Film Censorship vis a vis Film Censorship

Submitted by
Anindita Deb
Batch 2020-25, DIVISION-C, BBA.LL.B.
PRN NO. - 20010224161

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed) University, PUNE

In
September 2021

Under the Guidance Of

Mr. Ahmed Ali & Mr. Satya Prakash
(Assistant Professor) (Adjunct Faculty)
 CERTIFICATE
The project titled “Freedom of Speech vis a vis Film Censorship” submitted to the Symbiosis Law School,
NOIDA for Law of Constitutional Law I as part of Internal Assessment is based on my original work carried
out under the guidance of Mr. Ahmed Ali and Mr. Satya Prakash. The research work has not been submitted
elsewhere for award of any degree. The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the
research paper has been duly acknowledged. I understand that I myself would be held responsible and
accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Anindita Deb
Date- 13th September 2021
 Acknowledgement
I would like to show my gratitude towards Ms. Ahmed Ali and Mr. Satya Prakash for
guiding me forward in this project, helping me understand the basis of my topic in detail and
helping me whenever a doubt arose in my mind. I would also like to thank the library
department and academic support of Symbiosis Law School, Noida for providing me with
different electronic research sources and materials to help make my project with the best of
originality. I would also like to thank Symbiosis Law School, Noida for providing me with
this project so that I could understand the topic regarding Constitutional Law easily and
nicely and with full detail.
 List of Cases
 K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) 2 SCC 574
 S. Rangarajan v. P. JagjivanRam (1989) 2 SCC 574
 Via Com 18 v. Union of India, 2018 1 SCC 761
Freedom of Speech vis a vis Film Censorship
Introduction

All forms of entertainment, like films, the press, and social media, have been guaranteed constitutional
validity as per Article 19(1)(a), which provides all people of the country the right of free speech and
expression. This fundamental right remains unaffected by any limitations except under situations when a
government authority might impose some reasonable restrictions in line with the reasons stated under Article
19(2) of the Constitution.

Censorship: definition

Any instance where an individual expresses his views or ideas, by mouth or in writing, and this expression
faces filtration or restriction, it is an instance of censorship. The opinion, view, or idea can be expressed in a
public setting or in a location where can be seen and/or heard by the public, or by means of any electronic
mode such as the press, online platforms, or movies. These opinions are of a nature as might cause public
morality to be disrupted, promote obscenity, and destroy harmony. Censorship is applied by a public
authority in order to prevent a person from expressing thoughts that could have detrimental consequences.

Due to a lack of clarity in the provision of Article 19(1)(a) regarding the medium of communication of ideas,
censorship is included under the right to freedom of speech and expression. Because fundamental rights are
not absolute, reasonable limitations constitute an impediment to exercising these rights.

Censorship is a reasonable restriction imposed on the general public by authorised bodies in order to place
restrictions on the right to free speech. The limitations set forth in Article 19(2) of the Constitution can be
used to impose censorship on the free expression of ideas, views, or beliefs.

Article Review

Film Censorship

Films are regarded as an excellent means of communicating with the general public. Films have undergone a
sea shift as a result of the advancement and development of society, as well as advances in science and
technology, and have been easier to connect for the audience and contribute considerably to the country's
social and cultural development by using all available technologies. Films are thus associated with the press,
which is similarly regarded as a powerful vehicle of communication. In terms of constitutional freedom with
respect to the expression of ideas and the dissemination of opinions and ideas, both the cinematic industry
and the press have the same status and rights.

India is best described as a combination of diverse ethnic groups, races, and religious organisations that have
managed to live in peace for the most part. They have similar forms of expression, whether literary, artistic,
or cinematographic, and these expressions have been deemed objectionable to others in various instances.
India has adopted the practice of the Censor Board censoring movies to remove any offensive material. It is
to adapt the film to the intended audience. The audience is determined by the certificate issued to each film,
which specifies the mass audience who can watch the film. Historically, sensitive issues like communal
strife, sexual or highly violent content depicted in films have resulted in the Board's censoring.

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) was founded by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
to determine the appropriateness of a film or motion cinema for public display. It is a statutory body tasked
with the responsibility of censoring and certification under The Cinematograph Act, 1952. 1 Films may be
publicly shown under the auspices of this statute only after they have been legally certified by the CBFC.

