Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY

LITERATURE REVIEW
TOPIC- FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESION AND
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF
MR. A. P. SINGH
FACULTY
DR.RMLNLU, LUCKNOW
SUBMITTED BY:
AARIF MOHAMMAD BILGRAMI
ROLL NO. - 75
SEMESTER XTH
SECTION A

1. Access to the Airwaves :Principles on Freedom of Expression and

Broadcast Regulation
ARTICLE 19, London ISBN 1 902598 46 6 March 2002
These Principles set out standards for broadcast freedom. They apply to specific regimes for the
regulation of broadcasting but also apply more generally to State and even private action in this
area and the overall legal framework for freedom of expression. They recognise both the need for
independent broadcasting, free of government or commercial interference, and the need in some
areas for positive action to ensure a vibrant, diverse broadcasting sector.
These Principles are based on international and regional law and standards, evolving state
practice (as reflected, inter alia, in national laws and judgments of national courts) and the
general principles of law recognised by the community of nations. They are the product of a long
process of study, analysis and consultation overseen by ARTICLE 19, drawing on extensive
experience and work with partner organisations in many countries around the world.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, orally, in print, in the form of
art, through the broadcast media or through any other media of his or her choice. The right to
freedom of expression includes both the right of broadcasters to be free of State, political or
commercial interference and the right of the public to maximum diversity of information and
ideas in broadcasting. Broadcast content should never be subject to prior censorship either by the
government or by regulatory bodies. Any sanctions for breach of regulatory rules relating to
content should be applied only after the material in question has been broadcast.

2. Censorship In India, The Truth

Author: Arjun Kant
The suppression or control of ideas, public communication and information circulated within a
society is termed as censorship. The freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution of India
can be suppressed if it is considered objectionable, harmful, or necessary to maintain communal

harmony. Governments across the globe have used religious arguments as well as other powerful
techniques and arguments to support for their censorship efforts. Offensive communication in the
eyes of the government varies from country to country, religion to religion, even sect to sect.
Many governments provide for certain limited protection against censorship. It is always
necessary to balance conflicting rights in order to determine what can and cannot be censored.
A classic example of censorship in India is the Central Board of Film Certification or Censor
Board, which comes under the purview of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The Board
regularly orders, directors to remove anything it deems offensive or subjects considered to be
politically subversive. The censorship of films is governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952. It
assigns certification as Universal, Adults, and Parental Guidance to films in India before public
exhibition.

3. Censorship and IT Act

India, like all countries, is increasingly facing a situation where legal frameworks that made
sense before the explosive growth of the internet are proving incomplete or in some cases being
re-purposed as blunt instruments of state power. Reforms are urgently needed, and the pressure
for reform begins with awareness. This is the first in a series of posts seeking to raise popular
understanding of issues of Indian law.
The issue of censorship of online content in India is a tricky one the Constitution permits
censorship in certain limited circumstances. This is a problem as due to the global nature of the
Internet, it is very difficult to control content being uploaded in foreign countries and being
viewed in India. Further, the thorny issue of who gets to decide to censor content and under what
circumstances is a nuanced debate which unfortunately tends to be hijacked by arguments
based on security concerns / need for broad emergency provisions. Most attempts at censorship
have therefore been haphazard and inconsistent.
Further, issues raised by communal, defamatory and violent content (particularly towards
women) continue to receive very little attention

4. Dhananjay Mahapatra In The Times Of India

NEW DELHI: If a person is found guilty of committing contempt of Supreme Court, will the apex
courts constitutional power to punish him be circumscribed by the Contempt of Court Act (CCA)
provisions?
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing in the application filed by Vodafone complaining about
misreporting during the hearing of its case, said CCA only provided the guiding principles and would
in no way limit the apex courts power on quantum of punishment, which in appropriate cases could
exceed what is provided in the statute. The response came to a query from a five-judge bench
comprising Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices D K Jain, S S Nijjar, Ranjana P Desai and J S
Khehar whether Article 129 of the Constitution, which provides that theSupreme Court shall be a
court of record and shall have all powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt
of itself, meant it was bridled by the CCA.
After hearing Salves view, the CJI said though the bench had not taken any final view, it was of the
opinion that provisions of a statute could not limit the Constitution-vested powers of the apex court.
In the midst of long deliberation on the necessity of framing media reporting guidelines to protect
right of an accused to reputation and dignity as well as preserve sanctity of fair trial, the bench asked
for Salves view on restricting press freedom derived from right to free speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and whether it could only be done through
parameters specified under Article 19(2).
The senior advocate said, The Supreme Court need not deal with the restrictions specified under
Article 19(2) because it is only engaged in an exercise to define the contours of press freedom in
reporting pending investigation or trial of a case and balancing it with the right of the accused to
dignity and reputation.

