RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND MEDIA LAW

MEDIA AND CENSORSHIP WITH REFERENCE TO

CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952 AND PRESS COUNCIL
ACT, 1978

University Institute of Legal Studies

Panjab University

B.Com. LL.B. (Hons.) – 7th SEMESTER

2020-21

Presented To: Presented By:

Dr. Supreet Gill Sakshi Mangla
Teacher In-Charge 191/17 – Section D

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Any work requires the effort of many people and this is no different. First of all,
I want to express my heartiest thanks to my teacher Dr. Supreet Gill, for firstly
making me understand the contents of my topic and then giving me a wonderful
opportunity to present this topic in form of an assignment. Her support and
teaching helped me a lot to complete this assignment.

I would also like to thank my friends who were always available to me for help
and also helped me collect data for my project through various sources. They also
provided me with material I needed and made my work as easy as possible.

Regardless of anything, I wish to express my gratitude to those who may have

contributed to this assignment, even though anonymously.

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Table of Cases ……………………………………………………. 4

• Introduction ………………………………………………………. 5
• Media and Censorship with reference to Cinematograph Act, 1952
➢ History of Censorship of Films in India …………………… 8
➢ Legal Background …………………………………………. 11
➢ Overview of the Act …………………………………….…. 13
➢ Common reasons for banning of a film …………………… 15
➢ Right to Information and Censor Board of India …………. 16
➢ Censorship v. Freedom of Expression …………………...…17
• Media and Censorship with reference to Press Council Act, 1978
➢ Overview of the Act ………………………………………. 24
➢ Press Council of India as a Safeguard …………………….. 25
➢ Censorship v. Freedom of Press ……………………….….. 26
• Conclusion …………………………………………………….…. 28
• Webliography ……………………………………………………. 29

3|Page
 TABLE OF CASES

• Anand Patwardhan v. Cent Bd. Of Film Certification …………… 19

• Bobby International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon ……………………... 19
• K.A. Abbas v. Union of India ……………………………………. 18
• Life Ins. Corp. of India v. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah ……………… 20
• Secretary, Ministry of Info. And Broadcasting v. Cricket Association
of Bengal ……………………………………………………….…. 20
• R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu ……………………………... 27
• S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagivan Ram …………………………………. 18
• Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI ………………………26
• State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat ………... 19

4|Page
 INTRODUCTION

Media is considered as the fourth pillar of democracy; it is the eyes and ears of
this society and ideally perform the function of a moral watchdog of the public
interests. The term Media, which is the plural of medium, refers to the
communication channels through which we disseminate news, music, movies,
education, promotional messages and other data. It includes physical and online
newspapers and magazines, television, radio, billboards, telephone, the Internet,
fax and billboards.1

Media describes the various ways through which we communicate in society.

Because it refers to all means of communication, everything ranging from a
telephone call to the evening news on television can be called media. Therefore,
Media is a vital term which includes both print and electronic media and when
talking of media with reference to Cinematograph Act, 1952 it relates only to
electronic media, and that too particularly the movies, films, plays, etc. and when
talking of media with reference to the Press Council Act, 1978 it relates only to
print media.

As per the Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, “In modern times,
Censorship refers to the examination of books, periodicals, plays, films,
television and radio programs, news reports, and other communication media for
the purpose of altering or suppressing parts thought to be objectionable or
offensive."

Therefore, Censorship is a term which is generally used to connote the process

of restricting the access of ideas and information in apprehension that it may
disturb the public peace. In India, Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India
provides for the freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is not an

1
https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/media-definition-meaning/(Visited on 11
December, 2020)

5|Page
absolute one. The state can impose the restrictions on the content if it is against
the interests of public policy, foreign relations, sovereignty and integrity of the
state, public order, decency and morality, or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement of an offense provided that such restriction is
reasonable.2

For this purpose, The Cinematograph Act, 1952 was enacted to see that 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.

Not only this, for the proper functioning of the Media, the Press Council Act,
1978 was established with the object of preserving the freedom of the press and
of maintaining and improving the standards of press in India.