Constitutionality of Film Censorship under the ambit of Article 19(1)(a): Judicial

Pronouncements

In K.A. Abbas v. Union of India 2, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of film censorship under Article
19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution for the first time. The Court supported film censorship in this case stating
that films must be given different treatment from other art forms and expressions because a movie can
provoke much stronger emotions than any other medium. As a result, a film is subject to be restricted for the
reasons stated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The apex court was of the stand that film censorship, classifying movies according to age categories, and
appropriateness for display without restrictions are all considered acceptable exercises of authority in
upholding public morality, decency, and so on. This should not be interpreted as a direct attack on freedom
of speech and expression.3

It was also stated by the Court that censorship (also pre-censorship is no better in terms of quality) is
completely justified in the realm of film screening. There is no need to make broad generalisations about
other forms of speech or expression because every single fundamental right bears its own content and
significance. The imposition of censorship on the production and screening of films is only for the protection
of society’s interests. If the restriction directives go beyond this justifiable ambit of constraints, they can be
called into doubt on the basis that there has been an abuse of a valid power. As a result, film censorship, as
well as prior restrictions, are justified according to our Constitution.4

In S. Rangarajan v. P. JagjivanRam5, the constitutionality of censorship was also upheld. The issue was
brought to the Supreme Court by means of an appeal over the removal of a Tamil film's 'U' certificate.
"Though movies enjoy the protection under Article 19(1)(a), there is one significant difference between
movies and other modes of communication," the Supreme Court said, overturning the Madras High Court's
decision. Cinema stimulates cognition and action while retaining high levels of attention and retention.

1
The Cinematograph Act, 1952 https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1952-37.pdf
2
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) 2 SCC 574
3
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 780 at p. 797

4
ibid
5
(1989) 2 SCC 574
Because of technological advancements in the production process and evolution of photography, the film in
question is a potent communication tool. It possesses an innate ability to agitate and stimulate emotions.

Cinema has the same potential to promote good as it can for evil. It has the ability to instill or foster either
positive behavior or provocative acts. It is unreasonable to compare movies to other modes of
communication because of these characteristics and because it caters to a large audience who most often are
not selective of the content they are viewing. It should not be allowed to operate in the same free market in
which newspapers and magazines are circulated. As a result, censorship with previous restraint is not only
preferable but also mandatorily required.

In Via Com 18 v. Union of India,6 the Petitioner had made a film called Padmaavat, which told the story of
the ancient Kingdom of Chittor, which was attacked by Alauddin Khilji, the ruler of the Delhi Sultanate.
According to some historians, the attack was launched in order for Khilji to capture Chittor's Queen
Padmini. Khilji slew the King of Chittor, but she jumped into a veil of flames before he could capture her
(referred to as "Jauhar"). The film received a "U/A" certification from the CBFC; nonetheless, the Rajasthan
government banned it in the state due to concerns that it would harm people's deeply held religious beliefs
and create a law-and-order issue. The Court dismissed the government's argument, holding that it is the state
government's responsibility to regulate the law-and-order scenario whenever a film is screened. The Court
further said that it is also the government's responsibility to protect those involved in the
production/exhibition of the film, as well as the viewing audience, if necessary.

Some Controversial movies which were subject to censorship

Kissa Kursi Ka (1978) (censored due to political considerations)

Kissa Kursi Ka, a political comedy criticising the Indira Gandhi government directed by Amrit Nahta, was
shot in April 1975 but had not been released. All prints available in the market were destroyed following the
orders of Vidya Charan Shukla, the Information and Broadcasting Minister at the time and a Sanjay Gandhi
ally. The film was remade and released in 1978 by Nahta, a Congressman who decide to join the Janata
Party after the Emergency, with the same script and most of the actors.

The Pink Mirror (2006) (censored due to moral considerations)

This was the first popular movie to have two protagonists who are transsexuals. While the film was hailed as
a ground-breaking move in Indian cinema, the Central Board of Film Certification had other ideas, labelling
it "vulgar and offensive." The Pink Mirror was banned in India, yet it went on to win the New York LGBT
Film Festival's Jury Award for Best Feature. It can currently be found on Netflix.

Conclusion

Cinema, being a vital medium for the presentation of ideas and free thought, must be free of severe and
unreasonable censorship. Any restriction on the fundamental human right to express oneself in the

6
Via Com 18 v. Union of India, 2018 1 SCC 761
community of civilised societies must be avoided. However, the practical circumstances of the society in
which such ideologies are spread must also be considered. Societal tranquillity and stability cannot be put in
jeopardy in the name of voicing one’s opinions. Due to the fact that cinema has the capacity to affect society
as a whole, caution should be exercised when screening the film to avoid disruption and menace to society.

As a result, a balance needs to be struck between the right to free speech and expression and the obligation
of maintaining societal peace. The Certification Board must adopt a balanced approach when reviewing a
movie, ensuring that the balance between freedom of expression and societal stability and tranquillity is
maintained.
 Bibliography

Websites used:

 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-351-censorship-of-films.html
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/laws-governing-censorship-of-movies-in-india/
#Anand_Patwardhan_v_Central_Board_of_Film_Certification_2003
 https://theculturetrip.com/asia/india/articles/the-15-most-controversial-films-in-indian-cinema/

Articles:

 http://www.jcreview.com/fulltext/197-1593082708.pdf
 Cinema and Censorship in India: A Political Restriction on Freedom of Speech- Swapnil Tripathi
(available on Hein Online)