LEGAL ENGLISH FINAL DRAFT

BBA LLB (Hons.) Semester II

PROJECT TOPIC – AGAINST THE BAN OF THE FILM FIRE (1996)

Submitted to:
Prof. Rakesh Nambiar
School of Law, NMIMS
(Deemed to be University)

Submitted by:
 INDEX

S. No. Particulars Page No.

1 Introduction to The Case 3

2 Facts of The Case 3

3 Legal Provisions 4

4 Judicial History 5

5 Legal Issue 6

6 Analysis: Arguments 7

7 Counter Arguments 8

8 Conclusion & Prayer 10

9 Bibliography 11
 INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE

Deepa Mehta wrote and directed the 1996 Indo-Canadian sensual romance drama film Fire. The Elements
trilogy is a trilogy of films by Mehta dealing with contentious subjects of social transformation in the Indian
subcontinent.

Fire is one of the first big Bollywood films to openly depict gay relationships, as well as the first to depict a
lesbian romance.

Following its debut in India in 1998, activists launched multiple rallies, sparking a flurry of public debate on
themes such as homosexuality and free speech.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The site of controversy over the release of Deepa Mehta’s film Fire in 1998 in India was a highly contested
space with varied claims pertaining to a wide range of issues – from lesbian rights, Hindu Nationalism, major
Politics and Violation of Right to Freedom of Expression. But the release of Fire in India provoked the
guardians of morality– for the lesbian theme it sketched, The Shiv Sena an extreme right wing Hindu
organisation under the leadership of Bal Thackeray with roots in Mumbai played the major rule in the
protests against Fire all over the country by accusing the film of being alien to Indian culture and tradition
and of affronting its values.

More than 200 Shiv Sainiks attacked a Cinemax theatre in Mumbai's suburban Goregaon on December 2,
destroying glass panes, burning posters, and chanting slogans.
A Regal theatre in Delhi was similarly attacked on December 3rd. One of the Delhi protestors, Mina
Kulkarni, stated the illogical reasons for their activities, stating, "If women's physical demands are met by
lesbian activities, the institution of marriage would crumble, and human reproduction would cease."

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting referred the picture back to the Censor Board on December 4
for a re-examination.
On December 5, a group of film stars and free speech campaigners filed a 17-page appeal with the Supreme
Court, requesting that, in addition to fundamental protection, a "feeling of security" be granted so that the
film could be played smoothly.

On December 12, over 60 Shiv Sena members stripped naked and stood in front of Dilip Kumar's residence
to protest his support for Fire; 22 were detained.

Cinemax reopened screenings of Fire on 18 December, but a hundred members of the Bhartiya Janata Party
(BJP) vandalised posters at the Sundar Theatre in Kanpur despite the police commissioner's reassurance
that protection has been arranged.

Fire was re-released without cuts by the Censor Board on 12 February 1999, and the theatre screening
resumed shortly afterwards without any risk of happening on incident.

The declaration that sparked the bulk of the breakouts across the country was that women should not be
allowed to make their own decisions because it would have a detrimental influence on the functioning of
society.

The comment about changing the names of the women from Hindu to Muslim demonstrates the egregious
insult highlighted by the protesting groups. Hindu women have no right to express themselves was the
reason behind change of names.
 LEGAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 19

The Constitution of India provides the right of freedom, given in article 19 with the view of guaranteeing
individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution. The right to freedom in Article
19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, as one of its six freedoms.

Article 19(1)(a) & Article 19(1)(b)

The Right to protest peacefully is enshrined in the Indian Constitution—Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the
freedom of speech and expression; Article 19(1)(b) assures citizens the right to assemble peaceably
and without arms.

Article 25

Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. Subject to public order,
morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of
conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

Section 153 & Section 153(a) Indian Penal Code

Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes
or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community
or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different
religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or commits any act which is
prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups
shall be imprisoned which may extend to 3 years, or fined or both.

Judicial History or Precendents

BAN ON PADMAAVAT

The film became controversial during production. Several Rajput caste organisations including Shri Rajput
Karni Sena and its members had protested and later vandalised the film sets claiming that the film portrays
the Padmavati, a Rajput queen, in bad light. The Sena had made further threats of violence. While filming a
scene in Masai Plateau, Kolhapur at night in October 2017, some people attacked and set the set ablaze,
injuring animals and destroying several costumes. Several Muslim leaders protested against the alleged
misrepresentation of Ala-ud-din Khilji and called for a ban.

