damaging to the interests of the entertainment industry. The HC’s opinio juris in
this case, in fact, sought to fructify the availability of ex-post remedies in case the content is
aired on OTT platforms. Crucially, OTT platforms specifically fall under the umbrella of a
“private viewing experience”, rather than as a public exhibition. But the rational nexus sought
through S.3 and S.5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 extends to certification of films demanding
a public exhibition. It is here that the latest gazette notification transgresses the boundaries of
“responsive model of governance”, and transmogrifies into a “self-indulgent model of
governance.”
It is apparent that the Government envisions a system of censorship in alliance with the
broadcast regulation code, as per the Cable Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. This begs a
question of grievance redressal mechanism. Although the CBFC can exercise its powers under S.
7C and S.8 of the Cinematograph Act, how that shall translate for the OTT content market is a
question that remains unresolved, and maybe, just maybe, intentionally unanswered.
Censoring films and web series in the name of preserving public space is an argument that is
inherently flawed. Art. 19 of the ICCPR must have been given due weightage in determining the
messaging of free speech in India. It still remains a mere practice on paper. The censorship of
films and web series in India shakes the tranquillity of Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of
India. The article in question seeks to guarantee the citizens the right “to practice any profession,
51
WRIT PETITION No. 6050 of 2019(C).
24
or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.52”This must be considered an offshoot of Art. 23

of the UDHR, which signifies the freedom of “choice of employment”53.
The saddening aspect in this entire hue and cry for artistic liberty is the fact that eminent framers
of the Constitution of India, like K.M. Munshi and Mahboob Ali were in favour of negating the
restrictions during the troubled chapters of our independence. The fracas over a kissing scene in
the Netflix series, A Suitable Boy54, between a Hindu lady and a Muslim man, has again put the
entire aspect of creative choices to the backyard. Censorship has escalated to the extent of a
command-and-control approach: anything that is unpalatable must be done away with at once.
-:6. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN THE STANDARDS OF FILM AND WEB