2
https://blog.ipleaders.in/censorship-films-law/#_ftn10 (Visited on 12 Dec, 2020)

6|Page
 MEDIA AND CENSORSHIP WITH
REFERENCE TO
CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952

7|Page
 HISTORY OF CENSORSHIP OF FILMS IN
INDIA

The Britishers, who were governing India before the independence, for their
entertainment brought silent movies from England to India. Slowly and
gradually, it took the fancy of Indian people.

Indians were not only watching films but also making their own. After dozens of
home-grown newsreels and shorts, the first full-length feature, D.G. Phalke’s
Raja Harishchandra, released in 1913. In 1917, a Bill introduced in the imperial
legislative council noted the “rapid growth in the popularity of cinematograph
and increasing number of such exhibitions in India". It recommended the
creation of a law that would ensure both safety and the “protection of the public
from indecent or otherwise objectionable representations". Thus, was born the
Cinematograph Act of 1918, and, with it, film censorship in India.3 In 1920,
Censor Boards were established in some major cities of India owing to this Act.

In 1927, Indian Cinematograph Committee was also set up which gave a report
favoring the censorship in India. Even heavy taxes were induced to discourage
the people from speaking through films.

In the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, ‘Sanctioning of the Cinematograph films

for exhibition’ was included in Entry 60 of the Union list and in Entry 33 of the
State list. However, there was an absence of clear demarcation of the respective
provisions of the Act with which the Central and State govt. were concerned, due
to which a bill was presented to resolve the confusion as an Amendment in 1949,
separating the provisions relating to sanctioning of films for exhibition as a
Union subject from the provisions relating to licensing and regulation of films in
cinemas as a State subject. Some other sections of the Act were also amended in

3
https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/j8SzkGgRoXofpxn57F8nZP/100-years-of-film-censorship-in-
India.html(Visited on 11 December, 2020)

8|Page
1949, but only for the introduction of ‘A’ and ‘U’ certificates and for the
centralization of censorship. The bill was passed by both the Houses of the
Parliament and received the assent of the President on 21st March, 1952. It came
in the statute book as the Cinematograph Act, 1952. It further supported severe
censorship of the films.

A Khosla Committee in 1969 argued for a limited amount of liberal view

regarding the censorship of the films. However, soon the country lapsed into
Emergency due to which the censorship became stricter than ever in the history
of India. After the Emergency, a lot of liberalized attitude began to be shown
towards the movie censorship.

The Empowered Committee led by Retired Chief Justice (High Court of Punjab
and Haryana) Mukul Mudgal submitted its report on issues concerning the
Cinematograph Act to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The Mudgal
committee was set up after the government felt the need to update The
Cinematograph Act, 1952 in the wake of the controversy over Tamil Nadu’s ban
on Vishwaroopam.4 The committee has given its suggestions regarding issues
such as advisory panels, guidelines for certification and issues such as portrayal
of women, obscenity and communal disharmony. Other issues which the
committee has revisited and given its recommendations on include classification
of films, piracy and jurisdiction of appellate tribunal, among others. It has also
proposed a draft Cinematograph Bill.5 The Mudgal committee has done its job
well but it is still a long way before these suggestions are implemented. There are
many stumbling blocks that might force this report to end up in the dusty pile of
unimplemented reports submitted by various other committees in the past. Now,

4
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mudgal-panel-submits-report-on-governing-
cinema/article5218032.ece(Visited on 13 December, 2020)
5
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/Mudgal-panel-submits-report-on-Cinematograph-
Act/article20675037.ece(Visited on 13 December, 2020)

9|Page
it is up to the government to see that the Mudgal report is implemented in both
letter and spirit.6

The current censorship laws in India are largely based upon Article 19 of the
Indian Constitution, which declares the freedom of expression.

6
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/accept-the-mudgal-panel-recommedations/story-
otIvfjhFfYWdYthnLqT2gL.html

10 | P a g e
 LEGAL BACKGROUND

In India, cinema censorship appeared as an inevitable response to growing

obscenity. The restraint was considered necessary for socio-cultural and political
reasons. It, however, remained a contentious issue.

The era of censor restriction began in British India when the film Bhakti Vidura,
a silent Indian film, was released in 1921. It was banned because its protagonist
bore a strong resemblance to Mahatma Gandhi.

