St.

Joseph College of Communication

Department of Cinema & Television

[College Logo]

Censorship of Films in India

(An assignment submitted in partial fulfillment of the course in Ethics and

Laws in Media for MA in cinema & Television)

Submitted to: Fr Nithin Joseph

Elanjimattom
Submitted by: Eassa Fairoos PA
Admn no: 605

[31st August 31, 2021]

 CENSORSHIP

OF

FILMS IN INDIA

INTRODUCTION
The term 'censorship' comes from the Latin 'censere' meaning to give one's opinion, or to
assess. In ancient Rome the censors, two Roman magistrates, conducted the census and
regulated the manners and morals of the citizens. Censorship is defined by the Oxford
Dictionary as the 'prohibition or suppression of any part of the news, books, films, etc. that
are considered politically unacceptable, obscene, or a threat to security.'
Films are considered an excellent medium of communication with the general public. The
evolution of technology has brought a sea of change in the way films have been able to
reach the public in every corner of India. Additionally, it has boosted the power of films to
significantly contribute to the cultural and social development of the country. Generally,
Press and Films enjoy the same right and status as far as the constitution freedom related
to expression and spreading of an idea is concerned. Article 19(1) of the Constitution of
India guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Hence, both Press and Films are
regulated under this provision. It is pertinent to note that the above right is not absolute
and has certain limitations. Matters that are against foreign relations, public policy,
integrity and sovereignty of the State, decency and morality, public order, etc. are certain
limitations to the above, as mentioned in the Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

CENSORSHIP OF FILMS
The Cinematograph Act, 1952 (the Act), ensures that films fulfil the objectives prescribed
by law. In the Act is a provision for the establishment of a Central Board of Film
Certification (the Board). This is the regulatory body in India that issues a certificate to the
makers of films for public exhibition. Once the Board has examined a film, the Board can:

1. Sanction the film for unrestricted exhibition;

2. Sanction the film for public exhibition limited to adults;
3. Direct such modifications and excisions in the film before sanctioning the film to
any of the above;
4. Refuse to sanction the film for exhibition completely.
One of the first cases where the issue of censorship of film was raised is K A Abbas v
Union of India, where the Supreme Court of India considered the vital question related to
pre-censorship of cinematography in relation to the freedom of speech and expression that
is guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It was held by Hidayatullah, C.J, that
censorship of films which includes pre-censorship was constitutionally lawful. Though, he
added, that unjustified restriction on freedom of expression by the Board should not be
exercised. In the case of S. Rangrajan v Jagjivan Ram, Supreme Court faced a similar
question, and was of the view that 'if the exhibition of the film could not be validly
restricted under Article 19(2), risk of procession and demonstration was not a valid ground
to suppress the same.' The Supreme Court added that it was the State's duty to protect the
freedom of expression. The Supreme Court of India in giving its judgement in the case of
Bobby Art International v Om Pal Singh Hoon was of the opinion that, a film must be
judged in its entirety. The court added that where the theme of the film is to condemn
violence and degradation, scenes of expletives to advance the message, which was the
main intention of the film, is permissible.

CONSTITUITIONALITY OF CENSORSHIP UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A)

The Supreme Court for the first time came across the issue of censorship of films under
Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India, inK.A. Abbas v.Union of India,in this case
the Supreme Court upheld the censor of films on the ground that films have to be treated
separately from other forms of art and expression because a motion picture is able to stir
up emotions more deeply than any other product of art. A film can therefore, be censored
on the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held the view that "censorship of films, their classification according
to the age groups and their suitability for unrestricted exhibition with or without excisions
is regarded as a valid exercise of power in the interest of public morality, decency etc. This
is not to be construed as necessarily offending the freedom of speech and expression."

Further the Court held that:

"Censorship in India (and pre-censorship is not different in quality) has full justification in
the field of the exhibition in cinema films. We need not generalise about other forms of
speech and expression here for each such fundamental right has a different content and
importance. The censorship imposed on the making and exhibition of films is in the
interest of society. If the regulations venture into something which goes beyond this
legitimate opening the restrictions, they can be questioned on the ground that a legitimate
power is being abused. We hold, therefore, that censorship of films including prior
restraint is justified under our Constitution."