5. Adult Entertainment and the Secondaryeffects Doctrine

Unlikely though it may seem, the fate of First Amendment freedoms is irrevocably connected to
the ongoing struggle between purveyors of adult entertainment and defenders of public decency.

Supporters of the billion-dollar adult-entertainment industry argue that nude dancing contains the
same elements of eroticism found in so-called legitimate theater and dance and therefore
deserves no less First Amendment protection than more mainstream forms of expression. City
officials counter that adult businesses lead to crime and lower property values by demeaning the
quality of communities in which they locate; municipalities must be empowered to prevent blight
and redlight districts, they say. City officials wield an array of restrictions that can be levied on
adult businesses. These include restrictions on zoning, licensing, clothing, hours of operation and
patron-performer buffer zones, to name just a few. When adult-club owners fight these
regulations in the courts, cities are prone tompass new legislation, leading to more lawsuits and
more regulations. The cycle has resulted in the development of a substantial body of First
Amendment case law and doctrine, which serves to address the continuing tension between
governmental efforts to regulate the adult-entertainment industry and the industrys attempts to
claim First Amendment protections. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has waded into the exoticentertainment issue several times during the past two years, with cases involving a Pennsylvania
nudedancing club, an adult bookstore in Wisconsin, and two adult bookstores in California.
Many people do not understand why the removal of clothes by a dancer is a form of protected
expression, but in fact the First Amendment protects many forms of controversial expression. A
review of basic First Amendment principles and the history of erotic dance shows why the U.S.
Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of nude dancing triggers First Amendment protections.

6. RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IN A CENSORED DEMOCRACY:

By Subhradipta Sarkar
Official accounts claim that Indian film industry is the largest in the world producing over a
thousand films in a year screened over 13,000 cinema halls in the country. Every three months an
audience as large as the countrys entire population flocks to the cinema halls.1 Notwithstanding
the industrys gigantic volume, so long one makes stereotype commercially viable movies with
only songs and dance sequences and follow common formulas of entertainment there is no
harm; but the moment, one dares to speak out the truth against the State articulating his opinion
on any sensitive or serious matter through his films or documentaries, which may not be
palatable to certain power holders; he is swimming into troubled waters. There is ample

possibility of facing censor scissors or political ban.

While several films like Water, Final Solution, War and Peace and many more ran into
serious trouble with the Central Board of Film Certification (hereinafter Censor Board or Board)
as they were restrained in the name of public interest, other films like The Da Vinci Code, the
very recent Deshdrohi (Traitor) had to fight political censorship even after Censor Boards
approval. These are in no way stray incidents but almost a systematic trend in India. Apparently,
those incidents may be pooh-poohed as political gimmicks or other trifles, but there is a much
deeper aspect involved subjugation of freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of speech
and expression is the concept of being able to express oneself freely whether through words of
mouth, literature, art, or any other medium of communication. It is often regarded as an integral
concept in modern liberal democracies. On the other hand, censorship represents denial of
freedom of speech, of expression and of information. Despite the fact that the Constitution of
India does not expressly mention motion pictures as a medium of speech andexpression, they
have been so accepted through various court decisions. Films in India have been censored on the
grounds of obscenity, sex and violence; but this paper does not intend to venture into those areas,
rather it explores elsewhere where films have been banned or targeted in the name of maintaining
public order; respecting beliefs, sentiments and traditions; or for criticizing the State on certain
issues. The paper does not endeavor to go into the intricacies of the problems; instead, it limits
itself to testify the legality of censorship in the light of the freedom of speech and expression. In
this pursuit, it presents some controversies of the recent times, highlights certain judgments and
relevant legal provisions. Although the paper concludes such censorship as illegal and arbitrary,
it also attempts to find a way out for ensuring better protection of free speech as far as motion
pictures in India are concerned.