This article is written by Yash Singhal from Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi and Rahul Saini from Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. The article exhaustively states about the censorship process of the films in India while also enumerating various landmark judgements in this regard.
Table of Contents
Introduction
All the sources of entertainment such as movies, press, social media are provided with the Constitutional validity under Article 19(1)(a) that states the freedom of speech and expression for all the citizens within the country. There are no limitations to this fundamental right except any reasonable restrictions placed by the government authority for reasons enumerated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. When it comes to artistic expression, the cinema is well-known for its ability to take inspiration from reality as well as from fictitious worlds, musical scenes, and other forms of entertainment. For a long period of time, it was among the most effective instruments of expression. Cinema has traditionally served as a vehicle for depicting societal issues on display in a broader context. As a result, it’s served as both an inspiration and a moment for introspection. Cinema, as an ideal tool for social transformation, has served as a vehicle for promoting constructive and necessary social change. As a key form of entertainment and a platform for the expression of ideas and viewpoints, cinema, “like any other form of free speech, is subject to reasonable restrictions. There’s no denying that Indian cinema has helped shape the country’s social and cultural landscape. Media and film Industry are regarded to be mediums of communications, and both are deemed to be at the same level of protection as far as fundamental freedoms of expression and speech are concerned.” However, neither of these mediums is absolute, and appropriate limitations can be placed. The Cinematograph Act of 1952 was specifically developed to address this issue in India. The Act establishes a ‘Central Board of Film Certification’ as a regulating agency in India, with the authority to grant certifications to film producers. This article would provide details about the definition of censorship with a deep insight into the causes of censorship of the movies. It will also touch upon the laws dealing with censorship of movies in India.
What is censorship?
The definition of censorship lies in the example of a man expressing his opinion, thoughts or ideas, orally or in writing. It can be expressed in a public place or a place where he is publicly visible, or through an electronic medium such as press, social media, movies or a literary piece. The opinions are such that causes disturbance of public morality, promotes obscenity and hampers peace. The censorship is imposed by a public authority to restrict the man from the expression of such opinions that have the ability to cause negative consequences.
Censorship is a reasonable restriction imposed by the competent authorities on the general public for a reasonable suppression on the right to freedom of speech and expression. The restrictions provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution are factors on which censorship can be placed on the free expression of opinions, thoughts or ideas.
History and origin of censorship in India
Censorship laws was implemented in India in 1918, at a moment when the British rulers were adamant that film should serve, unwaveringly, their colonial objectives. At the time, there was no local movie industry, and the canons of regulation targeted films all of which were brought from the western country, particularly the United States. The British wished for these films to portray a positive image of the west and the intensions of Europeans in the colonies, which was their goal.
The Regional Censor Boards, established in 1920 and “theoretically independent, had comprehensive instructions on ‘sensitive topics,’ ‘objectionable subjects,’ and ‘forbidden scenes’ in ‘foreign’ films – a term for pictures from the United States – before them. The regime, on the other hand, was not immune to the prospect that an Indian film industry may emerge at some point in the future and cause them much more concern.”
To prepare for such a scenario, the police commissioners of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Rangoon, and Lahore placed the Provincial Censorship Boards under their control. The bureaucracy began to connect itself more with censorship decisions and make its presence apparent in key censorship concerns by the mid-1920s, as an indigenous cinema industry began to show indications of growth, as provided for in the Indian Cinematograph Act 1918.
The goal was twofold: to intimidate the boards into submission while also subjugating the unrestricted growth of subject and substance inside the young cinema industry, both of which were accomplished.
Eventually, the frequency of bureaucratic intrusions lessened, but only because the film censorship system had been sufficiently obedient to the government’s wishes by that point. “In order to maintain complete bureaucratic control over the situation, the censorship judgments were rendered non-justiciable, meaning that they could not be challenged in court.”
Censorship of films before to India’s independence India has demonstrated three fundamental characteristics:- In order to “to deny the Indian audience any access to communist or socialist ideals (‘propaganda’ in administrative language) reflected in the Soviet cinema, to ensure that the spirit of freedom and independence did not reach the audience of a colonised country regularly through the American films, and to prevent the crystallisation of nationalist paradigm in the Indian cinema.”