Constitutionality of censorship was also heldin S. Rangarajan v. P. JagjivanRam. The case

came to the Supreme Court in an appeal relating to the revocation of `U' certificate to a
Tamil film. Reversing the judgment of the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court opined
that:
"Though movie enjoys the guarantee under Article 19(1)(a) but there is one significant
difference between the movies and the other modes of communication. Movie motivates
thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention. In view of the
scientific improvements in photography and production the present movie is a powerful
means of communication. It has a unique capacity to disturb and arouse feelings. It has as
much potential for evil as it has for good. It has an equal potential to instill or cultivate
violent or good behaviour.
With these qualities and since it caters for mass audience who are generally not selective
about what they watch, the movie cannot be equated with other modes of communication.
It cannot be allowed to function in a free market place just as does the newspapers and
magazines. Censorship by prior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but also
necessary."

TYPES OF CERTIFICATIONS
There are mainly four kinds of certifications given by the Central Board of Film
Certification:
1.Universal (U)
This type of certifications is the Unrestricted Public Exhibition, and the same holds no
limitations for the age groups that may watch the same. They could be family, educational
or social oriented themes. This category has fantasy violence and minimal foul language.
When a movie is being certified U by the Board, it must ensure that the movie is suitable
for a family to watch it together including the children.
2.Parental Guidance (UA)
This type of certification explains that the film is appropriate for all age groups. However,
it is in the interest of the children below the age of 12 to be accompanied by their parents.
The reason could that the theme of the movie may not be the most appropriate for the child
without the guidance of their parents.
3.Adults Only (A)
As the certification suggests, this type of film is restricted to adults only. Persons above
the age of 18 are adults, for the meaning of this certification. The theme may contain
disturbing, violent, drug abuse and other related scenes which are not considered suitable
for viewing by children who may be influenced by the same negatively. Films that meet
the requisites of the abovementioned criteria but are not suitable for exhibition to children
or those below the age of 18 shall be certified A.
4.Restricted to Special Class of Persons (S)
This is the last type of the certifications under the board, and the same explains that the
films which are rated S are meant for a special class of persons only. For example, doctors.
If the Board is of the opinion the with regards to content, nature and the theme of the film
is to be restricted to members of a class of persons or any profession, the above
certification shall be given to such film.
 OBJECTIVES OF FILM CERTIFICATION
A. The main objectives of the Board for the above are as follows:

 To ensure that the medium of the film responsible. Additionally, to safeguard the
sensitivity of standards and value of the society.
 To ensure that creative freedom and expression are not unjustifiably curbed.
 To ensure to adapt to the social changes.
 To ensure the theme of the film provides a healthy and clean entertainment.
 To ensure that the film is of cinematically an adequate standard and aesthetic
value.

B. In pursuance of the above, the Board must ensure that:

 Activities that anti-social such as violence are not justified or glorified;

 The way criminals are depicted, and other related words or visuals must not incite
the commission of any kind of offence;
 The scenes showing ridicule and abuse of mentally and physically handicapped,
cruelty or abuse of animals, involving children as victims of violence and abuse
must not be presented needlessly;
 Avoidable or pointless scenes of cruelty, horror and violence that are intended to
provide entertainment but may have the effect of dehumanizing or desensitizing
people are not shown;
 Scenes that glorify or justify drinking are not shown;
 Scenes that tend to justify, glamourize or encourage drug addiction are not shown.
Additionally, similar scenes for the consumption of tobacco or smoking must not
be shown;
 Human susceptibilities are not offended by obscenity, vulgarity or obscenity;
 Words with dual meanings that cater to dishonourable instincts are not used;
 Scenes denigrating or degrading women in any manner is not shown;
 Scenes that involve sexual violence against women in the form of rape or any other
form of molestation are avoided. If the theme of the movie requires so, the same
must shall be reduced to a minimum and no details are to be shown. The same goes
for scenes that involve sexual perversion;
 Words or visuals contemptuous of religious, racial or other groups must not be
presented;
 Words or visuals that promote obscurantist, communal, anti-national and anti-
scientific attitude are not shown;
 The integrity and sovereignty of the country is not called in question;
 The security of the country is not endangered or jeopardized;
 Relations with foreign states are not overwrought;
  Public order is maintained, and not hindered;
 Words or visuals involving defamation of a body or an individual, or contempt of
court are not shown;
 National emblems and symbols are not presented except according to the
provisions of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (12 of
1950).

