CENSORSHIP IN INDIA

Picture Courtesy: https://www.quora.com/How-bad-is-censorship-in-India

This article was written by Namrata Langade a student of New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Pune.

Introduction

“Censorship is when a work of art expressing an idea which does not fall under current convention is seized, cut up, withdrawn, impounded, ignored, maligned, or otherwise made inaccessible to its audience.”- Ritu Menon[1]

India is one of the biggest makers of films and different sorts of books. There are a large number of individuals occupied with film generation, conveyance and show movies offer the least expensive and a most effortlessly open type of excitement covering a million gatherings of people each year. Oversight with reference to movies implies an official examination of film before open presentation. The Censor Board has the ability to evacuate any of the substance of the movies which are thought to be foul, revolting or which may insult individuals, it expels any shot of discourse or data which the Board doesn’t wish to be made known not open for political, religious, open interest, peace, inviting relations.

 Censorship of Films

Movies are considered as an incredible medium of correspondence with the general population. Movies are viewed as equivalent with the Press as Press is additionally considered as an awesome medium of correspondence. Both the movies and the Press appreciate the same status and right so far as sacred flexibility identifying with articulation of thoughts and spreading of thoughts and messages are concerned. As is known Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution ensures the right to speak freely and expression which is reached out to the Press too. Consequently, both these mediums are controlled under this arrangement of the Constitution. All the while as these flexibilities are not outright and subject to protected limitations, both these mediums are likewise to hold fast to this.

As specified above, we have the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to see the movies satisfy the standards endorsed by the law. The Act accommodates the foundation of a ‘Focal Board of Film Certification’, the administrative body for movies in India to issue the endorsement to the creators of the film for open presentation. According to the arrangement of the law, the Board subsequent to looking at the film or having it inspected could

(a) Sanction the film for unhindered open display;

(b) Sanction the film for open presentation limited to grown-ups;

(c) Direct such extractions and alterations in the film before endorsing the film to any unhindered open display or for open show limited to grown-ups;

(d) Refuse to authorize the film for open display.

Constitutionality of Censorship Under Article 19(1)(A)

The Supreme Court surprisingly ran over the issue of restriction of movies under Article 19(1) (an) of the Constitution of India, in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, for this situation the Supreme Court maintained the blue pencil of movies on the ground that movies must be dealt with independently from different types of workmanship and expression in light of the fact that a film can blend up feelings more profoundly than some other result of craftsmanship. A film can in this manner, be controlled on the grounds said in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held the perspective that:

“censorship of films, their classification according to the age groups and their suitability for unrestricted exhibition with or without excisions is regarded as a valid exercise of power in the interest of public morality, decency etc. This is not to be construed as necessarily offending the freedom of speech and expression.” [2]

Constitutionality of censorship was  held in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram.[3] The case went to the Supreme Court in a bid identifying with the renouncement of `U’ declaration to a Tamil film. Turning around the judgment of the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court opined that: “However motion picture appreciates the surety under Article 19(1)(a) yet there is one critical contrast between the motion pictures and alternate methods of correspondence. Motion picture persuades thought and activity and guarantees a high level of consideration and maintenance. In perspective of the experimental enhancements in photography and creation the present film is a capable method for correspondence. It has a one of a kind ability to irritate and stimulate emotions. It has as much potential for malevolent as it has great.

Why Censorship of Films, not the Press

Subsequent to talking about the entire issue of restriction the inquiry that emerges at the top of the priority list is that why control just on Films and books and why not the media.

The right to speak freely and expression ensured under our Constitution most presumably draws its motivation from the First Amendment of the American Constitution. The First Amendment which manages flexibility of the press is as per the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the Press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The American Supreme Court in Associated Press v. U.S.,[4] referring to the First Amendment observed that:“it is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolisatation of that market whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.”

It is clear now that the freedom of press certainly enjoys importance in our democratic process as it seeks to advance public opinion and matters of public interest by publishing it which enables them to form a responsible judgment. Our Supreme Court through various judgments also upheld the dignity of the press and freedom it enjoys by nullifying the attempts to put a curb on it. Accordingly imposition of pre-censorship on a newspaper as held in Brj Bhusan case,[5] or prohibiting the newspaper from publishing its own views as in Virendra, [6]or imposing a ban on the entry of newspapers and its circulation as in Sakal Papers case, [7]and in Romesh Thapper case,[8] or trying to put restrictions in some way or other in Express News paper case [9] and the Bennett and Coleman case,[10] were held by the Supreme Court as encroachment in freedom of speech and expression and opposed to Article 19 (1) (a).

Conclusion

It appears that oversight can be a weapon in the hands of the State to make individuals concur with its belief system. Regularly the Censor Board capacities to force the State’s thought of Indianans and nationhood. The span and force of movies in India is huge. On the off chance that an executive needs to demonstrate the truth, he needs to place it in a motion picture and after that what happens, the edit board evacuates it. The Dirty Picture and other “A” movies, as per the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC), can be screened on TV without cuts after 11pm. The BCCC proposed some kind of a coordination system between the Central Board of Film Certification and the TV administrative body for the confirmation of movies for TV seeing. By this does it imply that the T.V is implied for kids and not grown-ups. This is the ideal opportunity to investigate the part that can be played by sound feedback, examination, and silver screen proficiency, instead of depending on a Censor Board that goes about as an ethical police, ceasing the difference.

[1]  For Women’s world Organisation for Rights, Literature and Development.

[2]  K.A Abbas v. Union Of India, (1970) 2 S.C.C. 780

[3] (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574.

[4] 326 U.S. 1

[5]  Brij Bhusan v. State of Delhi. A.I.R. 1950 S.C 129

[6] Virendra v. State of Punjab, A.I.R 1957 S.C 896

[7] Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. V. Union Of India, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 30.

[8] Romesh Thappar V. State of Madras,  A.I.R.  1950 S.C. 124.

[9] Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. V. Union of India A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 578.

[10] Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 S.C.C. 788.