It is important, though, that the British authorities sought to emphasise “audience safety and the avoidance of demeaning or moral acts” in order to cover up their true, political, goals.
There was absolutely no need for the rulers of independent India to continue this heritage in their own right. However, they shocked the world when they decided to keep the postcolonial censorship system. It was eventually revealed that it was effectively an usurpation in preparation for a future reconstruction project.
Although there has been no alteration in ‘official’ perception of the film medium, there has also been no advancement in it. In addition, the formulation of a “political” view, which was diametrically opposed to that which had evolved during the colonial period, made matters more complex. “The new-found rhetoric about reasoning, freedom, due process, right, modernism, development and growth displayed by the nationalist leaders of India with gay abandon, were not acceptable to the film censorship machinery.”
In the new period, cinema remained exposed to political malice as well as administrative influences. However, the way in which these unfavourable opinions were expressed was diametrically opposed to that of the colonial era.
Censorship of films after independence
In 1948, the Board of Film Censors in Bombay and Madras released a so-called “Production Code,” which provided motion picture producers with guidelines on how to make feature films. This was the first significant reform in Indian film censorship procedures following Independence.
The Code was ostensibly created to ensure that cinema performs its rightful role in the development of a healthy public culture. Furthermore, “the Bombay Home Minister, who had lobbied for a mechanism such as a Production Code, recommended that film scripts be presented to censorship agencies prior to the start of movie productions.”
Because the film industry was clearly aware of the pernicious and shrouded repercussions of these efforts at direct and indirect censorship, it reacted by rejecting openly the recommendation for the submission of scripts in advance and by giving only tacit acceptance to suggestions made by the Production Code.
Following that, many legal changes were made to the then-current administrative structure and nature of cinema censorship, which had been formed under the terms of the 1918 Cinematograph Act, which was passed in 1919.
After the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act of 1949, two new censorship certificate classifications were formed: a “A” certification that limited cinema viewing to adults over the age of 18, and a “U” certification that indicated the picture was appropriate for unrestrained public display. In India, “this was the first time a system of film censorship based on audience age was employed. The Cinematograph (2nd Amendment) Act of 1949 was the last piece of legislation to execute the recommendation of the Indian Cinematograph Commission of 1927-28 for the establishment of a Central Board of Film.”
If the former was marked by compulsion or even outright repression, the latter was characterised by a certain speed and deft manoeuvrability. “The post-colonial film control system was complete by 1952. After a series of arguments, movements and countermoves, it was decided that the system of cinema censorship should be reoriented in the post-independence period. “
The film industry has been pushing for a centralised system of film censorship since the interim administration (1945-47), presumably to eliminate regional variations in censorship decisions. At the time, the business was gradually being dominated by ‘independent’ manufacturers.
Because of this, they frequently had access to questionable sources of funding and engaged in risky investments with the hope of making a quick profit. The distribution and exhibition industries too had their fair share of competitors. All of them engaged in speculative activity, frequently in flagrant violation of established market regulations. They finally drove out most of the traditional operators, causing anarchy and disruption in the industry as a whole, as well as contaminating the atmosphere.
A great deal of the work produced by the so-called “independent” producers was crammed with elements that were intended to appeal to a broad audience. So, they begged with the censors for a “slight” leniency in keeping with the spirit of liberation that pervaded the country. And their demand for a centralised censor board was a ruse to ensure that any potential impediments that their films could encounter were kept to a minimum. Their demands also included a prohibition on the provincial government revising such a body “unless there is a severe threat to public safety.”
Rule of law
The imposition of censorship follows the doctrine of the rule of law, which is the basis of determining the constitutional validity of any administrative action. The doctrine of the rule of law states that every administrative action must be undertaken following due procedure established by law.
The censorship falls within the right to freedom of speech and expression, due to lack of any clarity over medium of communication of ideas in the clause of Article 19(1)(a). The fundamental rights are not absolute in nature and hence, reasonable restrictions are impediment to this right. The censorship process, intra vires to the provisions of the restrictions provided under Article 19(2), are valid in consonance to the doctrine of rule of law.
Censorship of movies and related legislation
The practice of censoring movies to remove any objectionable material by the Censor Board has been followed in India. It is to make the movie suitable for the target audience. The viewership is based on the certificate issued to every movie prescribing the audience that can watch the movie. Historically, controversial topics such as communal disharmony showcased in the movies have led to the issue of censorship by the Board.
