Media and Censorship With Refernce To Cinematograph Act, 1952

MEDIA AND CENSORSHIP
WITH REFERNCE TO
CINEMATOGRAPH ACT,
1952
UIL, PANJAB UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTRE,
LUDHIANA
SUBMITTED BY
SIMRANDEEP SINGH
B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER
ROLL NO. 81
MEDIA AND CENSORSHIP WITH REFERNCE TO CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher

DR. VAISHALI THAKUR who gave me the golden opportunity to do this
wonderful project on the topic MEDIA AND CENSORSHIP WITH
REFERNCE TO CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952 which also helped me
in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new things I
am really thankful to them.
Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me
a lot in finalizing this project within the limited time frame.
SIMRANDEEP SINGH
SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 2

INDEX
1. MEANING OF CENSORSHIP...............................................PAGE NO. 4
2. CENSORSHIP OF FILMS.......................................................PAGE NO. 5
3. TYPES OF CERTIFICATE......................................................PAGE NO. 6
4. OBJECTIVES OF FILM CERTIFICATION.........................PAGE NO. 7
5. CONSTITUTION OF CENSORSHIP BOARD......................PAGE NO. 9
6. REASONS FOR CENSORSHIP...............................................PAGE NO. 9
7. LANDMARK CASES.............................................................PAGE NO. 11
8. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CENSORSHIP UNDER

ARTICLE 19 (1) (a)......................................................................PAGE NO. 14
9. WHY CENSORSHIP OF FILMS; NOT PRESS?

........................................................................................................PAGE NO. 16
10. SOME RECENT CONTROVERSIAL

MOVIES........................................................................................PAGE NO. 19
11. CONCLUSION......................................................................PAGE NO. 21
12. BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................PAGE NO. 22

Meaning of Censorship
The term 'censorship 'comes from the Latin 'censere' meaning to give one's opinion, or to
assess. In ancient Rome the censors, two Roman magistrates, conducted the census and
regulated the manners and morals of the citizens.
Censorship's may be applied to both written and oral communications. Its span encompasses
books, magazines, newspapers, radio, TV, movies, dramas, paintings, plays, speeches, dance,
music, art, literature, photographs, mails, emails, websites etc. deemed to be offensive,
indecent, obscene and sexually explicit.
Censorship is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as the 'prohibition or suppression of any

part of the news, books, films, etc. that are considered politically unacceptable, obscene, or a
threat to security.' Films are considered an excellent medium of communication with the
general public. The evolution of technology has brought a sea of change in the way films
have been able to reach the public in every corner of India. Additionally, it has boosted the
power of films to significantly contribute to the cultural and social development of the
country. Generally, Press and Films enjoy the same right and status as far as the constitution
freedom related to expression and spreading of an idea is concerned. Article 19(1) of the
Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Hence, both Press and
Films are regulated under this provision. It is pertinent to note that the above right is not
absolute and has certain limitations. Matters that are against foreign relations, public policy,
integrity and sovereignty of the State, decency and morality, public order, etc. are certain
limitations to the above, as mentioned in the Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

Censorship of Films
Films are considered as a great medium of communication with the people. With the
development and progress of the society and also with the progress in the field of science and
technology the films have undergone a sea change and by adopting all the available
technologies have been able to reach the masses and also significantly contributed to the
social and cultural development of the country. In this way the films are equated with the
Press as Press is also considered as a great medium of communication. Both the films and the
Press enjoy the same status and right so far as constitutional freedom relating to expression of
ideas and spreading of ideas and messages are concerned. As is known Article 19(1) (a) of
the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression which is extended to the Press
also. Therefore, both these mediums are regulated under this provision of the Constitution.
Simultaneously as these freedoms are not absolute and subject to constitutional restrictions,
both these mediums are also to adhere to this.1
As mentioned above, we have the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to see the films fulfill the
norms prescribed by the law. The Act provides for the establishment of a 'Central Board of
Film Certification', the regulatory body for films in India to issue the certificate to the
makers of the film for public exhibition. As per the provision of the law, the Board after
examining the film or having it examined could:
(a) Sanction the film for unrestricted public exhibition;
(b) Sanction the film for public exhibition restricted to adults;
(c) Direct such excisions and modifications in the film before sanctioning the film to any
unrestricted public exhibition or for public exhibition restricted to adults; and
(d) Refuse to sanction the film for public exhibition.
1
SUKANTA K. NANDA, International Journal of Science, Technology and Management, Volume No.4,Issue No.1, January 2015.

