Detailed Analysis of Film Censorship in India and Contemporary Issues
By- Abhinav Bishnoi* and Suyash Vijayvergiya*
Abstract
This paper aims to see the validity of the censorship laws in India.
Indian film censorship is one of most strict in the world. In the country where
the law can respect the naked sadhus, Khajuraho and Konark temple art. From the
British era onwards, the government has always tried to imposed restriction on
the fundamental right of speech and expression which also altogether put effect
upon the fundamental right to trade and commerce on the ground of national
interest and protecting the public sentiments and international relation. The
paper focuses on the case laws and Indian laws which regulate the film and TV
shows content and to what extent with the help of real-life examples. It would
also try to differentiate between the reasonability of the restriction imposed
by the government to date. Also, cover the aspect of the online streaming of
shoes and web series regulation and restrictions. The research done for this
project is doctrinal in nature.
Introduction
Censorship
is a process through which the state can put restriction over the content of
which the public view. In India, there are very strict laws and regulation
related to film censorship. Which as per many film industry people is clearly
violative of their fundamental right to speech and expression as per article 19
(1) (a)[1]. So, in India, the
government has to see through its Ministry of Telecommunication and
Broadcasting that any content in the film been shown is not against the public
interest or in order to maintain the public order it does become important for
the government to put some restriction on the films and have a pre-censorship
process. As in India, there are many sensitive issues which need to be taken
care of as India is a very diverse country has seen being getting a lot
influenced by the film industry. But the Cinematography Act 1952 which mainly
governs the film industry have set up the quasi-judicial body, known as CBFC
which act on the sensitive issues of the films and hence gives the certificate.
Though for
the online streaming videos there are no particular laws exist in India for the
time being but still, Government holds the right or restrict the public from
watching certain content again which are against the interest of the country
and public order and as well international relation. Under section 79 (3) (B)
of the Information and Technology Act 2000, the government has banned the 857 porn
sites in India.
There are a
lot of people who says that the content should not be circumscribed because in
India there are many intelligent people who know what to read and how to react
to it. But at the same time, the government of India is a responsible authority
must keep a tab over the content which are sensitive to the society[2]. India being a very
diverse place holds many sensitive issues which are to be censored by the
government. And talking about the intellectuals in India is that the literacy
level of the country is not yet up to the mark and in order to maintain public
order there have to be laws governing the films of India because as per the
reports Bollywood industry has the highest influence over India due to its
large viewers.
For India to
be a modern society there has to be liberalization in the not merely in the economy
and social institution s but also in the content we see or read. But indeed, in
the later, there is a danger of social unrest in the public. The members
selected for the board of CBFC, there has been no criteria set to make any
person a part of the board. Therefore, any person can be a CBFC member
irrespective of his/her qualification. Like the example of recently held
controversy where Mr Chauhan was been made the CBFC chairperson without holding
any experience in the film industry[3]. Mr Amol Parekar is one of
the leading people who hold his voice against the laws related to the film
censorship. He argues that any person who is only speaking the truth on the big
screen has to face censorship and the board cut the scenes and restricts him
from showing it no matter if it is true in nature. He also argues that online
censorship is a very different concept where the person can show whatever they
feel like showing in their show. So, actually, there is a lot of lacunas in the
laws related to the matter which need to be reconsidered. And the films like,
Aligarh University and Udta Punjab and many more have to face the restriction
which is as per him is clearly violative of their fundamental right to speech
and expression. The homosexuality which the board was considering to be sensitive
for the people to react to the same has put down many cuts in the films, though
this was based on the true incident still it was against the public interest as
per the board so has to face the restriction. And same was the case with the
Udta Punjab film, based upon the drug abuse in Punjab had again face the
restrictions[4].
Shyam
Benegal committee was appointed by the Telecommunication and Broadcasting
Ministry has given many suggestions including that the CBFC should only be a
certification body which gives certificate on the basis of age and maturity and
including some restriction: if the films contain anything which is in
contravention to section 5B (1) of the Cinematography Act 1952[5]. The certification must be
kept within the rights an obligation laid down in the Indian Constitution,
parents are informed viewing decision. That the certification should be further
broken done into subcategories in order to make easier viewing decision. That
the chairman of the board does not act in the day to day functioning of the
body. Review of the public reaction and annual government report to be
submitted to the government. Total board members should not be more than 9
members excluding the chairman, which each region of the country. And all nine
regions have advisory panel comprising of 50% women reservation, who are
acquainted with the language of the region. Online submission of the form
should be admitted from the film producers or representatives. On basis of a complaint
from the government on any film, the chairperson of the board shall reconsider
the film certification under the revising committee. The committee is still
working on the issues of wildlife and animal welfare under preservation of
cruelty to animal act and smoking scenes in the film.