C. The Board shall additionally ensure that a film:

 Is judged as a whole from the perspective of its overall impact; and

 Is inspected in the light of the period illustrated in the film along with
contemporary standards of India and the people who the movie is related to, to
ensure that the firm does not corrupt the morality and ethics of the audience.
 Applying to all of the above categories, the Board shall ensure the titles of each
film is carefully scrutinized to ensure they are not vulgar, violating, provocative or
offensive to the guidelines mentioned above.

CONSTITUTION OF THE CENSOR BOARD

The Board consists of a Chairman and non-official members, all of whom are appointed by
the Central Government. It is headquartered in Mumbai, Maharashtra. Additionally, it has
nine Regional offices, namely, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, New Delhi, Guwahati,
Cuttack, Kolkata and Thiruvananthapuram.
Regional Offices, as mentioned above, are assisted by the Advisory Panels. The Advisory
Panels, like the Board, is selected by the Central government. The members chosen for the
panel are from different walks of life, and they are chosen for a period of 2 years.
It has a two-tier jury system, the Examining Committee and the Revising Committee.

COMMON REASONS FOR CENSORSHIP OR BANNING OF FILMS

In light of the history of why a film has been banned, or parts of it are censored, the main
categories for why the same is done are as follows:
Sexuality: A rigid social structure has been followed in Indian society. Hence, a medium
which portrays sexuality regardless of the audio, written or visual form, which has not
been fathomed by the society and is concerned a social stigma is banned on the grounds
that it might have the effect of undignified morals of Indians.
Politics: The isolation of political forces is not far when one talks about censorship. The
description of an allegorical political scene, directly or indirectly, is banned by the
authorized party to it. Overt political overtones are not appreciated by the government and
hence is a common reason why certain films are either entirely banned, or such scenes are
censored or removed.
Communal Conflict: Under a heterogeneous nation like India, if a film incites or spurs
any type of communal conflict, the same is censored. The aim is to avoid the consequences
such a film would have on the audience it intentionally or unintentionally targets. If the
state believes that a movie would open a window for riots by a community for the way
they have been portrayed in the film, the same is banned by the Board or censored.
Incorrect Portrayal: Sometimes, a situation arises where a well-known personality
objects his own depiction in a medium which would be exhibited, and consequently goes
for censoring the same. For more clarity, in a situation where the medium is of
biographical nature, and the person on whom it is based does not approve the authenticity
of the same, there have been times when the person has sued for the medium not to be
released, or be edited and released upon approval of such person.
Religion: Religion does not appreciate any type of defiance or disobedience towards the
values it proliferates. Hence, any medium which directly or indirectly distorts any aspect
of the religion including its preaching, values, idols, to name a few, is highly criticized and
therefore, censored.
Extreme Violence: Indubitably, the portrayal of extreme gore and violence may meddle
and disturb the human mind. Viewing such scenes may have a negative psychological
effect on the mind. If the Board of a similar opinion that such a scene through any medium
may have an underlying negative impact on the viewer, contrary to the entertainment or
knowledge such scene tries to bestow, the same may be banned, edited or censored by the
Board in public interest.

