Notable Media Laws- Part II

Unit 3
 Topics
1. Film Media: Cinematograph Act

2. Cases related to Cinematograph Act

3. Advertising: Drugs and Magic Remedies

(Objectionable Advertisements) Act
What is the Cinematograph Act, 1952?
• The CBFC is a statutory body which regulates the public exhibition of
films in India according to the provisions under the Cinematograph
Act, 1952.

• The Cinematograph Act of 1952 enshrines certain guidelines that tame

the public expression of ideas, opinions and imagination via films by
filmmakers. Cinema has opened up to new possibilities and debatable
themes in the social and political arenas. With the rapid technological
advancement, it is easy to abuse the wonders of technology and
portray themes that are hurtful to social conformations.
• The Indian Cinematograph Act of 1952 is a law that governs the certification of
cinematograph films for display and the regulation of cinematograph exhibits. The
Censor Board of India, often known as the Central Board of Film Certification
(CBFC), is an important authority in India that oversees film certification.

Central Board of Film Certification

• The Censor Board, often known as the Central Board of Film Certification
(CBFC), is an important authority in India that regulates film certification.
• It is a statutory body that reports to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
• It is governed by the Cinematograph Act of 1952, which governs the public
display of films.
• Only when the CBFC has certified a film, it may be shown to the general
audience.
Indian Cinematograph Act of 1952 - Historical
Background
• Raja Harishchandra, directed by Dadasaheb Phalke and released in 1913,
was India's first feature film.
• In 1920, the Indian Cinematograph Act was passed, establishing Censor
Boards in a few towns. The city's police chiefs were in charge of these
(independent) boards.
• The autonomy of the regional boards was eliminated after independence,
and they were subsumed under the Bombay Board of Film Censors.
• It was renamed the Central Board of Film Censors in 1952.
• The name of the organization was changed to Central Board of Film
Certification in 1983.
Indian Cinematograph Act of 1952 - Provisions
• The Cinematograph Act of 1952 is a law that governs the certification of cinematograph
films for display and the regulation of cinematograph exhibits.
• According to the Act, a film will not be certified if any component of it:
• Against India's sovereignty and integrity, as well as the security of the country and good relations
with other countries.
• Against the law, against decency
• It involves defamation or contempt of court, and it's likely to inspire someone to commit a crime.
• A film's overall influence is assessed in light of the period shown in the film and current
standards in the country, as well as the individuals to whom the film is related, and that
the film does not deprive the audience of their morality.
• The CBFC must ensure that films are suitable for family watching when certifying them
for unrestricted public screening.
• This means that the film must be suitable for all members of the family, including children, to
see together.
• Even the title of the picture will be scrutinized by the regulations and norms.
• The Act calls for the appointment of a Chairman of the Censor Board, as well as a team of
individuals (no fewer than twelve and no more than twenty-five) to be appointed by the
Central Government to assist the Chairman in his duties.
• It can also order the applicant to make changes and deletions to the film before it can be
certified. If such changes are not made, the Censor Board may refuse to allow the film to be
shown publicly.
• Although film certification is a subject of the Central Government, state governments are
responsible for enforcing censorship in their respective domains.
• The following criteria are used for certification:
• U – It stands for "universal exhibition"
• A – Restricted to the adult audience only
• UA – Unrestricted public exhibition, but with a parental discretion warning for children
under the age of twelve.
• S – Public exhibition for a specific group of people like doctors, engineers, etc.
Objectives of the Act
Section 5B(2) lays down the principles to be followed by the CBFC while
sanctioning films. The guidelines require the CBFC to ensure that-

• the medium of film conforms to the values of the society.