There are certain legislations in India dealing with censorship in movies to reach the satisfactory level of public morality or other reasonable restrictions. The competent authority is entrusted with the responsibility to watch the movie and make suitable suggestions to the makers before issuing the acceptance certificate to release the movie.
The Cinematograph Act, 1952
The Indian film industry is the largest in the world with multiple movies releasing every week across lakhs of cinema halls. The legislation exclusively deals with censorship of movies in India with respect to certain rules and regulations established by law. The proper definitions of every word for the purpose of the legislation is provided in Section 2.
The certification, Censor Board establishment, and scope of such Board is provided in this legislation. In such regard, ‘cinematograph’ is defined as any apparatus of visual representation in motion or series of pictures, ‘adult’ has been taken as any person who has completed eighteen years of age.
Establishment of Board
Section 3 of the Act states that the Central Government has the authority to constitute a Board of Film Certification consisting of a Chairman and other members. The Board is established to watch the pre-released movies and sanction them suitable for public exhibition.
The Central Government has the power to decide the salary of the Chairman of the Board, and the members receiving salaries according to the meetings’ attendance of the Board.
Examination of films
Section 4 of the Act states the procedure to examine the films by the Board before the release. The Board follows a prescribed procedure where the person with the intention to release any film provides an application to the Board for a certificate after an examination of that film through screening by the Board.
The film is sanctioned for public exhibition after the complete examination process is achieved. It also provides a sanction for movies according to the target audience that involves viewership restricted on the basis of the content of the movie. It involves movies restricted to adults exclusively. The Board has the authority to make modifications in the film that it deems fit before sanctioning the movie for public exhibition. It can directly refuse the movie from public exhibition as well.
All the actions by the Board can be taken after providing a fair chance to the maker of the movie to explain his views on the matter.
Advisory panels
Section 5 of the Act provides the Central Government with the power to establish advisory panels at regional centres to assist the Board in the discharge of their duties. The membership is based on the discretion of the government with each member qualified to evaluate the effectiveness of every movie on the public.
The number of regional officers at a regional centre is not specified in the provisions of the legislation, thus, the government is at the liberty to appoint as many as it thinks fit. The rules shall be made in such a manner that associates the regional officers in the examination process of the films. The Board can consult the advisory panels with respect to any film. The advisory panels are endowed with the duty to examine the films and make recommendations to the Board according to the rules made on this behalf.
The advisory panel members are not entitled to any salaries but are provided fees and allowances as prescribed.
Films certification
Section 5A of the Act provides the method of certification of the films after examination in the prescribed manner. There are various certifications issued to a movie by the Board according to the contents of the movie being suitable for a particular target audience. In this regard, the ‘U’ certificate is granted in case the movie is applicable for unrestricted exhibition, or a ‘UA’ certificate is issued for a movie that is unrestricted exhibition except for children below 12 years of age.
The other certifications sanctioned to a movie include an ‘A’ certificate and an ‘S’ certificate as per the restrictions for the audience. ‘A’ certificate signifies that the movie can be viewed by adults-only, while the ‘S’ certificate is an indication of the movie being restricted to a certain class of persons. Every order of the Board in respect to the certification of a film shall be published in the Gazette of India.
Guidance in the certification of films
Section 5B of the Act states the powers of the Board or any other authority issuing the certificate to the film, is of the opinion that the film violates the national interest of the country in regards to the sovereignty and integrity of India, or effects the friendly relations with other states, public order, morality, decency or defamation or contempt of court or any incitement to the commission of an offence.
The Central Government carries the authority to issue directions to the authority sanctioning certificates to films in relation to sanctioning public exhibition.
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, 1970 : case analysis
Biography of Khwaja Ahmad Abbas
Khwaja Ahmad Abbas was born on “June 7, 1914, in Panipat, India, and died on June 1, 1987, in New Delhi, India. he was born at the home of Altaf Hussain Hali, who was Mirza Ghalib’s disciple. Khwaja Abbas, also known as K. A. Abbas, was an Indian film director, screenwriter, author, and columnist who worked in the Urdu, Hindi, and English languages.” Khwaja Abbas was born in the Indian state of Punjab. With “four National Film Awards in India and the Palme d’Or and Crystal Globe at the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival under his belt, he’s had a successful career both at home and abroad.”