Types of Certifications
There are mainly four kinds of certifications given by the Central Board of Film Certification:
1. Universal (U)
This type of certifications is the Unrestricted Public Exhibition, and the same holds no
limitations for the age groups that may watch the same. They could be family, educational or
social oriented themes. This category has fantasy violence and minimal foul language. When
a movie is being certified U by the Board, it must ensure that the movie is suitable for a
family to watch it together including the children.
2. Parental Guidance (UA)

This type of certification explains that the film is appropriate for all age groups. However, it
is in the interest of the children below the age of 12 to be accompanied by their parents. The
reason could that the theme of the movie may not be the most appropriate for the child
without the guidance of their parents.
3. Adults Only (A)

As the certification suggests, this type of film is restricted to adults only. Persons above the
age of 18 are adults, for the meaning of this certification. The theme may contain disturbing,
violent, drug abuse and other related scenes which are not considered suitable for viewing by
children who may be influenced by the same negatively. Films that meet the requisites of the
abovementioned criteria but are not suitable for exhibition to children or those below the age
of 18 shall be certified A.
4. Restricted to Special Class of Persons (S)

This is the last type of the certifications under the board, and the same explains that the films
which are rated S are meant for a special class of persons only. For example, doctors. If the
Board is of the opinion the with regards to content, nature and the theme of the film is to be
restricted to members of a class of persons or any profession, the above certification shall be
given to such film.

OBJECTIVES OF FILM CERTIFICATION
A. The main objectives of the Board for the above are as follows:
1. To ensure that the medium of the film responsible. Additionally, to safeguard the
sensitivity of standards and value of the society.
2. To ensure that creative freedom and expression are not unjustifiably curbed.
3. To ensure to adapt to the social changes.
4. To ensure the theme of the film provides a healthy and clean entertainment.
5. To ensure that the film is of cinematically an adequate standard and aesthetic value.
B. In pursuance of the above, the Board must ensure that:
1. Activities that anti-social such as violence are not justified or glorified;
2. The way criminals are depicted, and other related words or visuals must not incite the
commission of any kind of offence;
3. The scenes showing ridicule and abuse of mentally and physically handicapped, cruelty or
abuse of animals, involving children as victims of violence and abuse must not be presented
needlessly;
4. Avoidable or pointless scenes of cruelty, horror and violence that are intended to provide
entertainment but may have the effect of dehumanizing or desensitizing people are not
shown;
5. Scenes that glorify or justify drinking are not shown;
6. Scenes that tend to justify, glamourize or encourage drug addiction are not shown.
Additionally, similar scenes for the consumption of tobacco or smoking must not be shown;
7. Human susceptibilities are not offended by obscenity, vulgarity or obscenity;
8. Words with dual meanings that cater to dishonourable instincts are not used;
9. Scenes denigrating or degrading women in any manner is not shown;
10. Scenes that involve sexual violence against women in the form of rape or any other form
of molestation are avoided. If the theme of the movie requires so, the same must shall be

reduced to a minimum and no details are to be shown. The same goes for scenes that involve
sexual perversion;
11. Words or visuals contemptuous of religious, racial or other groups must not be presented;
12. Words or visuals that promote obscurantist, communal, anti-national and anti-scientific
attitude are not shown;
13. The integrity and sovereignty of the country is not called in question;
14. The security of the country is not endangered or jeopardized;
15. Relations with foreign states are not overwrought;
16. Public order is maintained, and not hindered;
17. Words or visuals involving defamation of a body or an individual, or contempt of court