In 1978, the Central Board of Film Censor referred to a political film - Kissa
Kursi Da, an innuendo about the politicians. It was eventually banned only to be
remade and released later.

In 1981, the film Meri Awaz Suno, was first granted an ‘A’ Certificate (Adult
only) by the Censorship Board but subsequently was suspended under the
Cinematograph Act, 1952 owing to excessive violence in the movie.

In 1982, the Central Board of Film Censor was renamed as Central Board of Film
Certification (CBFC). In 1994, the film Bandit Queen, based on the life history
of Phoolan Devi, a Dalit woman who turned bandit, was recommended for 17
cuts by CBFC. It was then released with just one audio and visual cut after the
intervention of the court.

In the film Kamasutra – A tale of Love, in 1996 which sought to demonstrate the
marriage of spirituality and sexuality was denied the certificate owing to
pornography. It was certified after 2 scenes of nudity were erased.

The list of such films touched by the censorship issues in India gets longer even
as the country emerges as the most prolific film producing country in the world.
The era of protest against restrictions on cinema is as old as the restriction itself.
The recent Information and Communication Technologies revolutions have
raised afresh questions on the relevance of the censor mechanisms in India. But,
11 | P a g e
despite the growing justifications against its continuation, the major
justifications of censorship are found in the argument that Indian society
constitutes of people with a divergent social outlook and therefore, the response
to Indian cinema must be defined by the divergent socio-political and cultural
parameters of the country.

12 | P a g e
 OVERVIEW OF THE CINEMATOGRAPH
ACT, 1952

The film industry in India is a mammoth with more than 1000 movies produced
per year.7 The Union Legislature derives its power to make laws on censorship
of cinema from the Entry 60 under Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. The
State is also empowered to make laws on this matter subject to the provisions
made by the central legislation. In order to keep a check on the content which the
films show the viewers, the Cinematograph Act was enacted in 1952 which
provides for constitution of Censor Board of Film Certification which shall
consist of 12-25 members which are appointed by the Central Government. The
CBFC is required to examine the films and grant them a certificate for the
exhibition, prohibit their release or direct modifications. The various categories
of certificates that are granted by the Censor board are –

i. ‘U’ for the films which are suitable for all the audience;
ii. ‘U/A’ for the films which the board finds fine to be viewed by children
under the age of 12 only under the supervision of guardian/parents;
iii. ‘A’ if the content is not suitable for audience below the age of 18, and
iv. ‘S’ if the exhibition is restricted to members of a particular profession.

The grounds for restricting the films is provided under Section 5B(1) which are
in accordance to reasonable restrictions under Article 19. The applicant for the
certificate is to be given reasonable opportunity to present his case in the case
the movie is to be granted a certificate other than ‘U or ‘U/A’. The Act also
provides for the establishment of an Appellate Tribunal to appeal against the
decision of the Censor Board. The Tribunal is chaired by a retired judge of a
High Court or any person qualified to be a judge of the High Court. It consists of

7
http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2014/09/03/bollywood-indias-film-industry-by-the-
numbers-infographic/(Visited on 12 December, 2020)

13 | P a g e
a maximum of 4 other members. The Central government is vested with the
power of to call for the record of any proceeding except the proceeding pending
before the Appellate Tribunal. If a film is exhibited without the certificate of the
Board, the exhibitor is liable for punishment.8

8
Supra-note 2.

14 | P a g e
 COMMON REASONS FOR 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:

i. 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.
ii. Politics: The isolation of political forces is not far when one talks about
censorship. 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.
iii. 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.
iv. 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 is highly criticized
and therefore, censored.
v. Extreme Violence: Indubitably, the portrayal of extreme gore and violence
may meddle and disturb the human mind. If the Board of a similar opinion
that such a scene through any medium may have an underlying negative
impact on the viewer, the same may be banned, edited or censored by the
Board in public interest.

