UILS, Panjab University

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

MEDIA AND CENSORSHIP

A project report submitted as a part of internal assessment of the course B.Com. LL.B.
(Hons.) in the subject of RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND MEDIA LAW for the session
2022-23.

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Prof. Nehmat Mehak

263/19

B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.)

Section E

P a g e 1 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The detailed project on “Media and Censorship” would not have been possible without the
kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend my gratitude to all of them.

I am highly indebted to Prof. Nehmat for her guidance and constant help as well as for
providing necessary information regarding the project and also for her support in completing
the project.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my parents and friends for their kind cooperation
and encouragement which helped me in completion of this project.

A sincere thanks to all of them.

-MEHAK

P a g e 2 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CASES..................................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................5

MEANING OF CENSORSHIP..............................................................................................5

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION....................................................................5

FREEDOM OF PRESS...........................................................................................................6

THE PRESS COUNCIL ACT, 1978.......................................................................................7

ABOUT..................................................................................................................................7

CASE LAWS........................................................................................................................7

THE CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952..................................................................................8

CERTIFICATES..................................................................................................................9

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL..................................................................................................9

CASE LAWS......................................................................................................................10

SHYAM BENEGAL COMMITTEE................................................................................13

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................13

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................14

P a g e 3 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

TABLE OF CASES
1. Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106; (1972) 2 SCC 788
2. Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, 1996 4 SCC 1
3. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129
4. Da Vinci Code Movie case, 2006 (4) CTC 193
5. Indian Express Newspaper Private Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 2 SCR 287
6. K. A. Abbas v. Union of India, 1971 2 SCR 446
7. K.K. Birla v. Press Council of India, ILR 1976 Delhi 753
8. Raj Kapoor v. Laxman, 1980 SCR (2) 512
9. Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305
10. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 2 SCC 574, 592
11.

P a g e 4 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

INTRODUCTION
In a recent development, the Indian government through legislation has scrapped the Film
Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) with immediate effect leading to rising fear among
the film fraternity over increased censorship in coming times. Similarly, the New IT Rules,
2021 also gave rise to fear among media of content censorship. This has brought back the
focus on the censorship issue in India. Censorship in media is not a new concept in India.
Since the British rule, there have been issues regarding press freedom. News and
broadcasting media have been under watch on the grounds of several laws and regulations.
There has always been a tussle between those who are in power and the media on several
issues. Censorship in media has been counterproductive on various grounds and have
constitutional limitations as well.

The entertainment industry in India has grown by leaps and bounds in the last century. It has
increased not only the number of movies and programs it produces but its reach has also
spilled all over the world. The emergence of digital platforms over the years has only
increased the quantity and extent of the content that is produced by the entertainment
industry. Pre- censorship of films in India has been prevalent from 1950s and has been the
subject matter of discussion in the field of media law for decades now.

MEANING OF CENSORSHIP
‘Censorship’ is a term generally used to connote the process of restricting the access of ideas
and information in apprehension that it may disturb the public peace. It includes the review of
media content that can be deemed pornographic, politically offensive, or a security threat. It
also includes official prohibition or restriction of any type of expression believed to threaten
the political, social or moral order. It can be imposed by a government authority, sometimes
by a religious authority and occasionally by private organizations. Freedom of speech and
expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as a fundamental
right but this right is not absolute and as such restrictions are imposed on this right under
Article 19(2). Therefore, censorship is all about harmonising the two i.e., freedom of speech
and expression on the one hand and the restriction provided on the other hand.

P a g e 5 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all
liberties.” – John Milton

The essence of free speech is the ability to think and speak freely and to obtain information
from others through publications and public discourse without fear of retribution, restrictions
or repression by the Government. It is through free speech, people could come together to
achieve political influence, strengthen their morality and help others to become moral and
enlightened citizens. The article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India states that, “all citizens
shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”.

The exercise of this right is, however, subject to “reasonable restrictions” for certain purposes
being imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

The Article 19 (2) states that nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation
of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence.

FREEDOM OF PRESS
Freedom of the press refers to the minimal interference of the state in the operation of press
on any form of communication including, print (newspapers, magazines, journals, reports);
audio (radios, podcasts); video (news channels, OTT platforms like YouTube) and over other
electronic mediums like news apps, social media feeds, etc. 
The liberty of the press in the words of Lord Mansfield is, “consists of printing without any
license subject to the consequences of law”. Therefore, we can conclude that freedom of the
press refers to having the freedom to express what one pleases without any prior permission
from law.
Article 19 does not explicitly provide the term “freedom of the press” anywhere but it
becomes quite clear from this constituent assembly debate when Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar
replies to a question of “Article 19 not including ‘freedom of the press’” saying that the press
is just another method of quoting an individual citizen and when anyone chooses to write in a

P a g e 6 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

newspaper, they are merely exercising their right of expression and thus, there is absolutely
no need to separately mentions the freedom of the press.