He obtained a Bachelor’s degree in English literature in 1933 and a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1935 from Aligarh Muslim University. As soon as Abbas finished college, he got a job as a writer with the New Delhi-based National Call. Aligarh Opinion was founded in 1934, while studying law at Aligarh University. The Bombay Chronicle hired him in 1935 as a political journalist, and was eventually promoted to the position of movie critic.”
When he initially got into movies, he was working as a part-time publicist for Himanshu Rai and Devika Rani’s production company, Bombay Talkies, where he managed to sell his first script, Naya Sansar. Abbas was a prolific author who penned 74 novels in three languages: English, Hindi, and Urdu. Abbas was widely regarded as one of the most important figures in Urdu short tale. His best-known book is ‘Inquilab,’ a novel on racial violence in India that made him famous.
Khwaja Ahmad Abbas is a filmmaker and screenwriter who is “widely regarded as one of the founding fathers of Indian parallel or neo-realistic theatres. As a scriptwriter, he is also credited with penning some of Raj Kapoor’s most memorable films.”
About the movie and the controversial part
Aside from a song the workers sang while working as well as some background music for stage effects, the film is in black & white and silent. There are contrasted moments throughout the film, including fast-paced action sequences as well as still images showing opulent palaces, hotels, and industries, which illustrate the wealth of the few while showing the poverty of the many. These shots are interspersed with others that depict sweaty construction workers toiling away to construct the former, as well as scenes depicting their miserable personal lives.
It’s not uncommon for images to contrast wealthy individuals driving luxurious automobiles with street vendors in the Indian cities of Calcutta and Madras. In one shot, a “chubby and wealthy customer is depicted riding a sweaty and panting rickshaw pulled by an elderly man. In a contrasting scenario, the same rickshaw puller is seen seated in the rickshaw pushed by his previous customer, on display are sculptures of Indian Freedom Movement leaders staring haplessly from high pedestals, in front of palatial buildings on the misery of the people.”
Several realistic sequences dealing with prostitution are featured in the film as it continues to examine the topic of males suppression and exploitation of women. The film begins with a one-minute scan of Bombay’s “Cages,” or red light area, which depicts prostitutes in short costumes sitting around and brothels in miniskirts and sleeveless dresses.
The image changes to show one of the prostitutes closing a window, implying how she will amuse her client. Next, a shot shows the hands of a woman carrying some cash, which are grabbed away by a man hand (impliedly those of the pimp). Symbolically, the film closes with a scene in which the prostitute sees her chamber as a prison and dreams about her life before she was engaged in this sex racket.
Background of the case
Films are banned in many nations to keep an eye on the various social, economic, and political concerns they may cause, which might encourage or stir up hatred among the general public. While the Cinematograph Act of 1952 limits censorship in India, censorship that is allowed to protect the public interest can only be carried out if certain requirements are met, such as reasonable restrictions.
A plea for the enforcement of fundamental rights was filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India in this instance. Part 11 of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 imposes regulations on the Central Government, which the Petitioners argue are illegal and invalid. A writ of mandamus or other suitable writ, directive or order was sought by the applicant to prevent the removal of specific documentary film footage.
Facts of the case
The film questioned the link between basic rights and the Cinematograph Act, 1952, testing the Censorship Committee’s political liberalist arguments and causing a shock wave in the court. I mages showing Bombay’s red-light area posed the most difficult for the Censorship Board and judges to deal with.
Abbas urged a ‘U’ certificate from the Censor board enabling the film’s unrestricted screening, but the local supervisor notified him that the reviewing team had temporarily determined that it must be confined to adults. The filmmaker insisted the sequences be aired, if not with a ‘U’ classification, then with no restraints. The reviewing committee concurred with this conclusion, and Abbas moved to the central govt following discussions with the panel.
The government has chosen to award a ‘U’ rating “As part of the certification process, if the portions shot in the red light area were removed from the movie. The Examining Committee of the Censor Board recommended that a ‘U’ certificate only be issued to a viewership of exclusively adults. After a complaint, the court recommended a ‘U’ certification if several red-light district images depicting unethical exploitation, corporate exploitation, and prostitution were removed.
