LADY SHRI RAM COLLEGE FOR WOMEN

UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL THEORY

TOPIC OF THE ASSIGNMENT:

CINEMA AND CENSORSHIP:
NAVIGATING FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND EXPRESSION IN THE INDIAN
FILM INDUSTRY
SUBMITTED BY: SNEHA KUNDU (23/987)
COURSE: B.A. POLITICAL SCIENCE (HONS)
SEMESTER: I

SUBMITTED TO: DR. VAGESH PAWAIYA

 1

INTRODUCTION

India is the largest producer of films in the world and second oldest film industry in the world. In
the year 2020-2021, a total of 2258 long Indian films and 4945 short Indian films were certified1.
Every three months an audience as large as the country’s entire population flocks to the cinema
halls. Despite the immense size of the entertainment industry, as long as filmmakers stick to
commercially successful and stereotypical movies featuring songs and dance sequences, sticking
to common entertainment formulas, there is no issue. However, the moment a filmmaker dares to
go against the state's stance or the views of some interest group, articulating opinions on
sensitive or serious matters through films or documentaries, especially those that may not align
with the preferences of certain people or authority, they find themselves in risky territory. There
is a substantial likelihood of encountering censorship or a political ban in such cases.

In an era where film serves as a powerful medium of cultural and societal reflection, the act of
film censorship raises pressing questions about the balance between freedom of expression and
the perceived need for societal control. While censorship is often justified as a means to shield
the public from 'harmful' content, it inherently intersects with political theories such as
liberalism. Liberalism places a high value on freedom of speech as a fundamental right.
Censorship, when it restricts the content of films, may be perceived as obstructing the free
expression of filmmakers and limiting the diversity of voices in the public sphere. This essay
analyzes, to what extent does film censorship uphold or challenge autonomy of individual or
artistic freedom, especially in a rapidly globalizing digital age. Moreover, films in India have
been censored on the basis of obscenity, sex and violence, but the main focus of this write-up

will be on how films have been banned or targeted in the name of maintaining public order,
respecting beliefs, sentiments and traditions. So, through this essay we will also try to analyze
how public morality acts as a hindrance to freedom of expression and speech. In addition to this,

1
CBFC | Certification Statistics. (n.d.). https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/dashboard.php
 2

the tags, cuts and beeps after censoring might make a movie much more suitable for a family
audience but it really makes it annoying for a movie goer. The genuine efforts put by the cast and
crew is lost after the censorship ceremony. On one hand censorship protects the valley of culture
and sentiments of the general public, but on the other it destroys the dream of the team. Thus,
this essay ultimately raises the question - in today's time, do we even need a censor board?

CENSORSHIP: ORIGIN AND TYPES

The term "censor" sparks debates among both legal experts and linguists. The Oxford English
Dictionary traces its origin to Roman census officials responsible for overseeing public morals,
linking it to the Latin term "censere" meaning to estimate2. However, Merriam-Webster suggests
a potential Indo-Aryan connection, with some Indo-Germanic philologists proposing that
"censor" is derived from a Sanskrit root word associated with ceremonial praise3.

Within the legal community, there are different views on the definition of censorship. Kathleen
Sullivan defines censorship as "the restriction of speech by the government," while Eric Barendt
adopts a narrower interpretation, specifically referring to state-imposed legal restraints on
speech. On the other hand, scholars such as Paul O’Higgins and Louis Blom-Cooper, argue that
censorship can extend beyond state players and is not solely limited to legal prohibitions.
O’Higgins classified censorship into "legal censorship" and "extra-legal censorship"4. Legal
censorship is executed through strictly authorized legal means, encompassing both
pre-censorship (restraints before dissemination) and subsequent censorship (sanctions after
dissemination). In contrast, extra-legal censorship involves suppressing information through
means not strictly authorized by law, such as intimidation. Consequently, in O'Higgins
framework, Barendt’s concept of censorship is considered a subset, specifically pre-censorship,
amidst various forms of censorship. Barendt's viewpoint on censorship proves inadequate when
discussing freedom of expression in an Indian context due to the prevalence of extra-legal
censorship in the country5. For instance, the movie “Kissa Kursi Ka”, a political satire about the

2
Moore, N. (2016). Censorship. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.71
3
“Censor.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor. Accessed 10 Dec. 2023.
4
O’Higgins, P. (1972). Censorship in Britain. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA24613493
5
To read more refer to Banerjee, A. (2010). Political censorship and Indian Cinematographic Laws: A Functionalist
liberal analysis. Social Science Research Network.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1695087_code791981.pdf?abstractid=1672409&mirid=1
 3

Indira Gandhi government, had its copies destroyed.6 Similarly, sets of “Padmaavat” got
vandalized and was set on fire by religious organizations and groups7.

