K.A ABBAS V.

UNION OF
INDIA & ANR. [1970]

E VA N I A I R E N E K
20BLA1056
ABSTRACT
Freedom of Speech and Expression is one of the most sacrosanct rights
guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It is also regarded as an integral
concept in most of the modern democracies across the globe. Cinema is a mode
of expression of thoughts, ideas, and views, and being the part of Article 19(1)
(a) of the Indian Constitution it enjoys protection as conferred. However, the
reasonable restrictions as imposed on Article 19(1)(a) can similarly be imposed
on the mode of expression – Cinema. Restrictions on Cinema are articulated
under The Cinematograph Act under which all the guidelines of certification as
well as provisions to avoid arbitrariness are mentioned.
INTRODUCTION

• K.A. Abbas v. Union of India is the first case where the question relating to
the censorship of films arises. In this case, the Supreme Court considered an
important question relating to the pre-censorship of films concerning the
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article
19(1) of the Indian Constitution. 
• This case analysis shall outline the background and major facts of the
landmark case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, proceeding with
highlighting the issues involved, related provisions, cases referred and, in the
end, shall discuss the final verdict and concepts that gained importance
because of this judgment.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

This case involves the petition of the appellant under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The
Petitioner challenges the rules prescribed Central Government under part 11 of
the Cinematograph Act of 1952 as unconstitutional and void. Petitioner asks
for a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, direction, or order against the
deletion of certain shots from the documentary film.
FACTS

• Khwaja Ahmad Abbas, a Bollywood director was also a member of the GD

Khosla Committee on Film Censorship, 1969. His movie, A Tale of Four Cities,
better known as Char Sheher Ek Kahaani was based on the contrasting lifestyles
in four of the most prominent cities of the country at the time, Bombay, Calcutta,
Delhi, and Madras.
•  The movie tested the Censorship Committee’s political liberalist claims along
with creating a shock wave in the judiciary by questioning the relationship
between fundamental rights and the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The film had
scenes portraying the red-light districts in Bombay which proved to be the most
problematic for the Censorship Board and the Judiciary. The director was
adamant that the scenes had to be shown, at least with a ‘U’ certificate, if not
without any restrictions at all.
• The Censor Board’s Examining Committee proposed that a ‘U’ certificate be
granted only if the public viewing was restricted to an audience of just adults. An
appeal was filed thereafter, to which the court responded with an order
recommending a ‘U’ certificate if some scenes from the red-light area, which
depicted immoral trafficking, economic exploitation, and prostitution, were cut.
• The petitioner filed the present petition contending that his freedom of speech and
expression was denied, that the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 were
unconstitutional and void and that he was denied the ‘U’ certificate that he was
entitled to. Meanwhile, the Central Government agreed to grant the ‘U’ certificate
without demanding any cuts to be made in the film.
• The petitioner then requested to be allowed to amend his petition in light of the
altered situation, which was accepted by the court. The petitioner then contended
that the provisions of the Act and the power is given to various authorities and
bodies under the Act were vague, arbitrary, and indefinite and also questioned the
purpose of pre-censorship.
Issues
• Whether pre-censorship by itself offend the freedom of speech and
expression or not?
• Even if there is a legitimate restraint on freedom, it must be exercised within
the definite principles and no scope of arbitrariness or not?
Article 19 of Constitution of India

Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India, it mentions that all the citizens of

India must have the freedom of speech and expression, however, under clause
4 of Article 19 of Indian Constitution, reasonable restrictions can be imposed
in the interest of public order or morality or sovereignty and integrity of India.
In the instant case, the petitioner argues whether the restrictions can be
imposed by granting of ‘A’ certificate to the film and it was held by the Apex
court that these restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public order,
peace, and security.
CASE LAW

Rangarajan v. P.Jagivan Ram

Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon
Shree Raghavendra Films v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd and Anr v. The Central Board of Certification
JUDGMENT
•As held in the landmark case of K. A. Abbas v. Union of India, Chief Justice Hidayatullah, Justice
Shelat, Mitter, Vidyialingam and Ray delivered their judgment and stated that court does not accept the
distinction between pre-censorship and censorship in general and observed that both are to be
governed by the standard of reasonable restrictions within the Article 19(1) of Indian Constitution.
•The Constitution has recognized that freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right and
reasonable restrictions can be imposed. Pre-Censorship was permitted under the Constitution for
public order and to uphold the rule of law. The Judiciary is regarded as a legal protector in preserving
public interest and ensure justice. 
•Concerning the issue of insufficient guidelines in the Act, the court held that guidelines as provided
within Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution are clearly stated and sufficient. But the distinction
between the artistic expression and non-artistic expression in assessing obscenity needs better clarity.
The Court observed he cannot be the whole reason to strike down the provisions of the Act.
•Thus, the Apex Court upheld the restrictions on public exhibition 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 the means and provisions to avoid arbitrariness in the exercise of the powers conferred.