Difference between Film Censorship and Other
Form of Media Censorship
So, the
difference between the film censorship and other forms of media censorship is
quite certain especially in the recent time i.e. we can see different
production houses making their own online application and thus because they
have their own code of conduct, they do not fall under the ambit of film
censorship which is the CBFC. There has been spectacular growth in the internet
social media or other website online streaming shows. The people have now the
power to write the thing which they think fits as per their understanding on
their blogs or social media without any restriction. And in the centre is the
independent voice of the people. Public show that they have the courage to
voice up against the corruption or any such social ill of the society and they
also have the power to influence the public policy[6]. The recent uproar in the
country is regarding the control, of the government on internet, they have said
that the social media such as Facebook or any other should keep a check upon
the content that has been uploaded upon their portal. IT ministry has already
issued the notification to such renowned social media companies. Ministers have
a complaint to the following ministry for the defamatory remark by the people
upon them and hence putting a bar upon the freedom of speech and expression.
So, the content should be censored by the authorities. Taking the example of
China where approximately 30,000 people are employed by the state only for
keeping tab upon the content on the internet. Even in India, there was a notice
issued that any defamatory content against any person shall not be forwarded to
the next person or will be liable same as if he himself has made the content.
The recent
movement that took by Anna Hazare, was formed the basis of an online movement
called IAC (India Against Corruption), which has a very active and popular
internet presence. And, the government has increased its curb upon the internet
restriction by amending the Information and Technology Act in 2008. Also taking
into consideration the Mumbai attack in November 2008 has made the government
decrypt internet communication especially post-attack. And mainly it was mainly
after this Mumbai attack that the status quo of Indian Censorship over the
internet freedom got changed and became partly free. Under section 69 of the
new amendment act, the police got the power to check any person’s mails, phone
calls or any other online transaction. 69 B of the same act says, clause 1,
gives the power to the government to make a cybersecurity cell and authorize an
agency for monitoring the online traffic data. Clause 2 gives duty to the
public and right to the state that in case if such agency asks for the online
data of any person then that person is liable to tell. Clause 4 talks regarding
the punishment of the same which is fine and imprisonment for a term for 3
years[7].
Another case
happened with the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi that his online website was been
removed from the internet and his domain name and associate services got
cancelled as he was found uploading many defamatory photos of the Indian
politician. His argument to the court was that how can he be guilty until
proven innocent and unless judgement comes forth. Just on the basis of the
complaint received by the Mumbai cyber police, his fundamental right got
snatched away. In the UPA 2 government, Kapil Sibal once invited a meeting with
the social media companies and asked for a pre-censorship of the content
uploaded on the internet. Anything which is in violation of any of these issues
should be restrained from the internet, Security of the State, Public Order,
Decency and Morality, Friendly Relation with the Foreign State, Contempt of
Court, Defamation, Incitement to an Offer, Sovereignty and Integrity of India.
Even the
media in India does not enjoy separate freedom of the press, like that of the USA.
Like Radio News is completely banned in India, with the state-owned All India
Radio. Which enjoys a complete monopoly over the business. Hence it is also
violative of the fundamental right to trade and commerce under article 19
(1)(g). Vinay Rai case where he filed a petition against the content which hurt
the religious sentiment of the public in India. IPC Section 153(B), section 298
is strictly against the promotion of religious enmity but on the other hand,
these social media has clearly said that they are not responsible for any such
content uploaded by the users. The recent case of the government banning the
857-porn website in India on the ground of decency and morality also face huge
criticism.
Film Censorship – A Restriction
According to
John Stuart Mill – “A society can develop only by free exchange of ideas.”[8] A person should have the freedom
to express his thoughts because freedom of thought is meaningless unless there
is a freedom to express those thoughts. Freedom of thought without freedom of
expression is like an empty shell. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human rights says that every person has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression, and it includes the right to hold opinion without any interference.
