Wa0002

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Right now I think censorship is necessary; the things they are doing
and saying in films right now just should not be allowed. There is no
dignity anymore and I think that’s very important.
--- Mae West (1893-1980)
1.1 GENERAL
When the Constitution of India came into force in the year 1950, it
guaranteed the freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is
subjected to exception as provided under Article 19(2). Censorship of the
media comes under the ambit of this “reasonable restrictions”. On the basis
of Information Technology Rules of 2011, anything that is considered as a
threat the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India, friendly
relations with foreign states or public order, constitutes objectionable
content.
Indian Censorship is an instrument of state intervention, which is defined

and governed by the parameters of law. The duty of state is to govern
through enactement and to implement the public policy. In a democratic
country , the formulation of public policy is closely related to the
satisfaction of the needs of the citizens. The primary function of law is to
secure desirable geste and avoid undesirable geste within a given
framework of social, political and profitable conditions.
The term “censorship” goes back to the office of the censor established in
Rome in 443 BC1. It is originate from the Latin term censere meaning “to
give as one’s opinion, or to assess”. The Roman censors were authoritative
1
Someswar Bhowmik, Cinema and Censorship -The politics of Control in India (Orient Black Swan
Delhi 2009)
13
officers who conducted census, regulated the morals and conduct of the
citizens, and eventually classified them. These officers were appointed to
ease the framing of a society on certain preconceived criteria. Thus since
its commencement “censorship” has been associated with some kind of
social engineering. But in the medieval age its meaning suffer a noteworthy
change, which acquire an oppressive connotation. The said change has
sustained indeed in the modern times, frequently leading to conflict.
Photo 1.1 Birth Of Cinema
The birth of the cinema took place in the early 19 th century. If a precise
date could be given for the morning of cinema, it would presumable be 14
April 1894, when Thomas A. Edison’s Kinetoscope was installed for
public and commerciable showings in New York2. After the installation of
the Kinetoscope, many inventors all over Western Europe and North
2
Aruna Vasudev,Liberty and Licence in the Indian Cinema (Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd New
Delhi)
14
America tried to project films on to a large screen3 . Almost two years
of frantic experimentation took place until December 28, 1895,
when the Lumière brothers unveiled their cinematograph in the basement
of the Grand Café in Paris. For the first time, a video was projected onto a
screen that could be viewed by multiple people in a group. Within weeks
of the Paris triumph the Lumiere Brothers send their operators all over the
world to popularize their invention4 . No one would have thought at that
time that this invention would soon revolutionize the concept and
framework of human expression and communication. In the beginning
time, the cinema was merely one more source of entertainment among
many such to be enjoyed, courtesy the small time impersonators who
organized shows at temporary or new venues, substantially at fair grounds.
But soon it outgrew its humble origin and discard its identity as an object
of curiosity. Then the artisanal system of manufacturing gave way to a
large scale, and continuous, system of production for commerce and profit.
Cinema has developed into a premier leisure industry that thrives on mass
entertainment. Technology give cinema many advantages over other more
conventional, traditional media. the use of photographic technology
made the film appear to be true. This feature has improved reliability and
credibility.
Languages, sounds, music and colors have further developed the medium.
Acquiring an universal appeal within a veritably short period after its
inauguration, cinema soon left behind the traditional forms of
communication5 . Early filmmakers used technology to ensure that non-
blind humans would have no difficulty in negotiating and decoding the
3
Ibid
4
Ibid
5
Delhi 2009)
15
visual language of cinema if they addressed its basic principles .In this
sense, cinema tried to reinstate the principles of the primitive art forms in
a technological age6 Another feature that attracted attention towards
cinema was the practice of collective consumption associated with it.
Collective consumption was ease by the advantage of fairly simple but
convenient system of mechanical reproduction. Collective impact of these
characteristics invested cinema with an accessibility unattained by any of
its forerunners. So potentially at least, cinema held immense possibilities 7
and since it spring up in the era of capitalism, it was ultimately assimilated
into the commercial mode of material product. It was made with an
emphasis on the mass orientation of the system to adopt the basic rules
of the system. From this was born the tradition of mass-produced cinema,
which consequently relied on mass appeal and mass consumption to ensure
the overall success of the film industry8 Through its universal appeal and
mechanical reproducibility advantages, the cinema has proven its greatest
potential in mass communication.
Censorship has been seen as an ideal option in many countries, including