In the digital age, cancel culture and boycotting have emerged as powerful tools that individuals
and communities wield to shape discourse, influence norms, and enforce consequences for
perceived wrongs. While not conventional forms of censorship, these practices have a powerful
influence on public opinion and can lead to detrimental effects on free expression. On one hand,
‘cancel culture’, defined as a modern form of ostracism, involves the public denouncement and
shaming, and on the other hand, ‘boycotting’ involves the intentional abstention from supporting
or engaging with a person, organization, or product as a form of protest. Cancel culture and
boycotting raise important questions about the boundaries of free expression. The fear of public
backlash and economic repercussions can create a climate where individuals and entities
self-censor to avoid controversy. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in online spaces,
where virality and trending topics can amplify the impact of cancel culture and boycotts.

CENSOR BOARD OR CERTIFICATION BOARD?

The cinema first came in Britain in 1896 with a demonstration of the cinematograph by the
Lumière brothers. Cinema reels were then made from highly inflammable material. To address
these concerns, the Cinematograph Act of 1909 was enacted, which initially intended to secure
public safety at film exhibitions.

However, local authorities, like the London County Council (LCC), began imposing conditions
unrelated to safety to restrict the viewing of films. In England censorship came in to minimize
fire hazards, and then ventured on to the morality of the films8. In India, during the British raj,
press censorship was introduced first because at that time newspapers were a popular medium of
public communication. During its initial days, films did not enjoy much popularity and it was
just in its nascent status. The cinema reached India in 1896, a few months after its British debut.
By 1913, the first Indian-made film—a Hindu mythological film called Raja
Harishchandra—had been released.

6
Ramnath, N. (2021, March 15). The story behind the controversial film ‘Kissa Kursi Ka’, which was banned
during the Emergency. Scroll.in.
https://scroll.in/reel/702429/the-story-behind-the-controversial-film-kissa-kursi-ka-which-was-banned-during-the-e
mergency
7
Tnn, & India, T. O. (2017, March 15). Padmavati set torched in Kolhapur, loss worth crores. The Times of India.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/padmavati-set-torched-in-kolhapur-loss-wo
rth-crores/articleshow/57649939.cms
8
Sarkar, K. (1982). You can’t please everyone: film censorship, the inside story.
 4

In British India, the Cinematograph Act of 1918 (Act of 1918) marked the inception of film
censorship legislation, focusing on ensuring audience safety and implementing censorship
measures. The Act of 1918 established Boards of Censors in major film importation centers such
as Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Rangoon (now in Burma). During this period, Bollywood had
minimal presence, and censorship primarily targeted foreign films.

According to the Act of 1918, films required a certificate from a Board of Censors to be
exhibited, and the Board had the authority to classify films as suitable or unsuitable for public
display. Unlike contemporary rating systems like "A" or "U," these designations did not exist.
The state retained the power to revoke film certificates. Boards, presided over by serving police
commissioners with other members being bureaucrats, were directly controlled by the state, in
contrast to the more indirect control observed in Britain. In practice, films addressing Indian
nationalism underwent rigorous censorship. For instance, Bhakta Vidur, featuring a protagonist
resembling Gandhi, faced a ban, and films critical of British education policies underwent
significant cuts9. Even subtle references to the freedom movement were systematically removed.
With time the focus shifted to concerns over Hollywood films affecting the white race's prestige,
which led to the formation of the Indian Cinematograph Committee (ICC) in 1927. The ICC
mainly focused on moral censorship, downplaying political concerns, influenced partly by
Bollywood's then-nascent status.

