Context:
The potential for protests, communal tension, or threats to law and order should not be used as grounds to halt the screening of a film. A state government’s recent decision to delay the release of a film for two weeks infringes on the freedom of expression under the guise of maintaining order and preventing communal strife. Such bans on public film screenings, regardless of their content, are inappropriate in a democratic society.
Relevance:
GS2-
- Government Policies & Interventions
- Issues Arising Out of Design & Implementation of Policies
Mains Question:
No ban on books or films can be justified in the name of upholding order. Comment critically with reference to the rising cases of delays in release of some films in India (10 Marks, 150 Words).
Judiciary on Such Bans:
- The Bombay High Court, which initially blocked the release of the same film, has lifted the ban after the producer agreed to remove some controversial dialogues.
- The court noted that allowing an individual to prevent the release of a certified film would lead to filmmakers being held hostage, aligning with previous judicial rulings.
- Once certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, after a thorough review of its suitability for public viewing, law enforcement should not have the authority to impose a second opinion.
- The Central Bureau of Film Certification (CBFC) is a statutory body operating under the Cinematography Act of 1952.
- It regulates the content of films released to the public. The CBFC uses a prior certification system for films, and broadcasters must adhere to the guidelines set forth in the ‘Programme Code and Advertisement Code’ based on the certification provided.
Films are categorized into four groups:
- ‘U’ for unrestricted exhibition,
- ‘UA’ for unrestricted exhibition except for children under 12,
- ‘A’ for adult-only exhibition,
- ‘S’ for films restricted to a specific class of people.
- Article 19(2) of the Constitution permits the government to impose reasonable restrictions by law on the freedom of speech and expression.
- These restrictions can be made in the interest of India’s sovereignty and integrity, state security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or concerning contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.
- The Cinematograph Act of 1952 includes similar provisions aligned with those stated in Article 19(2).
- The notion that a work, whether a book, play, or film, can be banned due to the threat of protests or potential violence has been rejected by the Supreme Court of India in several landmark rulings.
- “Freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threats of demonstrations, processions, or violence,” the Court stated in its 1989 judgment in S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram regarding the film Ore Oru Gramathile.
- Emphasizing freedom of expression does not mean endorsing films with distasteful or vile content. In the case of the film currently under scrutiny, there is justified criticism, starting with its overtly communal title.
- The posters and synopsis suggest the film perpetuates sectarian claims that a particular community is responsible for population growth.
- The film’s advocates may argue it aims to raise awareness about population control, and viewing the film might dispel such concerns. However, it is undeniable that modern filmmaking often stereotypes the community.
Conclusion:
Any film that emphasizes such notions is likely pandering to communal factions and the political forces that support them. To maintain a free and open society, it is unnecessary to suppress any viewpoint. However, it is crucial to develop the means to counter sectarian propaganda with facts, without resorting to unconstitutional methods.