India.
England was the first country to pass legislation on specific films with his
Cinematographs Act of 1909. An immediate concern of the UK
Government was the enforcement of adequate fire safety
measures in cinemas. His
provision of the Act did not go beyond security and structural issues.
Gradually, however, it was used for purposes other
than those originally intended, and the subject matter of the film almost
6
Delhi 2009).
7
Ibid
8
Ibid
16
inevitably became subject to interference under this law. In 1912
the British Film Censorship Board (BBFC) was established and
eventually established itself in as Britain's only censorship board9 .
In Denmark, a decree was issued on 1 January 1914 by which a censor
board could examine and certify films, unconditionally with or Cinema has
developed into a premier leisure industry that thrives on mass entertain
men without deletion, or grant permission to children under the age of 16.
At the same time, Sweden also established a Film Censorship Board,

whose purpose was to prevent the outbreak of her riots that could result
from her crimes and the depiction of crimes in films did. In the United
States, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission10, a
federal court ruled that motion pictures were entertainment and not a
means of protected expression. The case thus legitimized national and local
censorship in the so-called "nation of free speech".
As such, pre-censorship was accepted as the most effective way to curb the
supposedly evil effects of cinema by controlling both access
to representation and form of representation. Over the years, film
censorship has become a manifestation of a complex
psychological phenomenon applied to social contexts that seek to
uphold morality and maintain ethical standards,
religious integrity, political stability, and social hygiene.
9
Delhi 2009).
10
236 U.S. 230 (1915)
17
1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:
This study reviews film censorship in India compared to other systems.

This study will examine paper laws, policies, and
administrative processes, evaluate the opinions and experiences of film
officials and censors on how these issues are addressed in practice, and
ultimately develop proposals for reform to identify critical issues arising
from the film Censorship System. Researchers will conduct doctrinal
studies and formulate systematic reform proposals to examine what
changes are needed in Indian film censorship to promote the
artistic vitality and commercial viability of the country's film industry.
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH:
Existing legal, political and social scenarios require a comprehensive

understanding of Indian film censorship. The Indian film industry is the
largest in the world in terms of the number of films produced and perhaps
the number of known filmgoers. India has produced about as many films
as her next three countries (USA, Japan and China)11. This growth and
popularity has brought benefits as well as various risks at the same time
due to the lack of a proper regulatory framework. This scenario requires
appropriate legislation to fill the gaps in the current legal framework.
Current legal controls are neither truly adequate nor regulatory. The
significance of this study, therefore, lies in the fact that it examines all or
most of the key issues related to film censorship and proposes regulatory
measures to overcome the deficiencies of the existing legal system
11
Available online at http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-07- 28/india/28183844_1_film-
industry-indian-european-audiovisual-observatory (last accessed 8 November 2022)
18
1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY:
The study analyzes the workings of censorship regulatory bodies such as

the examining committee, the revising committee or the Film Certification
Appellate Board and try to comprehend the chain of commands involving
the advisory panels, regional officers, and chairperson, Central Board of
Film Certification and ultimately, the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting. The study explores the possibilities of importing and
transplanting the fundamental regulation and monitoring of films in other
countries. Following the decision of the Film Censorship Court,
this study provides a better understanding of current emerging issues of
film censorship governance in the social context of India.
1.5 HYPOTHESIS:
Whether the mischief of censorship has been correctly addressed by the

existing laws and legislations?
1.6 RESEARCH PROBLEM:
The research shall focus on the following Problems :
1. To what extent does film censorship in India comply with Article

of the Constitution on freedom of expression and democratic norms?
2. What has been the judicial approach in protecting the right to
freedom of speech and expression and film censorship?
3. What are the shortcomings of certification guidelines?
4. Is Censorship Hampering Bollywood's Global Ambitions?
5. What changes should be made to the existing film censorship
system?
19
1.7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
Style- The methodology chosen for the research is doctrinal, analytical and
descriptive. Jurisprudence, books and commentaries dedicated to
media law and constitutions of India, the United States, the United
Kingdom and other legal systems of the world is involved in this
Disertation. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding of
the Disertation it is important to envision the research into two basic facets.
Firstly, a descriptive study of existing legal frameworks in the Indian
context is adopted and then focus on the suggestive measures of regulation
on the basis of recent incidents, literature on the topic. Commentaries,
book, articles carrying the perspective of various prominent scholars will
also be referred by the scholar to get the proper understanding of the subject
As this research also comprises of reading plentiful documents available at
the internet and at the e-resources together with some gigantic books etc.
Sources of Information – The research is primarily based on primary

sources such as Statute and Research Committee Reports, as well as
secondary sources like books, articles, journals, pending/decided cases,
case disputes, news in journals/web portals/newspapers and the Web. The
opinions of researchers, professors and experts in their respective fields
who have dealt with these subjects in relation to the present topic at hand
shall be used as actual contributions to this work.
20
1.8 REVIEW OF LITERATURE :
Researchers reviewed the following available literature:
Books
MP Jain in his book titled ‘Indian Constitutional Law’12 mentions about

censorship of films under freedom of speech and expression describing
how the courts have justified pre-censorship of films.
A.G Noorani, in his book entitled ``Constitutional Questions and

Citizens Rights'', Section VII, in Chapter 47 of the Right to Know, ``Film
Censorship: An Unconstitutional System13,'' discusses what is
happening in different parts of the country. It talks about undemocratic and
extrajudicial censorship. He questions the undemocratic appointment of
the Central Film Certification Commission. He talks
about removing government guidelines on film censorship.
Dr.DD Basu in his book titled ‘Commentary on the Constitution of

India’14 mentions about the limitations imposed on the freedom of speech
and expression on grounds of decency or morality. The book compares
censorship of Cinematograph films in U.S.A and India. Later it talks about
the standard for censorship.
Arvind P.Datar in his book entitled ‘Datar Commentary on the