15 | P a g e
 RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND CENSOR
BOARD OF INDIA

In order to comply with and implement Section 4 of the Right to Information Act,
2005 i.e., Obligation of the public authorities, the following information has been
provided of the Censor Board of India at its website cbfcindia.gov.in. –

i. Certificates are granted to any film only after the examination.

ii. Information regarding the Central Public Information Officer along with
their office address, phone numbers and email address.
iii. Information regarding the vision and mission of CBFC along with its main
functions and duties and the mechanism which is available for monitoring
service delivery and public grievance resolution (full contact details of the
Public grievance Officer).
iv. All the details of the duties of officers and employees of CBFC including
the Chairman, Regional Officers, Secretary to the Chairperson, Film editor,
Librarian, Translators, etc.
v. Information about the rules, regulations, manuals used by the CBFC in
discharging its functions.
vi. Contact and other information of the Headquarters of the CBFC at Mumbai
and the other nine the Regional Offices.
vii. The Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph Rules, 1983.
viii. It also prescribes the indicative expectations from the service recipients.
ix. Citizens’ Charter containing the service standards of CBFC.

16 | P a g e
 CENSORSHIP V. FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION

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.9

In the years that followed Independence, film censorship continues to vacillate

between the two extremes of the growing “right to freedom of expression” and
“public decency” defined by group perceptions and interests. The then Minister
of Information and Broadcasting R.R. Diwakar categorized the newly framed
CBFC as a dignified effort to model an effective medium of healthy
entertainment and mass education. The main objectives of film censorship as per
the certification guidelines, have been –

i. To ensure that the medium of the film responsible. Additionally, to

safeguard the sensitivity of standards and value of the society.
ii. To ensure that creative freedom and expression are not unjustifiably
curbed.
iii. To ensure to adapt to the social changes.
iv. To ensure the theme of the film provides a healthy and clean
entertainment.

9
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-351-censorship-of-films.html(Visited 13 December,
2020)

17 | P a g e
 v. To ensure that the film is of cinematically an adequate standard and
aesthetic value.10

Various judgments testify the legal validity of bans in the light of freedom of
speech and expression –

K.A. Abbas v. Union of India,11 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 for 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 that certain cuts were
made in the film. The court, however, upheld the constitutionality of censorship
under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and rules to be within the Article 19(2) and
added that films have to be treated separately from the other forms of art and
expression because a motion picture is ‘able to stir up emotions more deeply than
any other form of art.’

The decision of the Court in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram,12 is very

important. In the instant case, the Tamil movie ‘Ore Oru Gramathile’ was banned
by the government despite it having received a ‘U’ certificate from the censor
board. The movie talked about the reservation and how it should be given on the
basis of economic status rather than caste. The Supreme Court struck down the
ban and observed, “Movie is the legitimate and the most important medium in
which issues of general concern can be treated. The producer may project his

10
https://www.mondaq.com/india/broadcasting-film-tv-radio/827892/the-cinematograph-act-of-india
(Visited 12 December, 2020)
11
(1971) 2 S.C.R. 446
12
(1989) 2 S.C.C. 574, 592

18 | P a g e
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.”13

The Supreme Court of India in giving its judgement in the case of Bobby Art
International v Om Pal Singh Hoon,14 better known as the Bandit Queen case,
was of the opinion that, a film must be judged in its entirety. The court added
that where the theme of the film is to condemn violence and degradation, scenes
of expletives to advance the message, which was the main intention of the film,
is permissible.15

In Anand Patwardhan v. Cent. Bd. of Film Certification,16 the petitioner, was

asked by the censor board to carry out two cuts and one addition in order to
receive a ‘U’ certificate for his movie “War and Peace.” The petition was filed
against this direction of Censor Board. The Court unequivocally observed that
the cuts were directed only to harass the filmmaker.17

Another interesting aspect of this phenomenon is that irrespective of the effect

of the movies, there is often a call for a total ban without exploring any other
possibilities. The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi
Kassab Jamat,18 stated that a total prohibition under Article 19(2) to (6) must
also satisfy the test that a lesser alternative would be inadequate.