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. In a democratic society,
every citizen has the right to speak as indeed, right to know.[9] In the case of Romesh Thappar, the Supreme
Court said that “Freedom of speech lay at the foundation of all the democratic organization.”[10] Films are one of the most
powerful media of expression. Cinema plays a creative role in the dissemination
of ideas just like newspaper, books and radio. Influence of cinema on the life
of people is incredible and it plays an important role in moulding the habits of
youth. It is the most influential form of art. Cinema is for commercial
purpose, but it is an effective agent in disseminating ideas. Therefore, it is
under the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression. In
India, Censorship was introduced during British Raj in 1918 when British rulers
decided that such legislation should serve their colonial interest. At that
time there was no indigenous film industry in India and censorship targeted
movies were imported in India from the US. The Britishers wanted to create a
rosy picture of west and western ideologies through these movies.[11] Initially, censorship
came into the picture to deny Indian audience any access to communalist or
socialist ideals reflected in soviet cinema, to ensure that the spirit of
freedom and independence do not reach the audience of the colonized country
through American film and to prevent the crystallization of nationalist
paradigm in the Indian cinema.[12] Post-Independence, the
new leaders were against the idea of treating film entertainment in a lenient
manner. They associated it with the western influence which they believed that
it should at least be checked. The
bureaucrats were all set to adopt a stronger code for film censorship.
In a post-colonial
era of film censorship, it has been seen that state use to promote jingoist
feature films like ‘Gadar’, ‘Border’ or ‘Sarfarosh’ that incited audience to
shout anti – Pakistan slogan, but the maker of the documentary 'Jung aur Aman'
had to seek judicial intervention against the CBFC for preaching a rational,
pacifist approach.[13] It was observed that state allowed film like
‘Satya’ which depicted the indiscriminate killing of gangsters at the hand of
police but the documentary-like ‘Aakrosh’ was refused certificate on the ground
that it depicted violence.[14] In 1964, Chetan Anand
made a film named ‘Haqeeqat’ which used to castigate Chinese. This film received
great state patronage and popular media support. So, it can be seen that
political manipulation of film censorship encompasses not simply a refusal to
‘objectionable’ films but the deliberate promotion of ‘favourable’ films.[15] In 2002, CBFC refused to
give certification to a documentary ‘War and Peace’ made by Anand Patwardhan.
The committee suggested a list of deletions that included – “(1) Delete the
scenes showing Pakistanis burning India's national flags (But nothing was said
regarding Indians burning Pakistan's national flag) (2) Delete the scene showing a Buddhist Dalit
leader objecting to India's nuclear tests being conducted on Buddha's birthday
and to its codename as 'Buddha smiles' (3) Delete the Dalit song, which says
that the killer of Gandhi was a brahmin (4) Delete all references to exposition
by Tehelka.com in the film (Of course, objections were not raised regarding the
reference to the Bofors scam in the film) (5) Delete part of an interview by an
Indian scientist, especially where he says, 'China is India's next enemy' (6)
Delete all speeches by politicians, including those by the central ministers
and even the prime minister.”[16] This politically
motivated censorship was overshadowed because Vijay Anand who was chairman of
CBFC retired from his post. Regional censor boards of pre-independence days
were dismantled in order to favour CBFC.
Indian
Cinematograph Act was introduced in 1952 which formed a premise for the sustenance
of pre-censorship of films in post-colonial India. Art. 19(2) and powers under
7th schedule became base for Sec 5B of Indian cinematograph Act.
Under this act, if a film has been banned, it imposes restrictions on the film
itself, and not simply on the exhibitor who under conditions of his license is
forbidden to show the film.[17] In ordinary jurisprudence
schedule, 7 is subordinate to Art. 13 which talks about absolute
pre-eminence of Fundamental Rights under Art. 19 of the constitution of India
and this shows that films should not be censored.[18] Award-winning documentary
‘In memory of Friends’ which is based on violence in Punjab was refused to be
shown on television by Doordarshan on the grounds that it will further incite
violence.[19]
It was held by the court that “Everyone has a fundamental right to form his own
opinion on any issue or general concern. He can form and information by any
legitimate means.”[20] Bombay high court in one
case said that “Censorship in a free society can be tolerated within the
narrowest possible confines and strictly within the limits which are
contemplated in a constitutional order.”[21] It has been evident from
various cases that powers granted to CBFC were misused and it has gone beyond
its statutory powers to over-regulate cinema which clearly indicates a violation
of the right to freedom of speech and expression. The actions of CBFC in
various cases turned out to be highly questionable and the one that has
attacked the base of freedom of speech and expression.