Constitution of India’15 explores various aspects of freedom of expression
under Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution. It talks about censorship of
Cinema.
12
M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law vol 1 (6 th edn, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur 2010)
13
C.J Nirmal(ed), Human rights in India Historical Social and political perspectives (OUP 2000)
14
7 DD Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India (8 th edn,Wadhwa and Company 2007)
15
8 Arvind P.Datar, Datar Commentary on The Constitution of India vol 1 (2 nd edn, Wadhwan Nagpur
2007)
21
H.M Seervai in his book titled ‘Constitutional Law in India A critical
Commentary’16 has thoroughly commented on the right to free speech and
expression. Chapter X, “Right to freedom”, discusses the constitutionality
of the censorship of exhibition of movies in India. It talks about
maintaining supremacy of freedom of speech and expression.
A book titled ‘Cinema and Censorship - The Politics of Control in

India’17 by Someswar Bhowmik examines the film censorship in India.
The book covers every area of Indian cinema such as feature films in all
languages, documentary films, shorter films made by independent
documentary filmmakers, and even foreign films that came under the
scissors of the CBFC. It is a critical, incisive, research-based analysis of
the political factors that continue to influence the concept of film
censorship in India. Dividing the censorship of movies in four movements,
Someswar analyses the complex relationship between film censorship and
right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of
our Constitution. Moving further, Someswar critically examines the
various flaws of film censorship guidelines.
A book titled ‘The Public is Watching Sex, Laws and Videotapes’18 by

Lawrence Liang with Mayur Suresh and Namita Avriti Malhotra explores
a set of questions arising from the institution and practice of censorship of
films. The said work reconfigures academic debates around censorship in
India encountering the relationship between law and cinema.
16
H.M Seervai, Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary vol 1(4th edn, Universal 2006)
17
Delhi 2009)
18
Lawrence Liang with Mayur Suresh and Namita Avriti Malhotra, The Public is Watching Sex, Laws
and Videotapes (PSBT)
22
A book titled ,”The Art of Cinema An Insider’s Journey Through Fifty
Years of Film History”19 by BD Garga has highlighted in the chapter
‘Thoughts on censorship’ how of all the modes of expression, cinema is
the worst hit by the censorship.
In a book titled ‘Bare Breasts and Bare Bottoms: Anatomy of Film

Censorship in India’20 edited by CK Razdan , a chapter „Is Censorship
Justified‟ by G.D Khosla provides a basic introduction to what exactly is
censorship. In addition to it, the book has covered in detail the validity of
film censorship in India in the light of the Supreme Court Judgement on
Abbas’s suit.
Monika Mehta in her book titled ‘Censorship & Sexuality in Bombay

Cinema’21 revisits the history of film censorship in India. The book also
provides an in-depth analysis of the workings of the Central Board of Film
Censorship.
Articles
An article title “Political Censorship and Indian Cinematographic

Laws: A Functionalist-Liberal Analysis”22by Arpan Banerjee is an
excellent literature on regulation of film censorship in India. Arpan
Banerjee critically examines the laws and institutions governing censorship
of Indian films, tracing their origins to laws and institutions created during
the British colonial period. Banerjee argues that the existing censorship
regime is inconsistent with independent India's constitutional commitment
19
BD Garga, The Art of Cinema An Insider‟s Journey Through Fifty Years of Film History (Penguin
Viking).
20
CK Razdan(Ed) ,Bare Breasts and Bare Bottoms: Anatomy of Film Censorship in India (Jaico
Publishing House Bombay 1975)
21
Monika Mehta, Censorship & Sexuality in Bombay Cinema ( University of Texas Press 2012)
22
Arpan Banerjee, ‘Political Censorship and Indian Cinematographic Laws:A FunctionalistLiberal
Analysis‟(2010) Drexel Law Review Vol 2.
23
to freedom of expression as a fundamental right and it should be
liberalized, not only to restrict state interference with artistic and
expressive freedom, but also to facilitate the ability of Indian filmmakers
to make films that will appeal to global audiences.
Subhradipta Sarkar in his article titled „”Right to free speech in a

censored democracy”23 discusses about how banning a motion picture is
equivalent to banning the right of free speech and expression .He discusses
the legal position of censorship in India and highlights its fallacy.
An article titled ‘Streets of fire: Shiv sena and film censorship in

contemporary India’24 talks about political censorship in India. The
present article analyses the behavior of religious extremist groups that have
leveraged India‟s governmentally endorsed censorship regime to enforce
their political and religious agenda. This has resulted into de-secularisation
of India‟s censorship practices.
Apart from this, the researcher has gone through the Cinematographic
Act,1952, Draft Cinematograph Bill 2010, Mudgal Committee report,
Shyam Benegal Committee report along with other newspaper reports.
With these points in mind the research would attempt to fill in the gaps
which exist in the existing literature and thereby, contribute to the existing
literature which is the primary aim and objective of this research.
23
Subhradipta Sarkar, „Right to free speech in a censored democracy‟(2009) 7 U.Denv.Sports&
Ent.Law j62
24
Ross A. Carbone, „Streets of fire: Shiv Sena and film censorship in contemporary India‟(2012) 13
Rutgers J.L. & Religion 455.
24
1.9 PLAN OF CHAPTER
The research paper shall be written in the form of chapters, starting with
the topic and details about them and then conclusion and suggestions
following the entire discussion. The disertation would be split into seven
chapters and these chapters have been divided into various headings for the
purpose of clarity and convenience.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF CENSORSHIP
CHAPTER 3 CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION OF FILM