After India's independence in 1947, the regional censor bodies were merged into one: the
Bombay Board of Film Censors, which later became the Central Board of Film Censors after the
Cinematograph Act of 1952. Film censorship was guided by the Constitution's Article 19, which
ensures free speech with certain restrictions. The Cinematograph Act of 1952 introduced a
structured film censorship process, overseen by the Central Board of Film Censors (CBFC).
While the intent is to strike a balance between creative freedom and public interest, tensions arise
due to perceived state overreach. Filmmakers argue that the guidelines can suppress artistic
freedom, whereas the state emphasizes public morality and order. In India, film censorship has
been stringent since the 1950s. For instance, movies showcasing the police in a negative light or
speaking ill of political allies like the Soviet Union were censored. The Khosla Committee,
established in 1968, advocated for filmmakers' artistic freedom, but political and social themes
still faced severe scrutiny. Films like 'Bombay', 'Train To Pakistan', and 'Amu' faced hurdles due
to their sensitive content. Although filmmakers usually complied with cuts, some pursue legal

9
Banerjee, A. (2010b). Political censorship and Indian Cinematographic Laws: A Functionalist liberal analysis.
Social Science Research Network.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1695087_code791981.pdf?abstractid=1672409&mirid=1
 5

action against the Central Board of Film Certification, challenging the stringent censorship
practices. In 1983, after the revision of cinematography rules, it was changed to the Central
Board of Film Certification.

There are 4 types of certifications given by the CBFC:

● U (Unrestricted Public Exhibition) - This U certification is the basic one. It means that
anybody can see the movie. It can have mild violence or intimate scenes but those are
overseen.

● U/A (Parental Guidance for children below the age of 12 years) - These may contain
some moderate intimate or violence scenes.

● A (Restricted to adults) - Films that are given this certificate contain strong intimate
scenes,abusive language that’s why the window covers only adults.

● S (Restricted to any special class of persons) - Films with S certification are not meant
to be viewed by the public. Only people associated with it (Engineers, Doctors,
Scientists, etc.), have permission to watch those films.10

The CBFC has three panels. First, the examining committee certifies a movie. It consists of
five members, but the chairman of the CBFC is not included in this committee. If the
examining committee rejects a movie from certification, then the revising committee comes
into play. In this panel, new members are present, including the chairman. The identity of
these members is protected from the public. The 3rd panel is the Film Certification
Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), which consists of senior movie industry members and retired
judges. Even if the FCAT refuses certification, the filmmakers can appeal in the high court
or supreme court if they feel there has been an unfavorable verdict.

The CBFC is seen as one of the most influential film censorship boards in the world, as its
regulations are strict. Thus, the main objective of CBFC is to certify films. However, The
Cinematograph Act, also says that “a film shall not be certified for public exhibition, if, in
the opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is
against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the States,
friendly relations with foreign State, public order, decency or morality or involves
defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offense”. The

10
CBFC | Certification (n.d.-b) https://cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/certification.php
 6

powers of CBFC also include "guiding a filmmaker for excisions or modifications in the
film as it deems necessary before granting it a certificate," the board also acts as a censor,
working within the guidelines of India's Cinematograph Act (1952). Although the
categorization of films according to age ratings is crucial, the CBFC's application of its
powers sometimes appears arbitrary, influenced by the current public morality and
conservative viewpoints. We have seen in many cases where the CBFC has taken a
paternalistic stance or assumed the role of a moral guardian in order to prevent the hurting of
the “sentiments” of the public. For instance, in the case of the film “Udta Punjab”, initially,
the Indian Censor Board demanded 94 cuts so that the movie could become certified for
public display. Despite demanding the 94 cuts the board had given the movie an “A” (above
18 years of age) rating. This censorship of Udta Punjab led to a major uproar of opposition
from the directors and producers of the film, which developed into to a battle between
producer Anurag Kashyap and the Indian Censorship Board, the central body behind Indian
film censorship, over the value of freedom of expression versus the need for protection. The
film’s makers were furious at the board’s decision, so they appealed to the Bombay High
Court11. While the results were in favor of the movie makers, the case of Udta Punjab calls
into question whether or not the Indian Censorship Board abused its powers in its censorship
of the film and the role of political influence in the working of the board. In essence, the
issue of film censorship touches upon the age-old tussle between individual liberties and the
State's role as a guardian of public interest. While the "self" seeks unbridled expression, the
"State" often feels the need to regulate in the name of larger societal good. This debate, thus,
goes beyond films and is central to the very nature of democratic governance and the
delicate balance it aims to achieve between individual rights and collective welfare.