PROMINENT CASES
In 2002, the film War and Peace, depicting scenes of nuclear testing and the 11 September
2001 attacks, created by Anand Patwardhan, was asked to make 21 cuts before it was
allowed to have the certificate for release. Patwardhan objected, saying "The cuts that
they asked for are so ridiculous that they won't hold up in court" and "But if these cuts do
make it, it will be the end of freedom of expression in the Indian media." The court
decreed the cuts unconstitutional and the film was shown uncut.
In 2002, the Indian filmmaker and former chief of the country's film censor board, Vijay
Anand, kicked up a controversy with a proposal to legalise the exhibition of X-rated films
in selected cinemas across the country, saying "Porn is shown everywhere in India
clandestinely ... and the best way to fight this onslaught of blue movies is to show them
openly in theatres with legally authorised licences". He resigned within a year after taking
charge of the censor board after facing widespread criticism of his moves.
In 2003, the Indian Censor Board banned the film Gulabi Aaina (The Pink Mirror), a film
on Indian transsexuals produced and directed by Sridhar Rangayan. The censor board cited
that the film was "vulgar and offensive". The filmmaker appealed twice again
unsuccessfully. The film still remains banned in India, but has screened at numerous
festivals all over the world and won awards. The critics have applauded it for its "sensitive
and touching portrayal of marginalised community".
In 2004, the documentary Final Solution, which looks at religious rioting between Hindus
and Muslims, was banned. The film follows 2002 clashes in the western state of Gujarat,
which left more than 1,000 people dead. The censor board justified the ban, saying it was
"highly provocative and may trigger off unrest and communal violence". The ban was
lifted in October 2004 after a sustained campaign.

In 2006, seven states (Nagaland, Punjab, Goa, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh) have banned
the release or exhibition of the Hollywood movie The Da Vinci Code (and also the book),
although the CBFC cleared the film for adult viewing throughout India. However, the
respective high courts lifted the ban and the movie was shown in the two states.
The CBFC demanded five cuts from the 2011 American film The Girl with the Dragon
Tattoo because of some scenes containing rape and nudity. The producers and the director
David Fincher finally decided not to release the film in India.
In 2013, Kamal Haasan's Vishwaroopam was banned from the screening for a period of
two weeks in Tamil Nadu.
In 2014 the investigative documentary No Fire Zone: In the Killing Fields of Sri Lanka on
the by Callum Macrae was refused certification by the Central Board of Film Certification
as it would damage India-Sri Lanka relationship.