CENSORSHIP
CHAPTER 4 LEGISLATION OF FILM CENSORSHIP
CHAPTER 5 POLITICS UNDER FILM CENSORSHIP
CHAPTER 6 CONSTITUTION OF CENSORSHIP BODY
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
25
CHAPTER 2 HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF CENSORSHIP
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Censorship is an amalgamation of multiple concepts that are interrelated,

the most prominent one being free speech. It is the ability to express or
articulate one’s ideas freely without any limitation or interference25. The
term ‘censorship’ goes back to the office of the censor established in Rome
in 443 BC26. It is derived from the Latin term ‘censere,’ which means ‘to
give one’s opinion or assess.’
This chapter examines the evolution of censorship and how India has
tackled this concept over the years. It also dwells into the laws of the
Constitution and the Cinematograph Act, 1952, followed by its
amendments. This chapter confines itself only to the audio-visual medium
and not the print media
2.2 HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF CENSORSHIP
In ancient times, censorship enforced orthodox practices that

prevailed in communities and regions. Plato is considered the first thinker
to formulate "the rationale for intellectual, religious and
artistic censorship". His work ‘The Republic’ defines an ‘ideal state,’ and
‘official censors would prohibit mothers and nurses from relating tales
deemed bad or evil.’ Plato’s arguments in favor of censorship are two-fold:
-
25
Priyanka Ghai, Dr. Arnind P Bhanu, ‘CENSORSHIP IN INDIA VIS-À-VIS FREEDOM OF
SPEECH: COMPARISON OF THE EXTENT OF CENSORSHIP LAWS IN INDIA AND ABROAD’,
Journal of Critical Reviews ISSN- 2394-5125 Vol 7, Issue 13 (2020).
26
Delhi 2009)
26
i. Censorship as a means of protecting children from "evil"
influences.
ii. Censorship is a tool to protect society27.
Plato believed it was essential to the survival of the nation. He expects the
citizens “to maintain a higher level of moral standards to maintain a level
of national pride, even if it means suppressing ideas that undermine such
values and morals."
Censorship first took place in 399 BC. One of the most important events of
the 19th century was the French Revolution, when censorship
was widespread. People were uneducated and used drawings, art,
and cartoons to express their thoughts.
From 1950 to 1980, also known as the "Red Scare"28 period. During this
period films and media were indiscriminately censored, and citizens were
arrested for deviating from the democratic or republican way of life. This
era saw the two superpowers29 greatly wield censorship as a weapon to
control the thoughts and expressions of their citizens.
The use of censorship to limit the dissemination of information is

continued to date, though it has been relaxed in democracies worldwide.
. However, countries such as China and the former Soviet Union maintain
government-mandated censorship.
27
Plato’s Ethics and Politics in The Republic, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/
28
A Red Scare is the promotion of a widespread fear of a potential rise of communism, anarchism or
other leftist ideologies by a society or state. The name refers to the red flag as a common symbol of
communism.
29
United States of America and the Soviet Union (U.S.S.R)
27
2.3 FILM CENSORSHIP IN INDIA
India is an amalgamation of multiple cultures, races, religions, ethnic

groups and is best described by ‘Unity in Diversity’. Censorship in India
primarily remains an ‘instrument of state intervention, defined and
governed by the parameters of the law. The role of the state is to control
through enactment and implementation of public policy.
Cinema has always been an integral part of our country and woven into the
social fabric of our culture. It is defined as the art of colorful moving
images30. This phenomenon began during the British rule, which was state
intervention in social transactions between members of
the target community31.
During India's pre-independence period, the first major attempt at

regulating motion pictures occurred when the Cinematograph Act of
1918 was enacted. In the post-independence scenario, the government
allowed films to be regulated under the Cinematograph
Act of 1918, leaving the power to certify films for
exhibition to state governments32.
The right to “freedom of speech and expression” is one of the most sacred
rights guaranteed in the Indian Constitution33. Article 19(1)(a) of Part 3 of
the Constitution states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of
speech and expression34. Films are widely recognized as a form of
expression protected under Article 19(1)(a).
30
Gabe Moura, What’s Cinema, Elements of Cinema, www.elementsofcinema.com/cinema/definition-
and-brief-history, (November 12, 2022).
31
Delhi 2009)
32
Amandeep Singh, A Critical study of Film Censorship in India: A Study of post -independence
period (2017), (unpublished thesis, RML National Law University, Lucknow),
http://hdl/handle.net/10603/186551
33
A CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF CENSORSHIP IN INDIAN CINEMA,
http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/AAA76064-887D-43A3-8EFB-A11D35C73C2F.pdf
34
The Constitution of India, 1950.
28
Article 19(2) lists some reasonable restrictions on
the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). These "reasonable
restrictions" include interests relating to the sovereignty and integrity of
India, national security, friendly relation with foreign countries, public
order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement
to commit a crime35.
Movies have the power to unite and divide people regardless of