In the Da Vinci controversy, the Supreme Court rejected the writ petition filed
by All India Christians Welfare Association who claimed it to be against Article
25 of the constitution of India and that it hurt the sentiments of the Christian

13
Supra-note 2.
14
(1996) 4 SCC 1
15
Supra–note 10.
16
2004 (1) MAH. L.J. 856
17
Supra-note 2.
18
(2005) 8 SCC 534.

19 | P a g e
community. The court observed that since many predominantly Christian
countries have no objection to the content of the movie, and since the movie has
been approved by the censor board and central government, it is moot to ban it.19

In another case, Doordarshan refused to telecast a documentary film on the

Bhopal Gas Disaster titled 'Beyond Genocide', in spite of the fact that the film
won Golden Lotus award, being the best non-feature film of 1987 and was
granted 'U' certificate by the Censor Board. The matter came before the Supreme
Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof. Manubhai D.
Shah.20 The reasons cited by Doordarshan were inter alia, the political parties
had been raising various questions concerning the tragedy, and the claims for
compensation by victims were sub judice. Upholding the freedom of speech and
rejecting the abovementioned arguments, the Court held that merely because it
is critical of the State govt., it is no reason to deny selection and publication of
the film.21

In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket

Association of Bengal,22 it was held by the Supreme Court that freedom of
speech and expression includes "right to acquire information and to disseminate
it to public at large". Hence, Article 19(1)(a) also includes the right of viewers.
when a movie falls out of the cast of certain power holders, they orchestrate to
ban the movie arbitrarily and viewers are deprived of the movie simply because
it does not suit a group of people with whom they have no link. Therefore, when
a movie is banned, the right of the viewers is also offended.

Some recent controversial films:

a) PK and the controversy: Initially when PK were released it was a big hit and
also got a good response in the box-office and now it has been considered as one

19
Supra-note 2.
20
AIR 1993 SC 171
21
Supra-note 9.
22
(1995) 2 SCC 161.

20 | P a g e
of the highest earning films 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 is

based on the Dera Saccha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, and 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.

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 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.23

c) UDTA Punjab - 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

23
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.

21 | P a g e
certify the film 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.24

Thus, the court has interpreted the provisions of Article 19 and the
Cinematograph Act, 1952 to bring out the ambit of censorship and scope of
freedom of speech and expression. However, in most of the cases discussed
above, it is clear that the bans on movies under different circumstances have not
been imposed on valid grounds but to serve the interests of different groups
whether social and political. But, 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 necessary.25

24
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.
25
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagajivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574 at p. 583.

22 | P a g e
 MEDIA AND CENSORSHIP WITH
REFERENCE TO PRESS COUNCIL
ACT, 1978

23 | P a g e
 OVERVIEW OF THE ACT

The new legislation providing for the establishment of the Press Council was
enacted in the year 1978 with the same objective of preserving the freedom of
the press, maintaining and improving the standards of Press in India. The new
Act brought a few structural changes:

i. the body would now consist of 28 members,

ii. furthermore, it provided a new process for the selection of the Chairman,
which is by a Committee consisting of the chairman of the Rajya Sabha,
the Speaker of Lok Sabha and an individual elected by the members of the
council from among themselves.26

Under the Press Council Act, 1978, the Council by the name of Press Council
of India has been established with effect from 1st March'79. The council is a
body corporate having perpetual succession. Section 13 of the Press Council
Act lays down the objects and functions of the Council. The important
functions of the Council are:

i. to help newspapers and news agencies to maintain their independence,

ii. to build up a code of conduct for newspapers, news agencies and
journalists,
iii. to keep under review any development likely to restrict supply and
dissemination of news of public interest and importance.
iv. To concern itself with the developments such as concentration of or other
aspects of ownership of newspapers and news agencies which may affect
the independence of the press.27

26
https://blog.ipleaders.in/press-council-of-india/(Visited on 12 December, 2020)
27
https://mib.gov.in/acts/press-council-act-
1978#:~:text=Press%20Council%20Act%2C%201978%20is,to%20the%20whole%20of%20India.

24 | P a g e
 PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA AS A
SAFEGUARD OF FREEDOM OF PRESS

“Freedom of the press is a precious privilege that no country can forgo” – M.