THE PRESS COUNCIL ACT, 1978

ABOUT

1. The objective of Press Council of India is to preserve the freedom of the press and of
maintaining and improving the standards of the press in India
2. It acts as the regulator that defines and discharge professional standards for the print
media in India. 
3. It is considered as the most important body that sustains democracy and to ensure that
freedom of speech is protected.
4. It arbitrates the complaints against and by the press for violation of ethics and for
violation of the freedom of the press respectively.
5. It is headed by a chairman and has other 28 members.

The freedom of the press can only be legitimate if only it can be effectively exercised along
with a sense of responsibility. The Press Council Act along with the Press Council of India,
established under this Act helps ensure the protection of the independence of the press and
also maintaining its standards. The Press Council Act, 1978 brought only some structural
changes from the Press Council Act, 1965.

As said by M.K. Gandhi, “Freedom of the press is a precious privilege that no country can
forgo”, protecting the freedom of the press was the most important and first objective of the
Act. But it has somewhat failed to do so as there are still various threats to the freedom of the
press which it faces in the form of pressure or intimidation from authorities and individuals
for views that are expressed by the press in newspapers etc., group raids that take place in
newspaper offices by mobs, harassment and victimization of journalists, etc. Therefore, in
order to protect the democracy of India, it is very necessary to protect the freedom of the
press and so, serious actions must be taken against such situations.

CASE LAWS
1. K.K. Birla v. Press Council of India1-

1
ILR 1976 Delhi 753
P a g e 7 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

The senior editor Mr. B.G. Verghese was terminated by the owner of the Hindustan Times
Ltd. The owner was a famous Indian industrialist and without understanding the meaning of
freedom of press and editor’s freedom, terminated the senior editor. The court in the above
case held that the media is the fourth pillar of democracy and freedom of the press is not a
factor for democracy but a part of democracy.  

2. Indian Express Newspaper Private Ltd. v. Union of India2-

In this case, the Supreme Court made it very clear that “No limits on freedom of speech and
expression apart from those alluded to in Article 19(2) could have been enforced, so there can
be no intervention with this kind of freedom within the context of the interest of the public. It
needs to be taken seriously that censorship in the present era is an anachronism”. 

3. Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India3-

The Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960, which fixed the number of pages and
size which a newspaper could publish at a price and in Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union
of India4,the validity of the Newsprint Control Order, which fixed the maximum number of
pages, was struck down by the Supreme Court of India holding it to be violative of provision
of Article 19(1)(a) and not to be reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). The Court struck
down the Government’s stand that it would help small newspapers to grow."

4. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi5-

The validity of order imposing pre-censorship on an English Weekly of Delhi, which directed
the editor and publisher of a newspaper to submit for scrutiny, in duplicate, before the
publication, all communal matters, all the matters and news and views about Pakistan,
including photographs, and cartoons, on the ground that it was a restriction on the liberty of
the press, was struck down by court.

2
1985 2 SCR 287
3
AIR 1962 SC 305
4
AIR 1973 SC 106; (1972) 2 SCC 788
5
AIR 1950 SC 129
P a g e 8 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

THE CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952

Movies in India as it stands now have to obtain certification before they are released in
theatres. The certificates in this respect are issued by a statutory body called the Central
Board of Film Certification (CBFC) which has been established under the Cinematograph
Act, 1952. The Board shall consist of a Chairman and 12 to 25 other members which are
appointed by the Central Government.6 A film is examined in the first instance by an
Examining Committee. If it is not approved, it is further reviewed by a Revising Committee
under Section 5 of the Act.

The Act of 1952 along with the Cinematographic Rules, 1983 and the Central government
guidelines of 1991 set out the manner in which movies are to be exhibited in the country.

CERTIFICATES
The categories in which the CBFC divides movies for exhibition are:

1. The film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibitions i.e., fit for ‘U’ certificate.
2. The film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition but with an endorsement of
caution that the question as to whether any child below the age of 12 years may be
allowed to see the film should be considered by the parents or the guardian of such
child i.e., fit for ‘U/A’ certificate.
3. The film is suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults i.e., fit for ‘A’
certificate.
4. The film is suitable for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or
any class of persons having regard to the nature, content and theme of the film i.e., fit
for ‘S’ certificate.

If a film is exhibited without the certificate of the Board, the exhibitor is liable for
punishment. The grounds for restricting the film is provided under Section 5B (1) which
are in accordance to reasonable restrictions under Article 19.