The controversies surrounding the film re-opened the question of film censorship in India and the country's
freedom of expression. The Supreme Court dismissed a petition calling to stop the film's release citing the
freedom of speech and expression.

LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED

After its release in India initially, Fire was always under the vision to get banned by the continuous protests
of the political parties and many others, the question raise by them was that movie hurt the sentimental of the
people and hurt the Indian Culture and nationalism by portraying homosexuality and picturising women have
the right to choose what ever they want. The main question here is that did Fire really violate the Hindu
nationalism on the basis of it showing Homosexuality or the Provision under Article 25 and Article 19(1)
should prevail over the following arguments and in favour of unbanning the movie.
 ARGUMENTS

The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, in the movie Fire the
Filmmakers and Deep Mehta have all the rights to portray what they want to and banning someone’s
work and opinion violates the provision set under the Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.

When a movie is designed or talked about it takes a lot of monetary investment and the ideas of several
people are taken into consideration. Banning a movie is a big hit on the investment and creative aspect of the
people working for the movie, even the riots and the damage to the public property was not called for which
was a huge loss to the government and the people that owned the properties. Numerous public properties,
theatres were damaged giving the government a big budget to tackle with.

The main argument of protest on the side of the Shiv Sena was not about the homosexuality published in the
movie but the fact portrayed that woman are free to choose whatever they want to do just like men, and
should have the right to choose whom they love like the men's have and that the names of Hindu women
should never be attached to these terms as it is a mark on the Indian Culture. This is unlawful as it violates
the following laws, Under Section 153 of Indian Penal Code which stated the following, “whoever
promotes or attempts to promote, on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or
community, or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between
different religious, racial, language, or regional groups, castes, or communities, should be imprisoned for the
conduction of the such act” and violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The movie was re released by the Censor board initially without any cuts and removal of scenes, to which
there were even more protests the court had guaranteed protection after its re release to the directors but it
was violated. The Censor Board did not take any actions on the first attempt and hence the fault should be on
there part as they have the authority to change the parts of the movie which they failed to do.
 COUNTER ARGUMENTS

1. Sigmund Freud developed a theory where men place women into two categories – Madonna, a
woman who is admired and respected, and the whore, a woman who men are attracted to, and
thus disrespect. This theory is called the Madonna-Whore complex which, according to Freud
represents the uncomfortable dichotomy of fear and desire, explaining the anxiety that men
experience towards women’s sexuality. Madonna-Whore Dichotomy operating in the movie.
Even though Radha is unable to procreate, she is treated respectfully by her husband, Ashok.
Similarly, in the initial stages of the movie, Sita is shown to be treated respectfully by Jatin,
but is not desired because he already has an affair with another woman.

REPLY - The Movie Fire (1996) talks about the representation of the LGBTQ rights in India and to allow not
only men but women as well to be open and choose what they want. Homosexuality has always been an
extremely sensitive topic in India as people have the mentality that there exist no 3rd Gender it is either the
Male or Female and it is a Universal rule that if you are a boy, you will marry a girl and if you are the girl
you would have to follow what is being said by the Male member of the family, without having any rights.

The Madonna concept violates the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, as it promotes the concept of
inequality towards the women as it distinguishes them in two 2 categories. Article 14 states, "The State shall
not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India".

2. The movie surely does give a perspective on how women are oppressed in village areas in terms
of their freedom , Independence and choice regarding their sexuality , but in the process of
portraying the whole act of oppressing somewhere in the back of the mind of people who are not
having the same perspective that the movie wants to create will actually think that it has been
normalized to act in such way as it is shown in a movie that the husbands are treating their
wives In an unequal manner and thus they are even though not happy but are accepting it as
they have to obey their husbands ,now people who actually follow this kind of behaviour and
traditions will actually more tend be like expecting the same reactions from their significant
other i.e. the behaviour of following what their husbands tell them to do and if not followed
then that might
 result into something unpleasant in the whole situation . Thus, in a way it is also normalizing the
behaviour.

REPLY - The concept of the Movie by Deep Mehta is to express the condition of women in backward areas
and how the rights they have are not given to them, she portrays this by the perspective of homosexuality in
the movie Fire. Violation of rights given to women is something that has existed for a prolong period of time
and by this movie it will be an eye opener for all these women to fight for their rights as everyone deserves
the Fundamental Rights as mentioned in the Indian Constitution.