barriers such as age or other social structures. Therefore, Supreme
Court has repeatedly stated that censorship is essential due to wide range
that cinema offers. The framers of our Constitution considered it necessary
to allow certain restrictions because they wanted to ensure an
appropriate balance between guaranteed freedoms and the social benefits
set out in Article 19(2)36.
The Cinematograph Act establishes similar restrictions

and guidelines, which should form the basis for the certification of
films37. Similarly, the power to regulate motion pictures rests with Union
Parliament under entry 60 of the Union List of VII Schedule38. States enjoy
limited jurisdiction over the regulation of motion picture
productions under entry 33 of State List39.
The landmark verdict of KA Abbas v Union of India40 is based on

censorship in films. The Apex Court deduced that “a motion picture has
the ability invoke emotions deeply compared to any other art form. A film
can be censored on the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) of the
35
Ibid
36
Santokh Singh v. Delhi Administration, (1973) 1 SCC 659.
37
Cinematograph Act, 1952
38
Constitution of India, 1950
39
Ibid
40
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 780
29
Constitution41”. The Supreme Court stated that "censorship of films, their
classification according to the age groups and their suitability for
unrestricted exhibition with/without excisions is considered a valid
exercise of power in the interest of public morality, decency, etc 42. This is
not to be construed as offending the freedom of speech and expression
under Article 1943”.
Photo 2.1
Regarding film censorship, the Indian Film Censorship Board has

scrutinized films before their release. The review was based on religious
sentiments, bold scenes, offensive language etc. A film called India's
Daughter was a television documentary, but negative public support led
him to be banned44.
If we talk about Gujarat, films like “Padmavat” and “Fanna” was banned
by Gujarat government. As far as the movie Padmavat is concerned, the
41
Ibid
42
“Censorship in OTT Platforms: The Necessity”. http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/Sriram.pdf
43
Ibid
44
Independent, India's Daughter: How India attempted to suppress the BBC Delhi gang-rape
documentary INDEPENDENT (Last visited 12 November 2022, 2:05 AM)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indias-daughter-how-india-tried-suppress-bbc-delhi-
gang-rape-documentary-10088890.html
30
censor board asked them to remove an “I” from the original title which was
“Padmavati”45 .
The Cinematograph Act, 1952, very specifically gives power to lay down
threshold when films can be rejected or some scenes can be asked to be
deleted if not deemed fit to be screened in the society46.
2.4 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Cinema pictures and film picture law date back to 1876 when the Dramatic
Performance Act was enacted in 1876. In
1918, the government first wanted to amend the
Act of 1876 to include provisions on the censorship of films and other
related aspects, but the Home Ministry stated that films were a very
sensitive issue in India. and therefore the special legislation is need of an
hour. Therefore, in 1918 a new law was enacted, the Cinematograph Act.
By the virtue of this 1918 legislation, license from the local civil authorities
and compulsory pre-censorship was made mandatory. This was very
clearly mention in the Act itself47. These obligations applied to all
films whether imported from India or from abroad. There were no
organized film industry associations that could cooperate to regulate the
film industry. Second, no such local regulatory body has been established.
The British wanted to make the law more practical, so in 1920 he made
amendments in. This change resulted in
45
The Indian Express, With a history edit, Censor has its ‘I’, Padmavati its release THE INDIAN
EXPRESS (Last visited 12 November 2022, 3:00 PM) ,
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/padmavati-releasecbfc-censor-board-
deepika-padukone-sanjay-leela-bhansali-cuts-5005520/
46
Cinematograph Act, 1952, s. 5(b) No. 37, Act of Parliament, 1952 (India)
47
Cinematograph Act, 1918, s. 4 No. 2, 1918 (India)
31
the establishment of censorship boards in Bombay, Calcutta,
Madras and Rangoon to examine and certify the film's true nature48.
When the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was enacted in 1860, the concept of
sedition was introduced. Initially, the penalty for sedition was life
imprisonment, or a short term of years. The nature of the punishment has
now changed, but the essence of the statute remains the same.
India became independent in 1947. When the Constitution was adopted,