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
The applicant for the certificate is to be given reasonable opportunity to present his case is
case the movie is to be granted a certificate other than U or U/A. The Act also provides for
the establishment of an Appellate Tribunal to appeal against the decision of the Censor
Board. The Tribunal is chaired by a retired Judge of a High Court or any person qualified

6
Section 3(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
P a g e 9 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

to be a judge of the High Court. It consists of a maximum of 4 other members. The Central
government is vested with the power to call for the record of any proceeding except the
proceeding pending before the Appellate Tribunal.7

CASE LAWS
1. K. A. Abbas v. Union of India8-

A Constitutional Bench of this Court considered important questions relating to pre-

censorship of cinematograph films in relation to the fundamental right of freedom of speech
and expression. K.A. Abbas, a noted Indian Journalist and film producer produced a short
documentary film called “A Tale of four Cities”. In that film he sought to contrast the self-
indulgent life of the rich in Metropolitan cities with the squalor and destitution of labouring
masses who helps to construct the imposing building and complexes utilized by the rich. The
film also goes on to explore the theme of exploitation of women by men, dealing in particular
prostitution.

Abbas applied to the Board of Film Censors for a ‘U’ certificate, while he was informed by a
regional officer that the film has been given ‘A’ certificate. An appeal was filed in the
Supreme court of India, to which the court responded with an order commencing a ‘U’
certificate provided some scenes portraying the red-light area were deleted from the actual
film.

The petitioner filed a petition arguing that his freedom of speech and expression was denied,
that the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 are unconstitutional and void. However,
the central government allowed granting the ‘U’ certificate without demanding any changes.

The petitioner then amended his petition and asked that the provisions of the Act and the
power given to various authorities and bodies under the Act were vague, arbitrary and
indefinite and also questioned the purpose of pre-censorship only in films excluding daily
programs and news.

The Supreme Court upheld the restrictions on public exhibitions under the cinematograph act,
1952 and thereby rejected the petition that challenged the power of censorship and stated that
pre censorship fell under the reasonable restrictions permitted under freedom of speech and
expression and that the Act provides means and provisions to avoid arbitrariness in the
exercise of powers conferred.

7
Section 6(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
8
(1971) 2 SCR 446
P a g e 10 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

2. Raj Kapoor v. Laxman9-

The Supreme court held that the initiation of criminal processes for obscenity etc. under IPC,
it is not sustainable if the film has been passed by the censor board. However, the court also
maintained that the bar is not absolute, and the filmmaker has to participate in the legal
proceedings and claim the safeguard.

3. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram10-

The plot of “Ore Oru Gramathile” (“In a Single Village”) runs as follows: Shankara Sastry, a
Brahmin, procures a fake lower-caste certificate for his daughter Gayathri, worried that she
will otherwise not be able to attend university. Gayathri turns out to be a good student and,
later, an excellent civil servant, but when she is working on a flood-relief mission in a village
named Annavayil, she is recognized and her true caste exposed. In rousing court scenes,
Gayathri and her father argue that the reservation policy should be based on economic
backwardness and not on caste. Improbably, the case against Gayathri is withdrawn when the
people of Annavayil flood the government with petitions demanding that she be restored to
her job.

The movie was banned by the government despite it having received a ‘U’ certificate from
the censor board.

The Supreme Court struck down the ban and observed, “Movie is the legitimate and the most
important medium in which issues of general concern can be treated. The producer may
project his own message which the others may not approve of it. But he has a right to ‘think
out’ and put the counter appeals to reason. It is a part of a democratic give-and-take to
which no one could complain. The State cannot prevent open discussion and open
expression, however, hateful to its policies.” 

4. Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon11 (Bandit Queen case)-

The judgment marked the recognition of the importance of freedom of expression by way of
films under Article 19(1)(a) by the Supreme Court. The CBFC was of the opinion that the
film depicts obscenity and that it would appeal to prurient interests and corrupt the minds of
the young people in the country. It was the contention of the Petitioner however that in order
to accurately depict the life of Phoolan Devi, it is necessary to show the scenes of rape and

9
1980 SCR (2) 512
10
(1989) 2 SCC 574, 592
11
(1996) 4 SCC 1
P a g e 11 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

sexual abuse. Similarly, the scenes in the movie about the Gujjar community are relevant to
the story line and hence cannot be edited out. It was held by the Apex court that a film cannot
be restricted simply because the content is obscene, immoral or indecent, as long as it is
relevant to the story line. The same goes for scenes with nudity and abusive language. This
was also upheld by the Khosla Committee that said that as long as the scenes with nudity or
sexual acts were relevant and depicted respectfully, there is no need for them to be cut out.
The movie was finally provided with an A certificate under Section 5B of the Act, i.e., to be
viewed only by adults.12 A film is merely a way of expressing one’s emotions and ideas and
falls well within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a), and the conflict that arises from this right is the
battle between restriction and freedom. While the state has to protect the rights of its citizens
individually, it must also protect the collective good, and this question may be one, that will
perhaps forever plague lawmakers in the world.