are not shown;
18. National emblems and symbols are not presented except according to the provisions of
Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (12 of 1950).
C. The Board shall additionally ensure that a film:
1. Is judged as a whole from the perspective of its overall impact; and
2. Is inspected in the light of the period illustrated in the film along with contemporary
standards of India and the people who the movie is related to, to ensure that the firm does not
corrupt the morality and ethics of the audience.
Applying to all of the above categories, the Board shall ensure the titles of each film is
carefully scrutinized to ensure they are not vulgar, violating, provocative or offensive to the
guidelines mentioned above.

CONSTITUTION of the Censor Board

The Board consists of a Chairman and non-official members, all of whom are appointed by
the Central Government. It is headquartered in Mumbai, Maharashtra. Additionally, it has
nine Regional offices, namely, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, New Delhi, Guwahati,
Cuttack, Kolkata and Thiruvananthapuram.
Regional Offices, as mentioned above, are assisted by the Advisory Panels. The Advisory
Panels, like the Board, is selected by the Central government. The members chosen for the
panel are from different walks of life, and they are chosen for a period of 2 years.
It has a two-tier jury system, the Examining Committee and the Revising Committee.
Common Reasons for Censorship or Banning of a Film

In light of the history of why a film has been banned, or parts of it are censored, the main
categories for why the same is done are as follows:
1. Sexuality: A rigid social structure has been followed in Indian society. Hence, a medium
which portrays sexuality regardless of the audio, written or visual form, which has not been
fathomed by the society and is concerned a social stigma is banned on the grounds that it
might have the effect of undignified morals of Indians.
2. Politics: The isolation of political forces is not far when one talks about censorship. The
description of an allegorical political scene, directly or indirectly, is banned by the authorized
party to it. Overt political overtones are not appreciated by the government and hence is a
common reason why certain films are either entirely banned, or such scenes are censored or
removed.

3. Communal Conflict: Under a heterogeneous nation like India, if a film incites or spurs
any type of communal conflict, the same is censored. The aim is to avoid the consequences
such a film would have on the audience it intentionally or unintentionally targets. If the state
believes that a movie would open a window for riots by a community for the way they have
been portrayed in the film, the same is banned by the Board or censored.
4. Incorrect Portrayal: Sometimes, a situation arises where a well-known personality

objects his own depiction in a medium which would be exhibited, and consequently goes for
censoring the same. For more clarity, in a situation where the medium is of biographical
nature, and the person on whom it is based does not approve the authenticity of the same,
there have been times when the person has sued for the medium not to be released, or be
edited and released upon approval of such person.
5. Religion: Religion does not appreciate any type of defiance or disobedience towards the
values it proliferates. Hence, any medium which directly or indirectly distorts any aspect of
the religion including its preaching, values, idols, to name a few, is highly criticized and
therefore, censored.
6. Extreme Violence: Indubitably, the portrayal of extreme gore and violence may meddle
and disturb the human mind. Viewing such scenes may have a negative psychological effect
on the mind. If the Board of a similar opinion that such a scene through any medium may
have an underlying negative impact on the viewer, contrary to the entertainment or
knowledge such scene tries to bestow, the same may be banned, edited or censored by the
Board in public interest.