Judicial Pronouncement and Censorship
In India,
many controversies regarding film censorship took place from time to time. Judiciary
has played an active role in checking whether censorship is a reasonable
restriction to freedom of speech and expression and has accordingly interpreted
the censorship laws in the country. There have been various judicial
pronouncement with respect to censorship of films.
·
K.A. Abbas
Vs. UOI[22]:
- The
constitutional validity of film censorship regulation was challenged for the
first time in this case. The noted filmmaker K.A. Abbas made a movie named ‘A
Tale of four cities’ that contrasted between the life of rich and poor, luxury
and squalor in four cities i.e. Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Delhi. He applied
for a ‘U’ certificate for unrestricted public exhibition under Indian
Cinematograph Act, 1952. The censor board gave ‘A’ certificate to the film
restricting it to be watched by adults only. He appeared in the appellate
tribunal, but the tribunal gave ‘U’ certificate by ordering some cuts in the movie.
Dissatisfied by this he moved to Supreme Court by claiming that censorship
itself was a violation of Art 19(1)(a) enshrined in the constitution of India.
He raised four arguments:
(1) Censorship itself cannot be tolerated under the
constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech and expression,
(2) Even if it is a legitimate restraint on the
freedom, it must be exercised on very definite principles which leave no room
for arbitrary action,
(3) There must be a reasonable time limit fixed for
the decision for the authorities censoring the film, and
(4) The appeal shall lie to a court or an
independent tribunal and not to the Central Government.
The
respondents conceded the third and fourth argument, so court focused on the
other two arguments. It 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.”[23] In US Supreme court some
judge had a view that censorship itself is a violation of freedom of speech and
expression. The petitioner tried to bring this view in front of the court, but the
court rejected this view by saying that guarantees provided in the US
constitution and the Indian Constitution are different. CJ Hidayatullah said
that:
“Pre-censorship is but
an aspect of censorship and bears the same relationship in quality to the
material as censorship after the motion picture has had a run. The only
difference is one of the stages at which the state interposes its regulations
between the individual and his freedom. Beyond this, there is no vital
difference. That censorship is prevalent all the world over in some form or
other and pre-censorship also plays a part where motion pictures are involved
shows the desirability of censorship in this field. The method changes, the
rules are different, and censorship is stricter in some places than in others,
but censorship is universal.”[24]
On
the question of the reasonableness of Film censorship CJ Hidayatullah said:
“Further it has been
almost universally recognised that the treatment of motion pictures must be
different from that of other from the instant appeal of the motion picture, its
versatility, realism (often surrealism) and its coordination of the visual and
aural senses. The art of cameramen, with trick photography, vista vision and
three-dimensional representation thrown in, has made the cinema picture more
true to life than even the theatre or indeed any other form of representative
art. The motion picture is able to stir up emotions more deeply than any other
product of art. A person reading a book or other writing or hearing a speech or
viewing a painting or sculpture is not so deeply stirred as by seeing a motion
picture. Therefore, the treatment of the latter on a different footing is also
a valid classification.”[25]
The
higher potential of films to influence people and misuse of such a medium has
become a ground for the validity of film censorship regulation.
· S. Rangarajan
Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram[26]:
- In
this case, the decision of Madras High court to revoke the ‘U’ certificate
granted to Tamil Film ‘Ore Oru Gramathile’ was challenged before Supreme court.
The film criticized the reservation policy in jobs because such policy is based
on caste and was unfair to Brahmin. In this movie, it was argued that economic
backwardness should be the criterion and not the caste. The High court held
that such a movie could incite violence as thousands of people in Tamil Nadu
have suffered for centuries. The SC overruled the decision of HC and upheld
freedom of speech and expression. The court was of the view that “Freedom of
expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected, cannot be held
to ransom by an intolerant group of people.”[27] The court was of the view
that criticizing the policies of government openly should not be a ground of
restriction to expression. There must be tolerance to others’ views.
“Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself.”[28]
· Odyssey
Communications Private Limited v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana[29]:
- In
this case, a TV serial ‘Honi Anhonee’ was restrained from being telecasted on
the grounds that it would spread superstitions among the public. The Supreme
court quashing the order of High court held that right of a citizen to exhibit
a film on T.V. will be curtailed only in circumstances set in Art. 19(2) of
Constitution.
· Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah[30]:
- In
this case, Doordarshan refused to telecast a documentary film ‘Beyond Genocide’
which was on Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The reason given by Doordarshan was that
questions had been raised by political parties and claims for compensation by
victims were sub-judice. The court held “Merely because it is critical of the
State Government is no reason to deny selection and publication of the film. So
also, the pendency of claims for compensation does not render the topic
sub-judice so as to shut out the entire film from the community.”[31] It was also held that the
state has to prove that benefit of restricting freedom is greater than harm
resulting from speech or depiction.
· Sree
Raghavendra Films v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[32]:
- In
this case, a movie named ‘Bombay’ in its Telugu version was suspended from
being telecasted. The reason given was that it may hurt the sentiments of a certain
community. The court found that the authorities that suspended movie even
didn’t watch the movie. Thus, the impugned order was quashed.
· Bobby Art
International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon[33]:
- This
case is popularly known as the ‘Bandit Queen case’. The court was of opinion
that a film illustrating about consequences of social evil must necessarily
show the social evil. A film that brags about a social evil or encourages it is
not permissible but a film that shows the message that social evil is evil
cannot be made impermissible on the ground that it shows social evil. The court
found that the scene depicting Phoolan Devi as naked was not to arouse the lust
of cinemagoers but to arouse sympathy by showing that how she was harassed and
what social evil existed at that time. This scene helps in explaining the rage
of Phoolan Devi and why she became what she was in real life.
· Prakash Jha
Productions v. Union of India[34]:
- In
this case, State of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh suspended the
screening of the film ‘Aarakshan’ for a specified period. The court held that
the movie was seen by expert members of the board and after getting clearance
from all members and positive views from two experts the film got the
certificate. The state does not have the power to override the board’s decision
and propose some deletions in the movie. The court said that it is the duty of the
state to maintain law and order and once the board has cleared a film that it
can be telecasted in the whole country without any restrains.
· Bikramjit
Singh Vs. UOI[35]:
- The
petition was filed for banning of film ‘Sarbjit’ because no consent or sanction
was taken by respondents from petitioner. The court in this case was of opinion
that the film is about the life of a person and is informative in nature.
Freedom of speech and expression also includes acquiring information and
disseminating it to the public at large. When a film is banned it not only
affects the rights of producer or director but also affects the financial and
economic aspects of many people. Film making, distribution and screening are
essential aspects of the films business, which is guaranteed under Art.
19(1)(g) of Constitution.
· Phantom
Films Pvt. Ltd. v. The Central Board of Film Certification[36]:
- In
this case, the movie ‘Udta Punjab’ was in controversy due to usage of cuss
words, drug trafficking in the State of Punjab. CBFC passed movie with 13
deletions. The writ appeal was filed in Bombay High court and passed movie with
‘A’ certificate and one deletion. The court said, “The power to exercise
deletion and cuts should be consistent and in consonance with provisions of the
Constitution and directions of the Supreme Court, so that creative freedom is
not curtailed.”[37]
Findings, Recommendations and Conclusion
The paper
has tried to highlight the very vital issue that is ‘seeking offence’, which
the political parties or the social institutions try to evoke in the public for
their own campaigning is something which needs to be taken care of by the
government. Because more than the films it is them who tries to take public
order into consideration for their own wellbeing. West where have gone too far
and too fast in their film content releasing, India still lags from them but
again it is not the comparison between the two. India is more tradition
focused, who takes of its trough laws. And it’s not the government in India
which rules but the people. It is the western influence that affects the
liberation influence against the traditional Indian values. Indian censorship
system cannot be wholly be judged on the western system, like for say a kissing
scene which is the normal plot of the story has to be cut down because as pee
the Indian public it is nor accepted. Cultural behaviour of the public emphasis
certain sense of shame in the context of nudity or sex, like pet the Khosla
committee. But in India values are changing though on slow pace but they are changing
and has come up to become more of a modern state. But still, the advertisement
of contraceptive is also something which the government finds immoral and
sensuous for the young one and hence restricted to show them only in the night
hours. As the Khosla committee has rightly suggested that the Indian society
has either must swing towards irresponsible hedonism or towards the shekel
Victorian prudery[38]. If the same continues
the Indian sub-continent will develop into a modern state which neither wholly
forsake the traditional values and nor wholly fetters the incremental advances
in the artistic world. And that all is the reasonable restriction clause in the
constitution. The purpose and objective
of constitutional freedom of artists, writers, playwrights can be best
understood in the words of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud that he said in case of
F.A. Picture International v. Central Board of Film Certification:
“Artists,
writers, playwrights and filmmakers are the eyes and the ears of a free
society. They are the veritable lungs of a free society because the power of
their medium imparts a breath of fresh air into the drudgery of daily
existence. Their right to communicate ideas in a medium of their choosing is as
fundamental as the right of any other citizen to speak. Our constitutional
democracy guarantees the right of free speech and that right is not conditional
upon the expression of views which may be palatable to mainstream thought.