The defendant in the last few lines had stated that normalizing the situation would create unpleasant situation,
firs off Women deserve equal rights as Men and if from the movie they get the knowledge about the rights
they have I don't see it being turned into a situation that will have unpleasant conditions, and also stated
before Under the Constitution of India everyone deserves the basic Fundamental Rights.

3. The movie reflects how patriarchy operates against the interests of women, but at the same
time, also portrays how it operates against men. Initially, Jatin was pressurized by his brother
and his mother to get married and once he got married, he was expected to have a child. A
frustrated Jatin is shown arguing with his brother and he finally says that, “It is not easy to live
juggling between what I want and what I am expected to want.” This helps us understand that
patriarchy also ensures the oppression of the oppressors. And thus, the point of men also being
pressurized and there are also few sets of customs and traditional behaviours that is expected
of men when in marriage or in general has not been focused upon quite clearly.

REPLY - Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits the state to discriminate against any citizen on grounds only
of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. The legislature cannot override this principle while
drafting laws. It has, time to time, formulated many laws which have strengthened the pillars of Article 15.

Patriarchy has been a very sensitive topic in the Indian past but laws and sections are made to tackle these
problems, Section 497 of the Indian penal Code was struck down following this, the section gave married
men right to have intercourse with other women, but the women if married had to ask for the permission of
the husband. This section was abolished as it infringes the individuality and dignity women as it makes them
chattel for their husband.
All customs are not laws as stated by our Supreme Court and in the argument the said customs do not exist
under the law and in the movie as well it was seen that majority of the humiliation was faced by the wife for
not being able to reproduce.

CONCLUSION
Deep Mehta’s Fire the movie released in 1996 based on homosexuality and LGBTQ representation in India
was under like its name fire for being disrespectful towards the Indian Culture and nationalism and
portraying that woman have the right to choose who their significant other should be. Protests were held
against the release of the movie, theatres showing the movie were damaged and attacked by Shiv Sena
activists on several different places, when asked one of the Delhi protestors, Mina Kulkarni, stated the
illogical reasons for their activities, stating, "If women's physical demands are met by lesbian activities,
the institution of marriage would crumble, and human reproduction would cease."

On December 5 after an appeal filed in the Supreme Court it was held that the Movie should be taken down
with immediate effect and the Censor Board to review and re release the movie. The Censor Board on the
other hand did not cut or replace anything from the movie initially and gave a green flag to its rerelease, to
which the court ensured protection to the film makers and the people involved in filing of the appeal.

Nothing stated above happened and still attacks were conducted, finally the movie was taken down again and
re released with names of the women being changed from Hindu names to Muslim sounding names, which
was illogical and extremely disrespectful as this move showed that even the Censor Board agrees to what the
protest was about which was something not to be entertained because using name of another religion to show
that your religion is superior to the other and does not allow what is being said is nothing but illogical
thinking.

PRAYER

Therefore, it is prayed, in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

HOLD, The ban on movie Fire (1996) by Deep Mehta unlawful under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code,
Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution and Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
DECLARE, the riots and protests against the movie uncalled for and violation of Fundamental Rights of the
people.

And pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice

and good conscience.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/society-the-arts/films/story/19981221-controversial-film-fire-is-sent-
back-to-censor-board-matter-taken-to-court-827561-1998-12-21 , Deepa Mehta's film Fire creates a furore,
20th June, 2021, 3PM

2. https://feminisminindia.com/2019/12/18/film-review-fire-queering-love-beyond/ , Review of The Movie

Fire (1996), 20th June 3PM

3. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/05/fire-m02.html Fire: A film which bears witness to Deepa

Mehta's courage as an artist, 21st June 12 Noon

4. http://feministlawarchives.pldindia.org/category/sexuality/lgbti-rights/controversy-around-fire/ , Legal
Letter Written to The Court by all Parties, 21st June 2PM

5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/ Article 19 in The Constitution of India 1949, 21st June 3Pm

6. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/631708/ Article 25 in The Constitution of India 1949, 21st June 3Pm

7.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/345634/#:~:text=%E2%80%94(2)%20Whoever%20commits%20an,also%20be
%20liable%20to%20fine.%5D Section 153A in The Indian Penal Code, 21st June 3Pm