LANDMARK CASES
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India 2is perhaps the first case where the question relating to the
censorship of films arises. In this case, the Supreme Court considered important question
relating to pre-censorship of cinematograph films in relation to the fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The
petitioner in this case challenged the decision of the Board of Film Censors in refusing a 'U'
certificate 3for him film "A Tale of Four Cities". While the case was pending in the Supreme
Court, the Central Government to grant the 'U' certificate provided certain cuts were made in
the film.
As the petitioner's grievance was completely redressed, the petitioner applied for an
amendment enabling him to raise the question of pre-censorship in general, in order that
persons who invested money in making films may have guidance on this important
constitutional question. The amendment sought by the petition was allowed for consideration
by the apex court.
The following two issues were before the court for consideration:
(a) That pre-censorship itself cannot be tolerated under the freedom of speech and
expression; and
(b) That even if it were a legitimate restraint on the freedom, it must be exercised on
very definite principles which leave no room for arbitrary action.
Taking into consideration all these, Hidayatullah, C.J. made it clear that censorship of films
including pre-censorship was constitutionally valid in India as it was a reasonable
restriction within the ambit of Article 19(2).
It was also observed that pre-censorship was but an aspect of censorship and bore the same
relationship in quality to the material as censorship after the motion picture has had a run.
However, censorship should not be exercised as to cause unreasonable restrictions on the
freedom of expression. Holding the view that "pre-censorship was only an aspect of
censorship and censorship of cinematograph film was 'universal', Hidayatullah, C.J. went on
to observe that "it had been almost universally recognized that motion pictures must be
treated differently from other forms of art and expression, because a motion picture's instant
appeal both to the sight and to hearing, and because a motion picture had become more true
2
(1970) 2 SCC 780
3
'U' Certificate means it is for universal exhibition. 'A' Certificate means it is for viewing by Adults only

to life than even the theatre or any other form of artistic representation. Its effect,
particularly on children and immature adolescents was great."
The court upheld the general principles which had been laid down for the guidance of the
censors and said that the test of obscenity and principles laid down in Udeshi's case 4applied
mutatis mutandis to an obscene cinematograph film.
In S. Rangrajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram5, the Supreme Court again confronted the question of
censorship of films vis-a-vis Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In this case, the Madras
High Court revoked the 'U' certificate issued to a film entitled "Ore Oru Gramathile" ("In Just
One Village"), and also banned the exhibition of the film as there was some public protest
against the film. The film was critical of the reservation policy of the Government of Tamil
Nadu. During the pendency of the case, the film received the National Award by the
Directorate of Film Festival of the Government of India.
After the decision of the Madras High Court, the matter went to the Supreme Court on an
appeal and the court reiterated the importance of the freedom of speech and expression and
the role of films as a legitimate media for its exercise. The Court was of the opinion that:
"if exhibition of the film cannot be validly restricted under Article 19(2), it cannot be
suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and precessions or threat of violence. That
would tantamount to negation of the Rule of Law and surrender to blackmail and
intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty
guaranteed to handle the hostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and
protect the freedom of expression" 6
Again in Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon7, case, better known as the Bandit
Queen case, the Supreme Court considering the censorship issue upheld the freedom of
expression through films and removed the restrictions imposed on the exhibition of the film
"Bandit Queen"8on the ground of obscenity. In this case, the petitioner Om Pal Singh
Hoon filed a petition asking the court to quash the certificate of exhibition for screening the
film "Bandit Queen" and also to restrain its exhibition in India. It was contended in the
petition that the depiction of the life story of Phoolan Devi in this film was "abhorrent and
unconscionable and a slur on the womanhood of India." The way the rape scenes were
depicted and the manner in which such scenes were picturised was also questioned and it was
also contended that the depiction of Gujjar community in those scenes amounts to moral
4
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881
5
(1989) 2 SCC 574
6
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagajivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574 at p. 583
7
1996) 4 SCC 1
8
'Bandit Queen' depicts the life story of Phoolan Devi, the dreaded dacoit of yester years who was brutally gang

depravity of that particular community. The Delhi High Court quashed the order of the
Tribunal granting 'A' certificate to the film on the ground that the rape scenes were
obscene. When the matter went to the Supreme Court by way of appeal, allowing the appeal,
the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court and upheld the decision of the
Tribunal in granting the 'A' certificate to be valid. The court was of the opinion that:
"The film must be judged in its entirety from the point of overall impact. Where theme of the
film is to condemn degradation, violence and rape on women, scenes of nudity and rape and
use of expletives to advance the message intended by the film by arousing a sense of revulsion
against the perpetrators and pity for the victim is permissible 9."
The court rejecting the challenge under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
went on to observe that:
"We do not censor to protect the pervert or to assuage the susceptibilities of the over
sensitive. 'Bandit Queen' tells a powerful human story and to that story the scene of Phoolan
Devi's enforced naked parade is central. It helps toexplain why Phoolan Devi became what
she did, her rage and vendetta against the society that had heaped indignities upon her."10
9
Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon, (1996) 4 SCC 1 at p. 1446
10
Ibid