The petitioner argues in this case that he had been deprived freedom of speech and expression, that the Cinematograph Act of 1952 is unconstitutional and null, and that he was refused the ‘U’ certification to which he was eligible. The Central Govt, on the other hand, decided to award the movie the ‘U’ certification without proposing any modifications.
In light of this new circumstance, the petitioner sought and the court granted permission to modify his complaint. He further argued that pre-censorship had no legitimate aim because the law’s provisions were imprecise, capricious, and indefinitely granted to various agencies.
Issues of the case
Abbas then filed a lawsuit arguing :
(1) that the pre-censorship practised by the censorship board infringed fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, and that even if pre-censorship was an acceptable constraint, it had to be done in accordance with strict guidelines that excluded unilateral actions.
(2) the decision of the film censorship board must be made within a reasonably set time period, and A court of law, not the federal government, should hear the final appeal in the case.
Supreme court observation and judgment
Chief Justice Hidayatullah, Justice Shelat, Mitter, Vidyialingam, and Ray delivered their judgement in the landmark case of K. A. Abbas v. Union of India, in “which they mentioned that courts do not recognise the difference between pre-censorship, and witnessed that both are controlled by the benchmark of reasonable restrictions in Article 19(1) of Constitution Of India.”
While the right to free speech and expression is guaranteed by the Constitution, it has been acknowledged that reasonable limits can be placed on it. According to the Constitution, pre-censorship was allowed in order to maintain public tranquility and protect the rule of law. The Judiciary is viewed as a constitutional defender in the pursuit of justice and the preservation of the public interest.
The judges in this case rationalised that pre-censorship of movies is lawfully justified on the grounds of the following reasoning- “pre-censorship or prior restriction is simply one component of censorship in general, censorship in the interests of decency and morality etc., is constitutionally sound in India under article 19(2) of the Constitution, consequently pre-censorship is also constitutionally valid.”
The flaw in this logic lies in the first premise: the assumption that pre-censorship is the same as any other kind of restriction, with the exception of the time or moment at which it is imposed. While this near resemblance may be correct in principle, it is vastly different in practise due to censorship. Many factors prove to be more effective and easier for the censor than ex post facto penalties or limitations, and it is thus less flexible and adaptable in the sake of safeguarding personal freedoms and rights.
To begin with, a system of pre censorship inevitably exposes considerably more communication to official examination than subsequent penalties since it puts all expression in the regulated area – both innocent and objectionable – to the government’s approval. As a result of the extensive use of government influence, additional concerns relating to free speech will inevitably be handled.
As a result of ex post facto penalization, whatever value a communication may have, it has a chance of reaching the “free exchange of ideas,” but under pre-censorship, it’ll never make it to market or be so far behind schedule that it becomes outdated or unsustainable.
Thirdly, a prior restriction system entails the possibility of an adverse ruling opposing freedom of expression. It’s “far easier for censors to do the same thing with a pen or scissors than it is for government officials underneath a prior restraint system since they don’t have to go through the lengthy and costly process of litigation.”
Furthermore, the “pre-censorship system also lacks the procedural safeguards of a criminal prosecution, such as assumption of innocence, stricter standards of evidence and process, and a heavier onus of evidence on the state. As a result, under a system of pre-censorship, the censor has far more latitude to trample on the right to free expression.”
Furthermore, a system of prior restriction functions under a veil of informality and partial secrecy, so there is less possibility for public inspection and critique. As a result, “the policies and procedures of licencing bodies do not receive as much people’s attention as they should, and the grounds for administrative action are less likely to be recognised and challenged as they should. This nefarious encroachment into civil rights does not bode well for the future of the democratic system.”
In conclusion, although it is correct that a prior restriction system provides more security in the law with much less risk since an individual may find out about acceptable and prohibited communications, even without risk of criminal restrictions if his legal interpretation is incorrect, the use of such a system is premised on the assumption of intention to comply to official opinion and implies in the long-term there will be less instead of more interaction.
Besides these strong grounds, pre-censorship has become a source of contention in India for a long period of time. Furthermore, previous restrictions on communication have been held to be unconstitutional in several non-film censorship matters.