CASE STUDIES AND JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE

CBFC justifies the need of censorship at large because it feels “While the media in our
country are free, it is considered necessary in the general interest to examine the product
when it goes out for public consumption. While there is no certification of published
material, the need was felt to have certification for films because of the effect that the
audio-visual medium can have on the people which can be far stronger than the influence of
the printed word”. This leads to censorship and certification of films. With the change in
eras of film, the definition of what is suitable for the audience has also changed, but the
11
Flying Punjab / Udta Punjab. (2018, April 27). The Censorship Files.
https://thecensorshipfiles.wordpress.com/volume-1/issue-2/flying-punjab-udta-punjab/
 7

existence of censorship has remained a continuity. The arbitrary rules of the censor board
still remain, in fact the Cinematograph Act has only been updated twice since its inception,
the last time, 25 years ago.

Over the years, the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts, has
played a pivotal role in upholding the rights of the nation's citizens, including the right to
free speech and expression in the realm of motion pictures.

In the landmark case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, the Supreme Court examined the
constitutionality of censorship under the Cinematograph Act of 1952. While upholding its
constitutionality within the boundaries of Article 19(2), the Court emphasized the unique
emotive power of motion pictures and stressed that regulations must serve the interests of
society. The case perfectly explains the double edged sword that is freedom of speech and what a
thin line there is between freedom of speech and ensuring the interests of the general public is
maintained12.

A pivotal case, S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, underscored the freedom of speech and
expression, challenging the revocation of a film certificate. The Supreme Court highlighted the
role of movies as a crucial medium for public discourse, asserting that censorship should only
occur within the framework of Article 19(2). The Court urged a balanced approach, emphasizing
that the anticipated danger should be proximate and not remote13. In various cases, including
Sree Raghavendra Films v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Life Insurance Corporation of
India v. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah, the judiciary struck down arbitrary decisions infringing on
filmmakers' rights. The courts affirmed the right to criticize the government and upheld citizens'
rights to publish views on vital national issues. These judicial decisions collectively underscore
the judiciary's commitment to protecting freedom of speech and expression in the cinematic
domain, setting crucial precedents for filmmakers and the industry at large.

Critically, the Supreme Court declared Section 6(1) of the Cinematograph Act ultra vires the
Constitution in Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa14. It stressed that executive bodies must
abide by judicial decisions, signaling a commitment to the rule of law. The court underlined that

12
K.A Abbas v. Union of India & Anr. [1970]. (2021, July 25). LL.B Mania.
https://llbmania.com/2021/07/25/k-a-abbas-v-union-of-india-anr-1970/
13
Censorship case: S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram. (n.d.).
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5960-censorship-case-s-rangarajan-vs-p-jagjivan-ram.html
14
The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023: A brief. . . Obhan & Associates.
https://www.obhanandassociates.com/blog/the-cinematograph-amendment-act-2023-a-brief-overview/#:~:text=How
ever%2C%20in%20the%20case%20of,a%20judicial%20or%20executive%20decision.
 8

the government's duty is to maintain law and order rather than revise tribunal decisions due to
divergent views in a democratic society. Courts consistently defended freedom of speech,
dismissing bans imposed by state governments and urging rationality in censorship. However,
The legal landscape surrounding film certification in India has witnessed nuanced shifts
introducing a paradigm where theater owners were tasked with seeking protection proactively
from the government, reversing the duty of the state to take preventive measures.

Thus, there is a complex interplay of legal principles, state responsibilities, and the dynamics of
film exhibition, necessitating a closer examination of the evolving jurisprudence governing film
certification in India.