• creative freedom or artistic expression shall not be unreasonably curbed.
• the certification must be responsive to social change.
• the film must provide clean and healthy entertainment.
• the film must be cinematical of a decent standard and is of aesthetic value.
• The CBFC must judge the film in its entirety and not from a one-track biased
perspective.
• Another significant provision of the 1952 Act was the creation of the
Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT).
• This was established under Section 5D of the Act and is specifically
designed to hear appeals from disgruntled parties who request a re-
examination of the Censor Board's decision (CBFC).
• Scenes depicting extreme violence, filthy language, vulgarity,
contempt of court, an insult to the national symbol, the inaccurate
portrayal of individuals, religion, and so on are not permitted, despite a
few small exceptions.
Film Certification Appellate Tribunal
• The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) is a legislative body
established by Section 5(D) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, under
the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
• The FCAT considers appeals from applicants who have been harmed
by a Central Board of Film Certification order (CBFC).
• The FCAT was founded in 1991, and it is based in New Delhi.
• In most cases, an appeal to the FCAT of a CBFC order is followed by
a second evaluation of the film by the Censor Board.
• An aggrieved party has 30 days from the date of the CBFC order to
submit an appeal.
• An appeal against an FCAT decision can be made to the Minister of
Information and Broadcasting or through the legal system of the
country.
• The Chairman of the FCAT is usually a retired Supreme Court judge.
He or she is aided by other Tribunal members.
• The Indian government abolished the Film Certification Appellate
Tribunal (FCAT) in 2021.
• Conclusion
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting recently requested public
feedback on the draft Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which
intends to restore the Central Board of Film Certification's revisionary
powers; make the process of certifying films for exhibition more
effective, in tune with changing times, and curb the danger of piracy,
according to the new Bill.
Cases related to Cinematograph Act
The Cinematograph Act, which governs the regulation of films in India,
has been the subject of various legal cases over the years. Here are
some notable cases related to the Cinematograph Act:

1. In the criminal appeal Raj Kapoor v. State [AIR 1980 SC 285], the
Apex Court laid down by that if film certificate is granted by the censor
board under Section 6 of the CA, 1952, the court shouldn’t disregard the
decision because of the fact that an expert committee judges the
suitability of films for the audience. The expert committee knows better
and their understanding of the principal ingredients of the obscenity
would also be better.
2. In the landmark case of K.A Abbas v. Union of India [AIR 1971 SC 481], the Delhi High Court explained
the broad legal governing principles on the censorship issue related case Srishti School of Art, Design and
Technology v. Chairman, CBFC [2011 IIIAD (Delhi) 289]. the following points were summarised in 2011 by
the Delhi HC:

• Reasonable standards must be adopted while judging.

• The onus of proof of obscenity must be provided by the petitioner (Government).
• The film must be judged in its entirety in order to determine whether a particular scene in it offends
Cinematograph guidelines or not.
• The Petitioners must also prove the proximate and direct nexus of the film to endangering public order
• The courts shouldn’t ordinarily disregard CBFC’s decisions regarding film certification unless it is proven
to be unreasonable.

This case dealt with the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Cinematograph Act. The petitioner
challenged the government’s power to censor films, arguing that it violated freedom of speech and expression
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the
Cinematograph Act, stating that censorship was permissible as a reasonable restriction on the freedom of
speech in the interest of public order, decency, and morality.
3. In S. Ranga Raan v. P. Jagjivan Ram [(1989) 2 SCC 574], the issue raised
was whether the Tamil Film ‘Ore Oru Gramathile’ should be granted the “U”
certificate. The film apparently deprecated the exploitation of people on the
basis of their caste.

The Supreme Court held that as long as there is no utterance in the film that
threatens to overthrow the government by unconstitutional means and there is no
indication as to impairment in the integration of the country the U certificate can
be conferred.

In this case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that censorship of films should not be
used to suppress legitimate expression. The case concerned the screening of a
film that was considered controversial. The Court emphasized that while the
government has the power to impose restrictions, these restrictions must be
narrowly tailored and should not stifle legitimate artistic expression.
4. In Gita Ram v. State of HP [AIR 2013 641], the appellants were
caught while showing the blue film named “size matter” to young men
in their premises. The wrongdoers were convicted and sentenced
accordingly for an offence punishable under Section 292 r/w Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code. They were also subjected to Section 7 of the
Cinematograph Act.
5. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994):
Often referred to as the "Auto Shankar case," this decision dealt with
the question of whether certain contents in films could be banned. The
Supreme Court ruled that while the state has the authority to regulate
and restrict films, it must balance this against the fundamental rights of
free speech and expression. The Court also highlighted that restrictions
must be necessary and not overly broad.
• S. K. Dey v. Union of India (2000): This case involved the legality of government-imposed
film censorship and whether it complied with the provisions of the Cinematograph Act.
The Supreme Court discussed the balance between censorship and freedom of
expression, reinforcing that while censorship is permissible, it should not be used to
arbitrarily limit artistic expression.

• A.P. Sharma v. Union of India (2004): This case addressed the issue of film certification
and the procedures followed by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The
petitioner challenged the board’s decision to deny certification to a film, arguing that the
decision was arbitrary. The Court underscored the need for transparency and fairness in
the certification process.

• These cases highlight the ongoing balancing act between regulating films for public
decency and morality and protecting the fundamental right to free expression.