the right to freedom of expression became a constitutional right
guaranteed in Part 3 of the Constitution49. However, this fundamental right
is also subject to “reasonable restrictions”50. Therefore, unlike the
right, this right is not an absolute right. This is because International Law
contains certain restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.
In India, power has been vested with the central government to sanction
cinematograph films for exhibition51. However, State Legislature can enact
laws regarding theatres and dramatic performance52. By the Virtue of Entry
60 of List I, Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Cinematograph (Certification)
Rules, 1983.
A 1952 law was enacted, intended to certify film and its showings. The law
empowers the government for the constitution of a Censor board of 25
members for the attainment of the objects of the legislation. The Act very
specifically gives power that after examining, the board can either restrict
or pass public exhibition of the film or can ask for some modifications. Can
also refuse to sanction license for its exhibition53. Mandates for the central
48
MEHTA MONICA., CENSORSHIP & SEXUALITY IN BOMBAY CINEMA (University of Texas
Press, 2012)
49
The Constitution of India, 1950 Art. 19(1)(a)
50
The Constitution of India, 1950 Art. 19(2)
51
The Constitution of India, 1950, Schedule VII, List I, Entry 60
52
The Constitution of India, 1950, Schedule VII, List II, Entry 33
53
Cinematograph Act, 1952, No. 37, s.4 Act of Parliament, 1952 (India)
32
government to issue necessary notification and the grounds for the
restriction of film for public exhibition which is in consonance with the
provisions laid down under Article 19(2) of the constitution is provided
under this Act54. The Act has also provided the mechanism for appellate
tribunal55.
Therefore, it can be said that India's film censorship laws are well-
developed.
2.5 CINEMATOGRAPH ACT 1952
On 29 August 1949, a Film Enquiry Committee was created and named by

the Government of India under the chairmanship of S.K. Patil. The
committee’s instruction was:
the film industry’s organizational growth and giving

directives for indicating the setbacks on which further development needs
to be directed56;
promoting national culture, wholesome entertainment, and education57.
54
Cinematograph Act, 1952, No. 37, s. 5(b) Act of Parliament, 1952 (India)
55
Cinematograph Act, 1952, No. 37, s. 5D Act of Parliament, 1952 (India)
56
Online information from https://www.cinemaazi.com/industry-information/committee-reports-the-
film-enquiry-committee
57
Ibid
33
Photo 2.2 Central Board of Film Certification
This Committee paved the way for the Cinematograph (Second

Amendment) Act, 1949, which was created to make a centralized structure
of the censorship of cinematographic films, which led to the birth of the
Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The Cinematograph Bill was
introduced in Parliament.
The Bill received the President’s assent on 21st March 1952, after being
passed by both of the Houses. It came into effect from July 28 195258.
2.6 EVENTS THAT LED TO THE CHANGE IN THE

CINEMATOGRAPH ACT
The advent of liberalization witnessed a robust challenge in the form of

satellite television. Satellite television was not subjected to censorship, and
it provided viewers easy access to films and programs prohibited by the
state. The film industry compounded this issue by pressing for more liberal
censorship guidelines concerning sex and violence to compete with
satellite television. The nineties saw a vigorous debate about how to
compete with new forms of entertainment and protect the culture and
58
Indian Cinema: Censorship Laws, Freedom of Speech https://legaldesire.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/11/LDIJL-ISSUE-23-VOL-23-84-123.pdf
34
traditions of India from the onslaught of Western civilization and values
represented in the new media.
There was a lot of public hue and cry over explicit sexuality, which started
in the early nineties59.Certification of these movies was encountered by
protests by various cultural groups, leading to multiple debates over
censorship. The situation was that the labels ‘banned’ and ‘censored’ were
dropped lightly, and they became advertising gimmicks to entice the global
and local audience. The censorship fueled desire, resulting in an increase
in revenue for filmmakers and film industries. All of this compelled the
Government to revise and re-issue the censorship guidelines.
In the 1970s, films like ‘Aandhi’ and ‘Kissa Kursi Kaa’ were seen to have
delineated the biography of the then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, for
which one was denied a censor certificate and the other was withdrawn
from the cinema halls. ‘Aandhi’ was re-released a few weeks later when
Indira Gandhi herself cleared it after consulting some critics.
On the other hand, ‘Kissa Kursi Kaa’ ended up being the most disputable
film ever constructed in the history of Indian cinema. The film was accused
of criticizing the functioning of the Government under Indira Gandhi. The
then ruling party minister burned the film reel, and the film had to be re-
shot. The film industry faced a troublesome time amid the Emergency that
Gandhi plotted. Filmmakers and artists who refused to cooperate were
blacklisted, and films were denied exhibition certificates by the Censor
Board60.
The film industry felt stifled by existing laws. The late Vijay Anand61
proposed a review of the Cinematograph Act in 2002. He said he made
59
Exhibition of movies like Khalnayak (1993),Bandit Queen (1994),Fire (1996) etc
60
Madhavi Goradia Divan, Facets of Media Law (EBC Lucknow 2006)
61
Ex- Chairman of CBFC and a well-known filmmaker.
35
several proposals, including "giving the CBFC fiscal autonomy and
selecting members of the advisory board based on professional rather than
political considerations." He also suggest the introduction of "XA"
certificates. This would legalize the showing of softcore pornographic
films in some theaters and was thought to reduce demand in this regard as
opposed to a ban.
On the contrary, T. Subbarami Reddy submitted to the Rajya Sabha an