Dissent is the quintessence of democracy. Hence, those who express views which
are critical of prevailing social reality have a valued position in the
constitutional order. History tells us that dissent in all walks of life contributes
to the evolution of society. Those who question unquestioned assumptions
contribute to the alteration of social norms. Democracy is founded upon respect
for their courage. Any attempt by the State to clamp down on the free
expression of opinion must hence be frowned upon.”[39]
* III Year,
B.A.LL.B(Hons), Institute of Law, Nirma University.
* III Year, B.A.LL.B(Hons), Institute of Law,
Nirma University.
[1] •Indian
Constitutional Law (eighth edition) by M P Jain, Lexis Nexis
[2] •Censorship
in South Asia- cultural regulation from sedition to seduction by Raminder Kaur
and William Mazzarella.
[3] •Balsekar,
Ameya. “Seeking Offense: Censorship as Strategy in Indian Party Politics.”
Comparative Politics, vol. 46, no. 2, 2014, pp. 191–208. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/43664098.
[4] •Someswar
Bhowmik. “Politics of Film Censorship: Limits of Tolerance.” Economic and
Political Weekly, vol. 37, no. 35, 2002, pp. 3574–3577. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/4412538.
[5] •Someswar
Bhowmik. “From Coercion to Power Relations: Film Censorship in Post-Colonial
India.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 38, no. 30, 2003, pp. 3148–3152.
JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4413826.
[6] •Baskaran,
S. T. “FILM CENSORSHIP AND POLITICAL CENSORSHIP IN BRITISH INDIA: 1914-1945.”
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 36, 1975, pp. 493–510. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/44138872.
[7] •Boyd, Bruce
Michael. “FILM CENSORSHIP IN INDIA: A ‘REASONABLE RESTRICTION’ ON FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 14, no. 4,
1972, pp. 501–561. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43950156.
[8] John Stuart
Mill, On Liberty (1947) 61.
[9]
Constitutional Dimensions of Film Censorship, http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/186548/6/07_chapter%202.pdf,
1 March 2019.
[10] Romesh
Thappar vs. State of Madras (1950) SCR 594.
[11] Someswar
Bhowmik, From Coercion to Power Relations: Film Censorship in Post-Colonial
India,Economic and Political Weekly, vol 38, No.30 (Jul 26 – 1 Aug 2003), pp
3148-3152
[12] Ibid
[13] Ibid
[14] Ibid
[15] Ibid
[16] Someswar Bhowmik, Politics of Film
Censorship: Limits of Tolerance, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 35
(Aug. 31 - Sep. 6, 2002), pp. 3574 – 3577.
[17] Ibid
[18] Ibid
[19]
Constitutional Dimensions of Film Censorship, supra note 2, 60
[20] Anand
Patwardhan vs UOI (1997), AIR BOM 25,32.
[21] F.A. picture
International Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Film Certification (2005) AIR BOM 125
[22] K.A. Abbas
Vs. UOI (1971) AIR SC 481
[23] Ibid
[24] Ibid
[25] Ibid
[26] S.Rangarajan
Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Odyssey
Communications Private Limited v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana (1988) AIR SC 1642
[30] Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah (1993) AIR SC 171
[31] Ibid
[32] Sree
Raghavendra Films v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1995) 2 ALD 81
[33] Bobby Art
International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon (1996) 4 SCC 1
[34] Prakash Jha
Productions v. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 372
[35] Bikramjit Singh Vs.
UOI, CWP No. 9417 of 2016 (Punjab & Haryana High Court).
[36] Phantom
Films Pvt. Ltd. v. The Central Board of Film Certification, Writ Petition (L)
No. 1529/2016.
[37] Ibid
[38] •Hilton, R.
H. “Censorship in India.” Past & Present, no. 77, 1977, pp. 142–142. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/650390.
[39] F.A. picture
International Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Film Certification (2005) AIR BOM 125
0 Comments