Constitutionality of Censorship Under Article 19(1)(A)
The Supreme Court for the first time came across the issue of censorship of films under
Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India, in K.A. Abbas v.Union of India11, in this case
the Supreme Court upheld the censor of films on the ground that films have to be treated
separately from other forms of art and expression because a motion picture is able to stir up
emotions more deeply than any other product of art. A film can therefore, be censored on the
grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held the view 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 12."
Further the Court held that:
"Censorship in India (and pre-censorship is not different in quality) has full justification in
the field of the exhibition in cinema films. We need not generalise about other forms of
speech and expression here for each such fundamental right has a different content and
importance. The censorship imposed on the making and exhibition of films is in the interest of
society. If the regulations venture into something which goes beyond this legitimate opening
the restrictions, they can be questioned on the ground that a legitimate power is being
abused. We hold, therefore, that censorship of films including prior restraint is justified
under our Constitution13."
Constitutionality of censorship was also held in S. Rangarajan v. P. JagjivanRam14, The

case came to the Supreme Court in an appeal relating to the revocation of `U' certificate to a
Tamil film. Reversing the judgment of the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court opined
that:
11
(1970) 2 SCC 574.
12
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 780 at p. 797
13
Ibid.
14
(1989) 2 SCC 574

"Though movie enjoys the guarantee under Article 19(1)(a) but there is one significant
difference between the movies and the other modes of communication. Movie motivates
thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention. In view of the
scientific improvements in photography and production the present movie is a powerful
means of communication. It has a unique capacity to disturb and arouse feelings. It has as
much potential for evil as it has for good. It has an equal potential to instill or cultivate
violent or good behaviour.
With these qualities and since it caters for mass audience who are generally not selective
about what they watch, the movie cannot be equated with other modes of communication. It
cannot be allowed to function in a free market place just as does the newspapers and
magazines. Censorship by prior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but also
necessary15."
15
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagajivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574 at p. 583.

Why Censorship of Films, Not The Press?
After discussing in detail about the censorship of films, one question automatically comes to
our mind, i.e. why censorship of films, not the press? This question was dominating the
Indian scenario for quite a long period. To find a clear cut answer we have to take in to
consideration several other factors and aspects along with some of the important decisions of
the Supreme Court.
The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under our Constitution most
probably draws its inspiration from the First Amendment of the American
Constitution. The First Amendment which deals with freedom of the press is as follows:
"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.S16., 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."
If we analyse the American First Amendment it is clear that in the first place it advocates for
the freedom of the press, and secondly no restrictions are imposed on the freedom of the
press. But on the other hand Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees to all
the citizens the right to 'freedom of speech and expression' and this freedom includes
the right to express one's own views and opinions at any issue through any medium he
likes. This right also includes the freedom of the press or the freedom of the communication
and the right to propagate or publish opinion. But unlike American Constitution, this
freedom is not absolute, and is subject to restrictions imposed by Article 19 (2) of the
Constitution.
16
326 U.S. 1.