Amendment in 2002, calling for "strengthened restrictions on
excessive sex, vulgarity and violence" that is "corrupting people's morals
and values, which has a negative impact on the minds of people,
especially young people.”
This amendment was intended to change not only the guidelines but also
the composition of the panel. It noted that women had limited
representation on the board and that their representation needed to be
increased to police films that depicted women in a derogatory manner. All
this led to a demand for restructuring of the CBFC, and the 2010 Draft Bill
was framed.
2.7 DRAFT CINEMATOGRAPH BILL, 2010
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) prepared a Draft

Cinematograph Bill of 2010 to replace the decades-old Cinematograph Act
1952. Some of the noteworthy changes proposed by the bill include:
 The new definition of “presentation” is defined as “the

presentation of a motion picture film or the making
available of a motion picture film to persons not directly involved
in its production, distribution, promotion or certification”.
36
 Regarding the structure of the CBFC, the draft proposed that
women constitute at least one-third of its members and the advisory
panels. It also offered the introduction of professional credentials
for the appointment of the Chairperson, members of the board, and
advisory panels.
 Further, the draft bill suggested two new certification categories,

‘twelve and older’ and ‘fifteen and older’ to replace the UA
certificate following the British Board of Film Certification
(BBFC).
2.8 MUDGAL COMMITTEE REPORT, 2013
In 2012, the controversy over the ban on ‘Vishwaroopam’ by the Tamil

Nadu Government raised many questions on the implications for free
speech. The Central Government thought it was time to update the
Cinematograph Act, 1952.
A Committee was instituted under the able leadership of Justice Mukul

Mudgal, retired Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Other members included Lalit Bhasin, Leela Samson (ex Chairperson of
CBFC), and film personalities Sharmila Tagore and Javed Akhtar62.
The Committee proposed a model Cinematograph Bill in a report

submitted to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It had also
made recommendations to constitute advisory panels to create guidelines
for ‘certification and issues such as the portrayal of women, obscenity, and
62
Online information from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mudgal-panel-submits-report-on-
governing-cinema/article5218032.ece
37
communal disharmony; classification of films; treatment of piracy; and
jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal.’63
However, this Report faced a lot of flak. The Committee had offered
surprisingly little original thought and research into the fundamental and
much-delayed reform of cinematograph law. Many of the 'new' provisions
in the draft Cinematograph Bill are true cut-paste versions from the
existing Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983. The Report did not
discuss anything from the reports by earlier inquiry committees on film
censorship64. Similarly, the Report missed the audience’s perspective in its
entirety. The report's tone is as if there are only two stakeholders in the
entire scheme of cinematograph law, viz., the Central Government and the
Film Industry65.
2.9 SHYAM BENEGAL COMMITTEE REPORT, 2016
On January 1st, 2016, the Shyam Bengal committee was set up to lay down
rules and regulations for film certification, and give adequate space for
artistic and creative expression. The Committee had been set up to address
a growing disquiet that the then CBFC chief Pahlaj Nihalani had
overstepped his brief, censoring films instead of certifying them. The
Report was submitted on April 29, 2016, but there has been very little
progress on it so far. The Report says that the Central Board of Film
Certification (CFBC) should primarily issue certification to the films
depending on their content. It lists out the circumstances under which the
63
Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT).
64
Rangachariar Committee (1927-28), Khosla Committee (1969)
65
Detailed Analysis on the Mukul Mudgal Committee Report, 2013 from
http://rtifoundationofindia.com/detailed-analysis-and-comments-report-sri-mukul-mu#.YS8C6o4zZPY
38
body should be allowed to cancel certification, i.e., when any content
contravenes the provisions of Section 5 (B) 1 of the Cinematograph Act.
This covers material that goes against the interests of sovereignty and
integrity of India, security of state, friendly relations with foreign
countries, threatens public order, decency and morality, or involves
defamation or contempt of court.
The Committee asked for amendment of several sections of the ‘archaic’

Cinematograph Act of 195266.
It also recommended “amendment of Sections 5A, 5C, 5E and 6 of the Act

which talks about film certification categories, appeals, suspension, and
revocation of films and the powers of the central government to revise a
film respectively. They suggested that the revising committee draws from
a Central Advisory Panel, which has ‘different criteria for selection’
against the Regional Advisory Panels.
The Committee lists out objectives to protect children and adults from
potentially harmful or unsuitable content. In addition, it helps the audience
to make a better-informed decision, and artistic freedom is maintained.
The Committee made recommendations regarding the size of the Board

and its functioning. It also mentions that the Chairman should only play
the role of a guiding mechanism and not involve themselves in day to day
activities of CBFC.
The scope of CBFC should be restricted to categorizing the suitability of

the film to audience groups based on age and maturity.
66
‘Archaic’ Cinematograph Act of 1952 likely to be amended after Shyam Benegal headed
committee's recommendations”, Daily News & Analysis (DNA), 1 May, 2016, available online at
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-archaic-cinematograph-act-of-1952-likely-to-be-amendedafter-
shyam-benegal-headed-committee-s-recommendations-2208104 (last accessed 12 November 2022).
39
After the criticism that the Mukul Mudgal Committee Report received, it
was hoped that the Shyam Benegal Committee would address all the
necessary concerns. However, this Report also bailed all expectations and
failed to create any essential impact.
2.10 STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT, 2019
The chairman of the committee is Dr. Shashi Tharoor. The Committee

considered and adopted the reports of both houses at its meeting on
March 13, 2020.
The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill 2019, introduced in Rajya Sabha

on 12 February 2019, was referred by the Hon'ble Speaker67 to the Standing
Committee on Information Technology for consideration on 22 February
2019.
After hearing the views of the I&B Ministry on the proposed amendment,
the committee felt that a thorough review of the bill was necessary
given the complexity of the aforementioned bill.
The Committee recorded evidence of multiple stakeholders. The

