MEDIA AND CENSORSHIP

FILM AND CENSORSHIP

• Raja Harishchandra (1913)
• The first Indian sound film, Ardeshir Irani's Alam Ara (1931), was a major
commercial success.
• Indian Film stars enjoy adulation the World over, stretching from
Japan, South Asia and the Middle East to the erstwhile Soviet
Countries.
• India produces over 1,000 films a year.
• Most are Bollywood films.
• The film industry was accorded “industry status” in the year 2000 by
the Government of India.
 CASES
• Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana (AIR 1988 SC 1642)
• The Supreme Court held that the right of a citizen to exhibit films on the State Channel,
Doordarshan is part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(a).
• This right was similar to any other right such as newspaper, magazines, advertisement
and hoardings.
• LIC v. Manubhai D Shah [(1992) 3 SCC 637]
• Doordarshan refused to telecast a documentary film on the Bhopal Gas Disaster titled
Beyond Genocide, on the ground that the film had lost its relevance and that it criticised
the action of state government.
• The Supreme Court held that the film maker had a fundamental right under Art.19(1)(a)
to exhibit the film.
• Director of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain (AIR 2007 SC 1640)
• The Supreme Court held that the right of film maker to make and exhibit films is part of his
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expressions under Art.19(1)(a).
• The films are a medium to express and communicate ideas, thoughts, messages, information,
feelings and emotions.
 Mahesh Bhatt v. Union of India [(2009) 156 DLT 725]

• The Delhi High Court struck down rules under the Cigarettes and
Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation
of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act,
2003.
• Impose a blanket ban on the depiction of smoking in films.
 Director General, Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan
(AIR 2006 SC 3346)
• A documentary film, Father, Son and Holy War was denied telecast by
Doordarshan on the pretext that it could provoke law and order problems
and that there was no public interest in its telecast.
• The film was the third part of trilogy which depicted the horrors of
communal violence and the atrocities on women that often follow
communal riots.
• The Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court directing telecast
of the film on the ground that film drew public attention to social evils.
• The Supreme Court held that the State cannot prevent open discussion, no
matter how hateful to its policies.
 CENSOR BOARD
• Clause I(a) of the guidelines under Section, 5-B , Cinematography
Act,1952, setting out the principles which guide the Censor Board in
granting Certificate sanctioning films for public exhibition.
• S. Rangarajan etc. v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989 SCC (2) 574)
• The court held that censors should not have an orthodox or conservative
outlook.
• Instead they must be responsive to social change and the current climate.
RULE 41 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952

PROCESS TIME LIMIT

Scrutiny of Applications 7 Days
Formation of Examining Committee 15 days
Forwarding the EC Report to Chairman 10 days

Communication of the order to the

3 days
applicant

Surrender of cuts by the producer 14 days

Examination of cuts 14 days
Issue of Certificate 5 days
Total Time Limit 68 days
 CASES

• Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994 ) 4 SCC 478]

• SC lamented the impact of TV and film on young minds and the growth of crime as a
consequence of the depiction of obscenity and crime.
• Violence
• Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assn. of
Bengal (AIR 1995 SC 1236)
• The Supreme Court reiterated the distinction between the print medium and the audio-
visual medium.
• The movie cannot be equated with other mode of communications
• It cannot be allowed to function in a free marketplace just as does the newspaper or
magazines.
• Censorship by prior restraint is not only desirable but also necessary.
 THE CINEMATOGRAPH ACT
• The exhibition of film is governed by the Cinematograph Act,1952.
• “Sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition” falls under item 60
of the Union List (List I) under the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution.
• Theatres and dramatic performance and cinemas.
• Sec.5(B)- Guidelines for the Certification of film
• Sec.6- Undefined powers of the central government for revision
• The power to CG to declare that a film which has already been certified shall be
deemed to be an uncertified in the whole or any part of the country and a film
which has already been granted a “U”, “UA” or “S” certificate shall be deemed
to be a film in respect of which an “A” certificate has been granted.
 CASES
• Vital Media v. State of Punjab [W.P.(C) No.205 of 2013, decided on
26.4.2013]
• The Supreme Court took the unusual step of recommending a change in
certification of film from “U” to “A”.
• The petitioner challenged notification of Governments of Punjab and of the
NCT, suspending the exhibition of the film, Sada Haq based on Sikh militancy
in Punjab on the ground that public screening was likely to hurt religious
sentiments and cause a breach of peace.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1992) 1 SCC 358]
• PIL filed
• The SC directed that public awareness on environmental issues be generated
by directing licences of cinema halls, touring cinemas and video parlours to
exhibit at least two slides or messages on environment on each show.
 G.D. KHOSLA ENQUIRY COMMITTEE
• 1968
• The government appointed the G.D. Khosla Enquiry Committee on film
censorship.
• The Khosla report envisaged an independent and autonomous Board of film
censors who would act on a censorship code that it drew up for itself rather
than follow guidelines drawn up by the government.
• 2013- Vishwaroopam
• Despite clearance by the Central Board of Film Certification, the Government
set up a panel headed by Justice Mukul Mudgal (retired) to review the powers
of the board.
 CENSORSHIP
• The justification for censorship is that the social interest of the people
overrides individual freedom.
• Parens Patriae
• Guardian and promoter of general welfare and some restraints on liberty may
be justified on the grounds of absolute necessity.
• There can be no straitjacketed rules for censorship.
 GUIDELINES FOR CENSORSHIP
1. Sex and nudity are not always obscene
• K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) 2 SCC 780
• The Supreme Court observed that sex and obscenity are not always
synonymous and that it was wrong to classify sex as essentially obscene or
even indecent or immoral.
• The Bandit Queen Case
2. ‘Likely Audience’ Test- Target Audience
• Ajay Goswami v. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 493)
• Right of adult citizens to entertainment
• In order to shield minors, the adult population could not be restricted to
reading what is only fit for children.
3. Judging the work as whole
 CASES
• Raj Kapoor v. State (AIR 1980 SC 258)
• IPC-Secs.292 and 293.
• Sec.6 of the Cinematograph Act.
• No irrefutable defence based on the certificate.
• Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa (AIR 2000 SC 3678)
• The Supreme Court held that once an expert body had cleared the film after
considering its impact on the public, it was no excuse to say that there could
be a breach of peace which justified the ban.
Aarkashan Case
• In Prakash Jha case the State of UP sough to prohibit the screening of
the film, Aarakshan which dealt with the reservation of dalit.
• The film had already passed muster with the Censor Board constituted
under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and received a U/A Certificate.
• The U.P. Government issued an order under Sec.6(1) of the U.P
Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955 suspending the exhibition of the film
on the ground that it was likely to cause a breach of peace.
 PRE-CENSORSHIP OR PRIOR RESTRAINT
• Zee News v. Navjot Sandhu [SLP(Cri) No.5464 of 2002 SC]
• The Delhi High Court passed an ex-parte injunction restraining the telecast of
the a film reconstructing the terrorist attack on the Parliament on 13
Decemeber, 2001 without prior permission of the trail court.
• The SC vacated the injunction holding that there was no justification for the
HC to have stayed the telecast.
• Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1967 SC 1)
• A Constitutional Bench of the Court held that reporting of a pending case
could be restricted or postponed for a limited duration in the interest of a fair
trail.