Despite the restrictions, in our country the citizens and the press in real practice enjoy this
freedom to a large extent because in a democratic set up, such freedoms are necessary and
quite helpful for the proper functioning of the democratic process. It has been rightly
remarked by Justice Bhagawati in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India17 in the following
words:
"Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussion, for that it is the only
corrective of Government action in a democratic set up. If democracy means Government of
the people, by the people, it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to participate in the
democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his right of making
choice, free and general discussion of public matters is absolutely essential".
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 Brij Bhusan case18, or prohibiting the newspaper from publishing its own views as in
Virendra19, or imposing a ban on the entry of newspapers and its circulation as in Sakal
Papers case20, and in Romesh Thapper case21 , More trying to put restrictions in some way
or other in Express News paper case22 and the Bennett and Coleman case23, were held by
the Supreme Court as encroachment in freedom of speech and expression and opposed to
Article 19 (1) (a).
In all the above mentioned cases the Supreme Court has maintained that the freedom of the
press cannot be taken away and it would not be legitimate to subject the press to the laws
which take away or abridge the freedom of speech and expression. In the words of Justice
Mudholkar who gave his opinion in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India24 as:
"the Courts must be ever vigilant in guarding perhaps the most precious of all the freedoms
guaranteed by our Constitution. The reason for this is obvious. The freedom of speech and
expression of opinion is of paramount importance under a democratic Constitution which
envisages changes in the composition of Legislatures and Governments and must be
preserved25."
17
(1978) 1 SCC 248
18
Brij Bhusan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129.
19
Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896.
20
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 30
21
Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
22
Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578
23
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788
24
AIR 1962 SC 305.
25
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305, at p. 314-315.

So far as censorship of films are considered, censorship is required because of its mass
appeal, the way the presentation and above all, the impact it leaves in the minds of the
persons both young and adult. Expression of one's own idea, through the medium he likes
is permissible under Article 19 (1) (a) of our Constitution. The medium is vast. But using
the films as a medium of expression should be treated differently because this medium
is not the same as reading a book or reading a newspaper or magazine. So in the larger
interest of the community and the country restrictions as envisaged in Article 19(2) can
be imposed. The framers of our Constitution deemed it essential to permit such reasonable
restriction as they intended to strike a proper balance between the liberty guaranteed and the
social interests specified in Article 19 (2).26
The Court went on to add:
Movie is the legitimate and the most important medium in which issues of general concern
can be treated. The producer may project his own message which the others may not approve
of it. But he has a right to 'think out' and put the counter appeals to reason. It is a part of a
democratic give-and-take to which no one could complain. The State cannot prevent open
discussion and open expression, however, hateful to its policies.
In doing so, the Court did acknowledge to have a compromise between the interest of
freedom of expression and social interests. Censorship is permitted only on the grounds
envisaged under Article 19(2) and the standard of judging a film to be applied by the Board
or courts should be that of "an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not that of
an out of the ordinary or hypersensitive man". It went on to observe that the anticipated
danger should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched but should have proximate and direct
nexus with the expression and equivalent of a "spark in a powder keg".
The Court criticized the State and emphasized that freedom of expression cannot be
suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. "It is
the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed
against the State. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem."
26
Santokh Singh v. Delhi Administration, (1973) 1 SCC 659.

Some recent controversial films:

a) PK and the controversy: Initially when PK was released it was a big hit and also got a
good response in the box-office and now it has been considered as one of the highest earning
film both in India and abroad. But even after that the controversy erupted against it and some
of the religious groups started protesting the screening of the film and the film makers as it is
hurting the religious sentiments.
b) MSG (Messenger of God): The controversial film the Messenger of God “ MSG” is
based on the Dera Saccha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was written, produced
and directed by the Dera Chief himself and Jeetu Arora under the Hakikat Entertainment
Pvt. Ltd. Banner with Singh in a lead role. The film was supposed to be released on 16th
January 2015 but was stuck with the censor board for its clearance. The film underwent the
Board's examination that raised objections against the film alleging that it is showing the self-
styled guru projected himself as a godman.
The censor board refused to grant clearance certificate as according to it the film was
unsuitable for public exhibition. The producer of the film preferred an appeal before the
FCAT at Delhi. The matter was fast tracked by the FCAT and the film has been cleared
within 24 hours which normally takes 15 to 30 days as per the procedure. The FCAT has
directed the CBFC to issue the clearance certificate. The film has been scheduled to be
released with a mandatory disclaimer on February 13, 2015 across the country targeting
3,000 to 4,000 screens. This has resulted into the resignation by the CBFC chief Ms. Leela
Samson27 followed by mass resignations by the other board members.
In the meantime the film has also been banned by the Punjab and Haryana Governments from
the screening. Recently, a petition seeking directions to ban the screening of the MSG
movie in the States of Punjab and Haryana was filed before the Punjab and Haryana
High Court by Mohali based Sikh body “ Kalgidhar Sewak Jatha”. The body argued that
the screening of the movie, MSG would be a serious threat to the law and order situation and
peace of the States of Punjab and Haryana. It is further alleged that the self-style head of
Sirsa based Dera Saccha Sauda (DSS), Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had tried to project
himself as messenger of God in the movie while he is an accused several heinous crimes
including rape, murder and castration of his followers. The cases are being still investigated
by the CBI officers.28
27
According to the statement given by Ms. Samson, the CBFC was under constant pressure from the political parties as they interfere into the functioning of the
Board. She has termed the FCAT clearance as a mockery of CBFC and said she had taken the decision to quit because of 'recent cases of interference', 'coercion
and corruption of panel members and officers' of the censor board. Retrieved from www.dnaindia.com/india/report -msg-controversy-another-cbfc-member-
resigns-dera-chief-finally-speaks-2053124
28
VIVEK DHUPDALE, The role of central board of film certification with reference to right to freedom ofspeech and expression in t he Indian film industry,
Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India.

The most recent case where in the judiciary stepped in and whipped the central board of film
certification on its overreach is that of the controversy surrounding the film Udta Punjab.
In this case, the board refused to certify the film UDTA PUNJAB which is based on the
drug menace prevailing in the state of Punjab. In addition to its refusal to certify, the
board suggested almost 13 cuts in the movie as a mandatory measure to seek
certification. However on appeal by the filmmaker, the Bombay high court criticized the
central board of film certification for its conduct and poor way of handling issue. The court
made a very important observation that the board is not necessarily empowered to censor
films. The word censor is not found in the cinematograph act. The board can make changes in
the film but this power must be exercised in consonance with constitutional guarantee and
Supreme Court orders. It can be seen that the board has wrongly widened its power which
actually meant to be restricted to certification of films for exhibition only, to now include
within it the power to censor also. Such an attitude of the board, which many a time is
politically motivated, can put the rights of the citizen in danger. 29
29
SATYAM RATHORE, A critical overview of censorship in Indian cinema in the light of role of CBFC, Bharati Law Review, July-Sept, 2016, Christ
University, Bangalore.

Conclusion
Cinema being an important instrument of expression of ideas and free thoughts must remain
unrestricted from any kind of censorship. Restriction of any kind must not infringe upon the
basic human right of expressing one's view in the community of civilized societies. However
at the same time one must keep in mind the practical realities of the society in which such
ideas are broadcasted. The peace and security of the society should not be disturbed in the
process of expression of one's thoughts. Since cinema as a public expression can influence
the society at large, caution must be taken while exhibiting the film to avoid any kind of
chaos and threat to national security.
Henceforth, a balance must be maintained between the right of expression and the duty to
maintain peace in the society. The Certification Board must take a balanced approach while
reviewing a film and must take into account that the harmony between freedom of expression
and sense of security and peace in the society is maintained.

Bibliography
Books:
1. BASU D.D, Law of the Press in India, Wadhwa publications, Nagpur, 2002.
2. CHATTERJI P.C, Broadcasting in India, Eastern Book Company, 2ndedition, 1991.
3. EASTERN BOOK CO, Media, Press and Telecommunications Laws Compilation, 2002.
4. MAHMOOD, HAMEEDUDDIN, The Kaleidoscope of Indian Cinema, East-West Press,

1974.
Articles/Journals:
1. SATYAM RATHORE, A critical overview of censorship in Indian cinema in the light of
role of CBFC, Bharati Law Review, July-Sept, 2016, Christ University, Bangalore.
2. SUKANTA K. NANDA, International Journal of Science, Technology and Management,