K. Gandhi.

Safeguarding the freedom of press was the first objective of the Council but it
has failed to protect the same. There have been various threats to the freedom of
press, in the form of pressurizing or intimidating them for the views expressed
in paper, coercing newspapers from publishing facts, group raids on newspaper
offices by unruly mobs, filing of motivated cases against a journalist for the sole
purpose of harassing & victimization, browbeating by police and ministers,
being slapped with hefty defamation suits, etc. This situation has gradually
developed as a culture in India.28

These are the few cases of ruthless murders indicating the problem of silencing
the journalists:

i. The shooting of Gauri Lankesh: veteran journalist and editor, renowned

for her criticism of right-wing extremism and communal violence was
killed because of her Anti-Hindutva Stand.
ii. Navin Nischal of Dainik Bhaskar for reporting on child marriage.
iii. Sandeep Sharma for publishing stories on illegal sand mining and police
corruption.
iv. Shujaat Bukhari for his reporting on the situation in Kashmir.

In order to protect the Democracy, there is a need to protect the independence of

the press and furthermore serious actions are required to be taken in such cases.

28
Supra-note 26.

25 | P a g e
 CENSORSHIP v. FREEDOM OF PRESS

Freedom of the press emanates from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,
which guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.

The rights of the press are not absolute but are subject to certain reasonable
restrictions as set out in Article 19(2) such as public order, defamation, decency,
morality, security of state, etc. Pre-censorship, i.e., the act of censoring a
publication or film before its release to the public, often entails the balancing of
rights provided under Article 19(1)(a) with the restrictions set out in Article
19(2).29

Pre-censorship in the print media is different from the Pre-censorship of a film.

The guidelines and tests for grant of pre-publication injunction in print media
have largely been developed by the courts, as there is no statute in this area.

In a landmark judgment in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v

SEBI,30 the Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines for the grant of pre-
publication injunctions. The court held that orders postponing the publication of
an article “should be passed only when necessary to prevent real and substantial
risk to the fairness of the trial” or where there is “prejudice to the proper
administration of justice”. The court further held that such an order should be
passed only “for a limited duration and without disturbing the content of the
publication”. It was emphasized that though a straightjacket formula could not
be laid down, the court must endeavor to balance conflicting public interests and
fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.

In certain instances, injunctions against publications have been sought on the

ground of defamation. A case in point is R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil

29
https://law.asia/courts-determine-validity-of-precensorship-of-print-media-and-films/ (Visited 12
December, 2020)
30
2013 1 SCC (civ) 1.

26 | P a g e
Nadu,31 wherein the publication of a biography was sought to be injuncted before
its release. The Supreme Court declined to grant the injunction on the ground that
cause of action for defamation could only arise after publication and that there
was no concept of potential defamation. This ruling was followed by Delhi High
Court when it declined to injunct publication of Khushwant Singh’s
autobiography containing certain alleged objectionable references to the Gandhi
family.

Therefore, it can be concluded that Pre-censorship in case of Press is prohibited

but not in the case of films. Having said that, it is to be noted that these tests are
ever evolving and are subject to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

31
1994 SCC (6) 632.

27 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

Media 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 media as a public expression can influence
the society at large, caution must be taken while exhibiting any material 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 Constitution of India guarantees
freedom of speech and expression with justifiable limitations on certain
expressions like contempt of court, morality and decency, the security of the
State, public order, incitement to an offence, defamation, etc. and rightly so.

28 | P a g e
 WEBLIOGRAPHY

• https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/media-definition-
meaning/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/censorship-films-law/#_ftn10
• https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/j8SzkGgRoXofpxn57F8nZP/100-
years-of-film-censorship-in-India.html
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mudgal-panel-submits-report-
on-governing-cinema/article5218032.ece
• https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/Mudgal-panel-submits-
report-on-Cinematograph-Act/article20675037.ece
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2014/09/03/bollywood-
indias-film-industry-by-the-numbers-infographic/
• http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-351-censorship-of-
films.html
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/broadcasting-film-tv-radio/827892/the-
cinematograph-act-of-india
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/press-council-of-india
• https://mib.gov.in/acts/press-council-act-
1978#:~:text=Press%20Council%20Act%2C%201978%20is,to%20the%
20whole%20of%20India.
• https://law.asia/courts-determine-validity-of-precensorship-of-print-
media-and-films/

29 | P a g e