The essence of democracy lies in the freedom to express dissenting opinions, a sentiment echoed
by the argument that we must have the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. This
assertion underscores the democratic principles of transparency and fairness, emphasizing the
role of a free press in holding the government and powerful entities accountable. However, the
recurrent censorship of films challenges these democratic ideals. We must advocate for the
indispensability of 'free debate' and 'open discussion' in a democracy, contending that providing a
platform for diverse political voices is crucial for the democratic process. The failure to uphold
these principles, as witnessed in instances of censoring dissenting films, raises questions about
the true nature of democracy in India. The suppression of voices of dissent not only contradicts
the ideals of a democratic society but also highlights a departure from international human rights
obligations, particularly Article 19 of the constitution. This examination prompts a critical
reflection on the current state of democracy in India and the need for a more inclusive and open
discourse. Whenever a film deviates from the preferences of certain individuals in positions of
authority, they have consistently maneuvered to ban the film arbitrarily, ostensibly in the guise of
'public interest.' Repeatedly, such objections have emerged to hinder the enjoyment of freedom.
Essentially, audiences are denied the opportunity to watch a movie solely because it doesn't align
with the preferences of a group of individuals with whom they have no connection. Conversely,
this denial infringes upon the freedom of information. Despite the Supreme Court
acknowledging this issue, viewers continue to bear the brunt of such circumstances.

Due to protests by a few organizations, State Governments have scrapped movies without
considering the views of the majority in the states or the minority community projected to be
against the screening. If other states adopt similar justifications, a movie might face a nationwide
ban despite receiving a positive nod from the Censor Board.
 9

The regulation intended under Article 19(2) of the Constitution should serve the larger public
good. However, in practice, it has often been manipulated to stifle freedom of speech and
expression. The grounds mentioned have been interpreted broadly, leading to clampdowns on
movies at the slightest opportunity. In light of these arbitrary attacks on freedom of speech, the
question arises: Do we truly need such restrictions? Censorship on motion pictures, under
various circumstances, has not been imposed on valid constitutional or legal grounds but rather
to serve the interests of powerful social, religious, or political groups. The diverse nature of India
and its unique problems have been used as excuses for restrictions, but, in reality, these
restrictions have often had a negative impact. The rationale of public interest, consistently used
by the State in censoring films, is at times questionable.

CONCLUSION

Censoring movies under the pretext of maintaining public peace or respecting people's emotions
is illogical and can convey misleading messages to the public. It is preferable for viewers to
watch and form their own opinions. While the general public may lack proper education, they
often possess common sense. Groups with biased prejudices distort content to serve their own
purposes, and no group plays the role of a proper guide. If a body like CBFC is deemed
necessary, it should be more autonomous than a puppet in the hands of the Government.
Scraping movies despite clearance from the Censor Board is not only arbitrary but also indicative
of a dangerous trend of heightened intolerance. While higher courts in the country have done
commendable work, the recurrence of similar issues raises concerns, necessitating a permanent
solution, possibly through new legislation. The extent of censoring power should be limited, with
the government providing suggestions but decisions made independently. The power delegated to
states for censorship should be significantly narrowed down, requiring them to justify any ban
and demonstrate that no alternative exists. In extreme cases, any limitations should be left to the
judiciary. If unlawful means are used to stop film screenings, the government must ensure law
and order are maintained, taking preventive measures. Inconsistent developments in this area
need to be addressed, emphasizing that restrictions on free speech should only be tolerated when
absolutely necessary to prevent actual harm. In conclusion, denying the screening of films for
speculative reasons is equivalent to curtailing the right of freedom of speech and expression,
hindering the evolution of democracy.
 10

REFERENCES

● Sarkar, K. (1982). You can’t please everyone: film censorship, the inside story.

● Ramdev, R. (2016). Sentiments, politics, censorship: the state of hurt. S Sage

Publications.

● Mazzarella, W. (2013). Censorium: cinema and the open edge of mass publicity.
http://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/1783/CensoriumCinema-and-the-Open-Edge-of-
Mass

● Subhradipta Sarkar, 2009, “Right to Free Speech In a Censored Democracy” available at

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/sports-and-entertainment-law-journal/issues/07/right.p
df

● Banerjee, A. (n.d.). Political Censorship and Indian Cinematographic Laws: A

Functionalist Liberal Analysis. Social Science Research Network.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1695087_code791981.pdf?abstractid
=1672409&mirid=1

● CBFC. (n.d.). https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/cbfcAdmin/

● The Cinematograph Act, 1952