5. Da Vinci Code Movie case13-

The Supreme Court rejected the writ petition filed by All India Christians Welfare
Association who claimed it to be against Article 25 of the constitution of India and that it hurt
the sentiments of the Christian community. The court observed that since many
predominantly Christian countries have no objection to the content of the movie, and since
the movie has been approved by the censor board and central government, it is moot to ban it.
Thus, the court has interpreted the provisions of Article 19 and the Cinematograph Act, 1952
to bring out the ambit of censorship and scope of freedom of speech and expression.

6. Udta Punjab case-

The most recent case where in the judiciary stepped in and whipped the Central Board of
Film Certification on its overreach is that of the controversy surrounding the film Udta
Punjab. In this case, the Board refused to certify the film Udta Punjab which is based on the
drug menace prevailing in the state of Punjab. In addition to its refusal to certify, the board
suggested almost 13 cuts in the movie as a mandatory measure to seek certification.
However, on appeal by the filmmaker, the Bombay High Court criticised the CBFC for its
conduct and poor way of handling the issue. The Court made a very important observation
that the Board is not necessarily empowered to censor films. The word censor is not found in
the Cinematograph Act. The board can make changes in the film but this power must be

12
8 Sathyam Rathore, A Critical Overview of Censorship in Indian Cinema in the light of the Role of the CBFC,
BLR 218 (2016).
13
2006 (4) CTC 193
P a g e 12 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

exercised in consonance with Constitutional Guarantee and Supreme Court orders. It can be
rightly believed that the verdict of the Court in this case will definitely serve as a milestone
which can pave the way for the long pending reformation of the Certification Board. It can be
seen that the Board has wrongly widened its power which actually meant to be restricted to
certification of films for exhibition only, to now include within it the power to censor also.
Such an attitude of the Board, which many a time is politically motivated, can put the rights
of the citizen in danger.

SHYAM BENEGAL COMMITTEE

The Shyam Bengal Committee formed in 2016 made certain recommendations to improve
film certification in the country, but only some progress has made on this front. Some of the
recommendations of the committee are below:

• The CBFC must have the power to deny certifying a film if it is in express contravention of
the provisions of the 1952 Act.

• The CBFC must only work on certifying films and the categorization of films to audience
based on age and maturity must be limited.

• All applications for certification of a film must include the target audience of the said film.

However, the Committee refrained from touching the restrictions imposed under section
5.1(B) of the Cinematograph Act which in the opinion of the Committee should continue to
serve as the ground of refusal of certification by the Board.

CONCLUSION
Absence of censorship is neither practical nor pragmatic as will cause chaos and conflict in
the nation. However, using it censorship also doesn’t mean that the government uses it for its
own personal gains by suppressing dissent or diverting from actual issues of concern also
does not counterbalance the situation. India is the largest democratic nation in the world and
there are enough precedents to show that the Judiciary recognizes the difference in opinions
and viewpoints and the existence of criticism as long as it does not hinder the public peace.
Sadly, today censorship is used as a weapon in the hands of the State to ensure that people
agree with its ideology and often the Censor Board functions to impose this very notion of the
State. To ensure that the censorship is not misused or used excessively, a balance needs to be
struck on both State action as well as the actions of the media. The subjective nature in this
regard cannot be discounted but placing reliance on the older judgments of the Apex Court
P a g e 13 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

and its interpretation of laws in this respect can help reduce the confusion and give the people
of our country a clearer outlook of their rights.

P a g e 14 | 15
 UILS, Panjab University

REFERENCES
 The Cinematograph Act, 1952
 The Press Council Act, 1978
 Media Laws - An Overview (legalserviceindia.com)
 Issue of Censorship in India - CBFC, Laws on Censorship. UPSC Polity Notes
(byjus.com)
 K .A Abbas vs Union Of India | Lawsisto Legal News
 From Tamil Film, a Landmark Case on Free Speech - The New York Times
(nytimes.com)
 Censorship Of Films And The Law - iPleaders
 Shyam Benegal Committee Recommendations - GKToday
 A CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF CENSORSHIP IN INDIAN CINEMA IN THE
LIGHT OF ROLE OF CBFC (manupatra.in)
 CENSORSHIP IN A DEMOCRACY: AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF
ARTICLE 19(1)(a) IN MODERN INDIA | IJLLR (usrfiles.com)
 Censorship in Media - Causes, Effects and the Indian Laws | UPSC - IAS EXPRESS
 A Brief Analysis of Censorship in India (youthkiawaaz.com)

P a g e 15 | 15