Volume No.4, Issue No.1, January 2015.
3. GABE MOURA, What's Cinema, Elements of

Cinema,www.elementsofcinema.com/cinema/definition-and-brief-history
4. BHASHIN LALIT, Media World and the Law, Universal law publishing co. pvt. Ltd. New
Delhi, 2010.
5. VIVEK DHUPDALE, The role of central board of film certification with reference to right
to freedom of speech and expression in the Indian film industry, Shivaji University,
Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India.
6. MADABHUSHI SRIDHAR,MEDIA LAW REVIEW, 2010, NALSAR University of Law,

Hyderabad.
7. SUBHRADIPTA SARKAR, Banning Films or Article 19(1) (a), Legal Services

India,http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/fban.htm
ALL INDIA REPORTER
1. INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE JOURNAL

Websites:
1. www.elementsofcinema.com/cinema/definition-and-brief-history
2. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2490/The-Role-of-Central-Board-of-Film-
Certification.html
3. https://www.mondaq.com/india/broadcasting-film-tv-radio/827892/the-cinematograph-act-
of-india
4. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-351-censorship-of-films.html

Media and Censorship With Refernce To Cinematograph Act, 1952

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Media and Censorship With Refernce To Cinematograph Act, 1952

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Media and Censorship With Refernce To Cinematograph Act, 1952

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MEDIA AND CENSORSHIP

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 2

1. MEANING OF CENSORSHIP...............................................PAGE NO. 4

2. CENSORSHIP OF FILMS.......................................................PAGE NO. 5

3. TYPES OF CERTIFICATE......................................................PAGE NO. 6

4. OBJECTIVES OF FILM CERTIFICATION.........................PAGE NO. 7

5. CONSTITUTION OF CENSORSHIP BOARD......................PAGE NO. 9

6. REASONS FOR CENSORSHIP...............................................PAGE NO. 9

7. LANDMARK CASES.............................................................PAGE NO. 11

8. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CENSORSHIP UNDER

9. WHY CENSORSHIP OF FILMS; NOT PRESS?

10. SOME RECENT CONTROVERSIAL

11. CONCLUSION......................................................................PAGE NO. 21

12. BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................PAGE NO. 22

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 3

Censorship is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as the 'prohibition or suppression of any

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 4

(a) Sanction the film for unrestricted public exhibition;

(b) Sanction the film for public exhibition restricted to adults;

(d) Refuse to sanction the film for public exhibition.

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 5

2. Parental Guidance (UA)

3. Adults Only (A)

4. Restricted to Special Class of Persons (S)

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 6

OBJECTIVES OF FILM CERTIFICATION

3. To ensure to adapt to the social changes.

B. In pursuance of the above, the Board must ensure that:

1. Activities that anti-social such as violence are not justified or glorified;

5. Scenes that glorify or justify drinking are not shown;

7. Human susceptibilities are not offended by obscenity, vulgarity or obscenity;

9. Scenes denigrating or degrading women in any manner is not shown;

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 7

14. The security of the country is not endangered or jeopardized;

15. Relations with foreign states are not overwrought;

16. Public order is maintained, and not hindered;

17. Words or visuals involving defamation of a body or an individual, or contempt of court

C. The Board shall additionally ensure that a film:

1. Is judged as a whole from the perspective of its overall impact; and

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 8

CONSTITUTION of the Censor Board

Common Reasons for Censorship or Banning of a Film

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 9

4. Incorrect Portrayal: Sometimes, a situation arises where a well-known personality

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 10

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 11

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 12

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 13

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

Further the Court held that:

Constitutionality of censorship was also held in S. Rangarajan v. P. JagjivanRam14, The

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 14

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 15

Why Censorship of Films, Not The Press?

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 16

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 17

The Court went on to add:

SUBMITTED BY SIMRANDEEP SINGH B.A.LL.B 7TH SEMESTER ROLL NO. 81 Page 18