SERIES CENSORSHIP IN INDIA:-
The domineering question that must be settled to ensure that there is no asymmetric exercise of
censorship laws in India is to decide on whether the Government, in particular, the Ministry of I
& B is willing to invite “public participation”. A system of debates and discussions helps resolve
the most complex of legal issues, so why not the ambit of censorship be made more flexible?
As has been mentioned in the previous chapter, reliance must be placed on the judgement in
Padhmanabh Shankar to call for ex-post remedies available through civil courts. It is crucial
that the citizens, or the CBFC members who call for scenes or dialogues to be censored, exhaust
their local remedies before approaching the SC through petitions. It is imperative that the courts
at the grassroots level ubiquitously recognise India’s commitments to the UDHR and the ICCPR,
while settling questions of censorship. Preventive measures must be taken in that regard and end.
In the case of OTT platforms, the Government must also remember that the viewer has the
complete autonomy of what to watch, and where and how it can be availed. The web is a vast,
expansive domain of thoughts and ideas. The Ministry of I & B’s efforts to act as a “Big
Brother” and take stock of inflammatory content is far from what a tech-savvy generation of
52
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 19 (1) (g).
53
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Art. 23, para. 1.
54
Shuma Raha, “Censoring Netflix and Other OTT Platforms: Who Stands to Gain?”, The Quint, November 25,
2020, https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/netflix-amazon-prime-hostar-ott-platforms-i-and-b#readmore/.
25
citizens, well apprised of their rights, expects from their elected representatives. Instead, the
concept of media self-regulation must be encouraged. Media self-regulation refers to a set of
practices, where the standards of censorship are independent of any undue political influence.
Such a move shall help the Ministry build a meaningful triumvirate with two of the other
stakeholders: the OTT players, and the audience. A big positive arising out of such a practice
would be the reduction of pending cases in the judiciary; for the self-regulatory bodies shall
ensure that the content streaming on OTT platforms follow certain verifiable industrial protocols.
Even though some vociferous critics of the CBFC call for a complete stoppage of activities, a
more subtle approach would be to ensure autonomy of the CBFC. The current system of the I &
B Ministry calling the shots about what needs to be censored reduces the CBFC to a paper tiger.
The Board must be guided by a set of principles, to ensure an organic mode of film certification.
These are as follows:
 Artistic liberty and creative expositions must not be arbitrarily cut off, the certification
pattern must be responsive to changes in the society;
 If the film speaks of a certain aesthetic value and is of a reasonably fair standard
cinematically, its exhibition must not be withheld;
 The time period which the film depicts, the maturity of themes and its reverberations
must be read with the contemporary developments in the Indian society;
 The composition of the CBFC must see a tweak, with proposed involvement from
sections of the civil society, such as retired judges, acting professionals, individual
members of the public with a know-how of film studies and selected representatives from
the OTT associations and film producers’ guilds, which have a national presence.
The confluence of the CBFC and the judiciary shall ensure a more balanced understanding of the
aspect of free speech. S. 5 B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which annotates the principles for
certification and refusal must be preserved. It must be chaperoned with an amendment in the
existing Act to make way for a more inclusive Board. The judgments of the courts, especially by
the SC in Shankarappa and Rangarajan, and by the Karnataka HC in Padhmanabha Shankar,
26
must be seen as a glimmer of light and hope. The extent of censorship should be limited and
proportionate to the causa prima, and the prevailing circumstances must be considered wisely.
In a nutshell, the “reasonable restriction” phraseology attached with artistic liberty must be
receptive of the changing sets of family, levels of education, systems of economy and prominent
sociological institutions in India. The ex-ante system55 of speculating the ills which a motion
picture or web series might cause must be replaced with an inclusive legislative and societal
change, in general. The reformative steps suggested above are exhaustive in nature, and with the
decade that lies ahead, a change is the need of the hour, to ensure no visual art is stifled in India.
-: 7. CONCLUSION;-
“If criticism disappears in entirety, even the mildest expression shall become harsh. If only a
particular voice is allowed to thrive, that voice, sooner or later, becomes a pleasing, boring lie.”
- Zhang Xuezhong.
Although the CBFC is an authority backed by the Ministry of I & B, at the end of the day it is an
artificial construct of the ever-evolving Indian civilization. The manner in which films and web
series have been censored in India show a lackadaisical approach to the whoop for modernity
and globalization. One of the most intimate human rights available to a global citizen in this era
of post-truths is the right to express and receive information freely. A cursive glance at the
chapters of the Indian judiciary shall reveal that the Court has always struck a fine balance
between creative liberty and public interests. The outlook of the Government has been selective
and uncalled for; such apathy towards an industry that drives a lion’s share of the country’s
revenue must be debunked. “Watch, and let others watch” must be the adage in the near future.
The Indian civilisation is a delectable construct, a curious mix of assimilation and extermination.
While the former is a strictly native salutation, the latter is a Western idea. India is a democracy,
not an “emo-cracy” where fringe groups and heightened sensibilities dictate what the three
55
Sumit Matthew, “Censorship of Films”, Legal Service India, 2019,
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-351-censorship-of-films-html./
27
organs of the Government must do. Media, being the fourth pillar of our democracy, must be
given a certain sense of responsibility. Emboldening the CBFC with increasing stakeholder
participation shall be a baby step towards the realisation of India’s tryst with the protection of
civil liberties guaranteed by the ICCPR, subject to its compatibility with our own Constitution.
-: BIBLIOGRAPHY:-
Books
 Austin, Granville. Working a Democratic Constitution: A History of the Indian

Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
 Divan, Madhavi Goradia. Facets of Media Law. Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2nd
Edition, 2013.
 Iyer, V.R. Krishna. The Dialectics and Dynamics of Human Rights in India: Yesterday,
Today and Tomorrow. Kolkata: Eastern Law House, 1999.
Articles
Journal Articles
 Boyd, Bruce Michael. “Film Censorship in India: A ‘Reasonable Restriction’ on Freedom