According to the Supreme Court in the case of “Bhushan v. State of Delhi, “the Chief Commissioner of Delhi had violated the East Punjab Security Act by ordering the printhead, publisher, and editor of an English-language weekly journal called the ‘Organizor’ to report all communal issue, news, and views about Pakistan, besides those deduced from legitimate sources, to be scrutinised in duplicate before publishing in the Organizor.”
There can be no question that placing pre-censorship on a newspaper is a restraint on the press freedom, which is a crucial part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) of the Constitution. The court found this to be an unjustified restrictions.
This criterion should be applicable to film certification until clearly proven that films have a greater capacity for evil than other media of communication, requiring prior limitations to be imposed.
When it came to the question of whether there were enough guidelines in the Act, the court found that the ones included in Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution were more than adequate. However, it is necessary to make the boundary between artistic and non-artistic expressions clearer when judging obscenity. The Court noted that he cannot be the sole cause for repealing the Act.
As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the Cinematograph Act, 1952’s restrictions on public exhibition, rejecting the petition that challenged the power of censorship, stating that “pre-censorship fell within the reasonable restrictions allowed under freedom of speech and expression, and also that the Act provides a means and arrangements to avert arbitrariness in the exercise of powers conferred.”
Landmark judgements on censorship of movies in India
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989
In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, a film was issued a ‘U’ certificate by the Board until it was revoked by the Madras High Court and also banned the public exhibition of that movie amid the protests against it. The film dealt with a very sensitive topic of reservation policy in Tamil Nadu. The movie was critically acclaimed as it received the National Award by the Directorate of Film Festival of the Government of India.
The matter was heard by the Supreme Court on an appeal where it was observed that a movie cannot be restricted from the public exhibition on the threat of demonstrations or protests by the general public. These protests are beyond the reasonable restrictions placed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. A mere intimation of violence by the public shall not be a restriction on freedom of speech and expression as it is a duty of the state to protect these fundamental rights at any cost.
Anand Patwardhan v. Central Board of Film Certification, 2003
A case regarding a filmmaker’s harassment by the Board. In Anand Patwardhan v. Central Board of Film Certification, the Censor Board examined a film and ordered the filmmaker to carry out two cuts and one addition for the movie to be eligible for a ‘U’ certificate. The petition was filed on the directions of the Censor Board, where it was observed that the cuts ordered were an act of abuse of power by the Censor Board to harass the filmmaker which was in violation of the right to speech and expression through cinematograph under Article 19(1)a.
Sree Raghavendra Films v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1995
In another case, Sree Raghavendra Films v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, a film’s exhibition in the Telugu language was suspended by the provisions under Section 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955, even when the Censor Board sanctioned the unrestricted exhibition of the movie. The reason behind the suspension was cited as it may hurt sentiments of certain communities. The court observed that the authority that ordered the suspension did not even watch the movie and hence, it quashed the order on grounds of arbitrariness.
Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, 1996
This case is better known as the Bandit Queen case. The Supreme Court while dealing with this case once again upheld the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) through cinematograph. The court refused the restrictions on the exhibition of the film on grounds of obscenity. The petitioner contended that the exhibition of the film shall be restricted for its nature of depiction of the life story of a bandit, Phoolan Devi in the film and the picturisation of rape scenes were also questioned along with the image of Gujjar community harmed with some particular scenes in the movie.
The Supreme Court observed that a film cannot be restricted simply because the content is obscene, indecent or immoral. The abusive language or nudity in the movie was to further the case regarding the depiction of the reality of the life story of Phoolan Devi. The movie was provided with the ‘A’ certification under Section 5(B) with restricted viewership for adults only.
Conclusion
A cinematograph is an art form that is used to express emotions, ideas, opinions and thoughts by an individual. It is protected under freedom of speech and expression until a reasonable restriction is placed on its enjoyment under the provisions of Article 19(2). The censorship is a process that is explained in the Cinematograph Act, 1955 while providing the complete procedure. There are numerous landmark judgements in this regard which have mostly arisen out of a conflict between the fundamental right to speech and expression and the restrictions imposed in consonance with the restrictions enshrined in the Constitution for the right. It is a very delicate matter as it is the obligation of the state to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens and every action while sanctioning the censorship shall be equivalent to the reasonable restrictions.
References
- https://www.cbfcindia.gov.in/main/CBFC_English/Attachments/cine_act1952.pdf
- https://indiankanoon.org/
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