In 2015, the CBFC demanded four cuts (three visual and one audio) from the art-house
Malayalam feature film Chaayam Poosiya Veedu (The Painted House) directed by brothers
Santosh Babusenan and Satish Babusenan because the film contained scenes where the
female lead was shown in the nude. The directors refused to make any changes whatsoever
to the film and hence the film was denied a certificate. In 2015 noted documentary film
makers Jharana Jhaveri And Anurag Singh's Charlie and the Coca Cola Company: Quit
India ran into trouble with the CBFC and the case is pending since. In the 20 pages the
appellate sited 20 odd objections to the release of the documentary, thought did not
suggest a single cut. The two-hour twenty-minute documentary exposes the Cola
companies of abusing ground water, land, livelihoods, rivers & the laws of the land. The
documentary also holds actors & TV guilty and accountable having violated the ethical
and moral boundaries for profit over sustainability.
In 2015 Porkalathil Oru Poo a biopic of Isaipriya a television journalist raped and
murdered by members of the Sri Lankan Army ran into trouble with the Central Board of
Film Certification with board refusing to certify the movie as it would damage India -Sri
Lanka relationship.
In 2016, the film Udta Punjab, produced by Anurag Kashyap and Ekta Kapoor among
others, ran into trouble with the CBFC, resulting in a very public re-examination of the
ethics of film censorship in India. The film, which depicted a structural drug problem in
the state of Punjab, used a lot of expletives and showed scenes of drug use. The CBFC, on
9 June 2016, released a list of 94 cuts and 13 pointers, including the deletion of names of
cities in Punjab. On 13 June, the film was cleared by the Bombay High Court with one cut
and disclaimers. The court ruled that, contrary to the claims of the CBFC, the film was not
out to "malign" the state of Punjab, and that it "wants to save people". Thereafter, the film
was faced with further controversy when a print of it was leaked online on a torrent site.
The quality of the copy, along with the fact that there was supposedly a watermark that
said "censor" on top of the screen, raised suspicions that the CBFC itself had leaked the
copy to spite the filmmakers. It also contained the only scene that had been cut according
to the High Court order. While the CBFC claimed innocence, the lingering suspicions
resulted in a tense release, with the filmmakers and countless freedom of expression
advocates taking to social media to appeal to the public to watch the film in theatres, as a
conscious challenge against excessive censorship on art in India. Kashyap, in a Facebook
post, urged viewers to wait till the film released before they downloaded it for free, stating
that "Piracy happens because of lack of access and in a world of free internet, i do not have
a problem with it.". The film eventually released and grossed over $13 million finishing as
a commercial success.
In 2017, the film Lipstick Under My Burkha directed by Alankrita Shrivastava and
produced by Prakash Jha, also ran into trouble with the Central Board of Film Certification
refused to certify the film, stating that "The story is lady oriented, their fantasy above life.
There are contagious [sic] sexual scenes, abusive words, audio pornography and a bit
sensitive touch about one particular section of society. “Internationally, the film has been
screened in over 35 film festivals across the world and notably earned eleven international
awards prior to its official release in India, becoming eligible entry for the Golden Globe
Award Ceremony. The filmmakers appealed this decision to the Film Certification
Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), which overruled the censor board's ruling, thereby granting
the film a theatrical release rights. FCAT asked the filmmakers to make some cuts, mostly
related to the sex scenes, at their discretion. The film was released with an "A" or adults
certificate, equivalent to an NC-17 rating in the United States, with some voluntary edits.
Shrivastava told Agence-France Presse: "Of course I would have loved no cuts, but the
FCAT has been very fair and clear. I feel that we will be able to release the film without
hampering the narrative or diluting its essence."
In 2017 Neelam a film based on the Sri Lankan Civil War and the rise of the Tamil Groups
including the LTTE ran into trouble with the Central Board of Film Certification with
board refusing to certify the movie as it would damage India-Sri Lanka relationship.
In 2018, the film No Fathers in Kashmir directed by Ashvin Kumar hit a roadblock with
the Central Board of Film Certification. His two previous documentaries, Inshallah,
Football and Inshallah, Kashmir were first banned and then, subsequently, awarded
National Awards. Kumar has written an open letter to Prasoon Joshi stating that being
awarded an A certificate for an independent film is "as good as banning the film". The
filmmaker has appealed to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT).
CONCLUSION
In India, the basis on which a film is censored or banned has been evidently traditional
norms. That being said, what is censored today, may not be censored tomorrow. The
socio-economic dynamics of a country is continually evolving. Hence, all regulations must
try to adapt to the same. The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and
expression with justifiable limitations on certain expressions like contempt of court,
morality and decency, the security of the State, public order, incitement to an offence,
defamation, etc. and rightly so.
Cinema being an important instrument of expression of ideas and free thoughts must
remain unrestricted from any kind of censorship. Restriction of any kind must not infringe
upon the basic human right of expressing one's view in the community of civilized
societies. However, at the same time one must keep in mind the practical realities of the
society in which such ideas are broadcasted. The peace and security of the society should
not be disturbed in the process of expression of one's thoughts. Since cinema as a public
expression can influence the society at large, caution must be taken while exhibiting the
film to avoid any kind of chaos and threat to national security.
Henceforth, a balance must be maintained between the right of expression and the duty t o
maintain peace in the society. The Certification Board must take a balanced approach
while reviewing a film and must take into account that the harmony between freedom of
expression and sense of security and peace in the society is maintained.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-351-censorship-of-films.html
https://www.mondaq.com/india/broadcasting-film-tv-radio/827892/the-cinematograph-act-
of-india

"Film denied certificate for depicting nudity". The Times of India (Kochi). Times News
Network. 25 August 2015.
"India bans religious riot movie", BBC News, 6 August 2004.