of Speech and Expression”. Journal of the Indian Law Institute 14, No. 4 (October-
December, 1972), 511. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43950156.html.
 Callamard, Agnes. “Freedom of speech and offense: why blasphemy laws are not the
appropriate response”. Equal Voices 18, No. 7 (2006): 9-10.
https://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/ev/ev18/ev-18.pdf.
28
 Noorani, A.G. “Films and Free Speech”. Econ. & Pol. Weekly 43, No. 18 (2008):11-12.
 Rathore, Satyam. “A Critical Overview of Censorship of Indian Cinema in light of the
Role of CBFC”. Bharati Law Review (July-September, 2016), 218-225.
https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/AAA76064-88887D-43A3-8EFB-
A11D35C73C2F.pdf.
Website Articles
 Keelery, Sandhya. “Film industry in India- statistics and facts”. Statista, September 30,
2020. https:// www.statista.com/topics/2140/film-industry-in-india/.
 Matthew, Sumit. “Censorship of Films”. Legal Service India, 2019.
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-351-censorship-of-films-html./
Newspaper Articles
 Bhatia, Uday. “100 years of film censorship in India”. Live Mint, July 14, 2018.
https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/j8SzkGgRoXofPxn57F8nZP/100-years-of-film-
censorship-in-india.html.
 Jha, Lata. “Content creators await govt.’s OTT regulation”. Live Mint, November 26,
2020. https://www.livemint.com/industry/media/content-creators-await-govt-.-s-ott-
regulation-11606357318377.html.
 Mehta, Tejas. “Bollywood’s A-Listers vs. Udta Punjab’s 89 cuts by the Censor Chief: 10
facts”. NDTV India, June 08, 2016. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/udta-punjab-
producers-take-censor-board-to-court-1416790/.
 Shashidhar, Ajita. “Single screen cinemas are shutting down, but there are still not
enough multiplexes”. Business Today, October 3, 2019. https://www.
businesstoday.in/opinion/perspective/india-will-continue-being-acountry-with-lowest-
number-of-film-screens/story/382700.html.
 Suneja, Kirtika. “Self-regulate OTT platforms: Piyush Goyal to industry”. Economic
Times, July 11, 2020. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economic/policy/self-
regulate-ott-platfors-piyush-goyal-to-industry/articleshow/76910852.html.
29
Blogs
 Goswami, Pranoy. “Free Speech vis-à-vis Self-Regulation: The Curious Case of OTT
Platforms in India”. Cup of Court-GNLU, September 19, 2020.
https://cupofcourt.law.blog/2020/09/19/free-speech-vis-a-vis-self-regulation-the-curious-
case-of-ott-platforms-in-india/.
 Varma, Ayush. “Yet Another Call to Regulate OTT Platforms- The Case of Amazon’s
Paatal Lok”. IPleaders, June 26, 2020. https://blog.ipleaders.in/yet-another-call-regulate-
ott-platforms-case-of-amazons-paatal-lok./
Websites
 Central Board of Film Certification. “About Us”. Accessed on December 13, 2020.
https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/main/about-us.html.
30
31
32

The Two-Edged Sword of Film and Web Series Censorship in India: A Constitutional and Human Rights Critique

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Two-Edged Sword of Film and Web Series Censorship in India: A Constitutional and Human Rights Critique

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE TWO-EDGED SWORD OF FILM AND WEB SERIES CENSORSHIP

IN INDIA: A CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS CRITIQUE.

Dr. Kasturi Gakul.

Associate Professor of Law.

National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam.

6. Suggestions for Improvement in the 26

A.I.R. All India Reporter

II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Apparel Export Promotion v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 S.C.C. 759.

 Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955.

 The Constitution of India, 1950.

 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.

Unique ID: SM0117037.

Place: Hooghly, West Bengal.

Date: 17. 12. 2020.

1.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

 Satyam Rathore, “A Critical Overview of Censorship of Indian Cinema in light of the

In this project, doctrinal research was employed as a mode of research methodology.

-: 2. ORGANISATIONAL EVOLUTION OF FILM AND WEB SERIES

2.1 ORGANISATIONAL FRAMEWORK OF FILM CENSORSHIP IN INDIA

To accompany the regulation of cinema through a corroborative piece of legislation, the

 “U” (Unrestricted Exhibition);

2.1.1 JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CENSORSHIP OF FILMS

2.2 FRAMEWORK FOR CENSORSHIP OF WEB SERIES IN INDIA

2.2.1 JUDICIAL PRECDENTS FOR CENSORSHIP OF WEB SERIES IN INDIA

-: 3. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO THE IDEA OF FREE SPEECH IN FILMS AND

“…Merely because it is critical of the State Government…there is no reason to deny or prohibit

-: 4. THE HUMAN RIGHTS DIMENSIONS OF FREE SPEECH AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE

-:5. OVERARCH OF THE “REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS”: A THREAT TO ARTISTIC

or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.52”This must be considered an offshoot of Art. 23

-:6. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN THE STANDARDS OF FILM AND WEB

 Austin, Granville. Working a Democratic Constitution: A History of the Indian

 Boyd, Bruce Michael. “Film Censorship in India: A ‘Reasonable Restriction’ on Freedom

You might also like