Committee was mainly concerned with piracy causing severe financial
harm to the film industry in India. The Committee recommended
prescribing a minimum punishment for the offense of piracy (penalty up to
three years or a fine up to ₹10 lakh) to provide some deterrence. It seeks to
introduce new sections to the 1952 Act to prohibit the recording of films in
theatres.
This led to the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2019.
67
Smt.Sumitra Mahajan (16th Lok Sabha)
40
2.11 CINEMATOGRAPH AMENDMENT ACT, 2021
On 18th June 2021, the I&B Ministry, sought comments from the public
on the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021, with the objective of
amending the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Bill inter alia aims to
introduce age-based sub-categories of U/A certification, prohibit and
penalize unauthorized recordings or transmission of a copy of a film during
its exhibition, and grant the Central Government revisional powers over a
film already certified for public exhibition by the CBFC68.
Some of the suggestions made by this committee found its way into the
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media
Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, for regulating the content available on OTT
digital platforms.
“The proposed amendments are as follows:
1. The category U/A will be subdivided based on age into U/A 7+, U/A
13+ and U/A 16+;
2. Empowering the Centre to direct the CBFC to reconsider its

certificate to a film if they are of the view that it does not conform
to the ‘Guiding Principles’ under Section 5B(1)69;
68
Online information from https://iprmentlaw.com/2021/07/01/controlling-piracy-or-expression-an-
analysis-of-the-cinematograph-amendment-bill-2021/
69
Under the section, CBFC cannot certify media content that goes against the “interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of the State, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public
order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the
commission of any offence”.
41
3. The Center also recommends adding a Section 6AA covering
copyright infringement. A minimum punishment of 3 months (can
go up to 3 years) was accepted by the Government, after accepting
the judgments of the Committee. A fine of 3 lakhs was also
introduced while removing the 10 lakh cap. It may now be extended
to 5% of the audited gross production cost or with both70.”
This amendment has also received a lot of criticism from members of the
film industry. The proposed amendment does not introduce anything new
except taking away the autonomous power of the CBFC and empower the
Centre for further certification71. The biggest issue is that the legislature
introduces more stringent punishments when the already existing ones are
constitutionally challenged.
2.12 CONCLUSION
To conclude, India is a country that has formulated a Constitution that

allows great freedoms by adding reasonable restrictions to it. Censorship
is one such tool used by the government to ensure peace and stability
among people belonging to various strata of society.
Initially, censorship was introduced to ensure that cine-goers enjoy films

in their right spirit and not get enraged over any piece of content showcased
to them. Still, eventually, the shift to global issues became necessary, and
hence to regulate the same was an arduous task. The amendments from
time to time were incorporated to ensure a mechanism followed to applaud
the artistic creativity and meet up the moral, cultural, and religious norms
in India.
70
Online information from https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/080721/explainer-
cinematograph-act-amendment-all-that-you-need-to-know.html
71
Explainer | What is the Cinematograph Act amendment?
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/080721/explainer-cinematograph-act-
amendment-all-that-you-need-to-know.html
42
The CBFC discharges its function of certification in accordance with the
following provisions:
Television Network Rules, 1994.
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply, and

Distribution) Act, 2003.
ention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
43
Despite its obvious nature, censorship is not seen as a good thing when
applied too harshly. It is essential to let individuals express themselves in
a democracy. Stimulated by technological developments and globalization,
new-age filmmakers are coming up with unconventional themes that
nobody has dared to explore.
With the penetration of the Internet, violence and other forms of

questionable content of any degree can be easily accessed through
smartphones, thereby challenging the credibility of any censorship. The
Judiciary has also recognized that films are a powerful and an effective
medium of speech and expression, the right people achieved after a long
struggle for independence.
44
CHAPTER 3 CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS OF FILM
CENSORSHIP
3.1 CINEMA AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Cinema is arguably the most powerful modern medium, with emotional

and performance potential. As a form of performing arts that evolves from
myth to the present, from ritual to theatre, cinema has conquered the space
inside and outside the human mind. Within a few years of its emergence,
the medium rapidly permeated every nook and cranny of the open-
edged mass public sphere through its performative distribution, namely the
element of anonymity that characterizes all public communication in the
age of the mass public72.
Film has always been considered a powerful medium of expression. It is

judicially recognized that cinema is a form of speech and expression73
Justice Clark of the United States’s Supreme Court said:
“There is no doubt that video is an important medium

for communicating ideas. They can influence public attitudes and behavior
in a variety of ways, from directly supporting the ideas that characterize all
artistic expression to being both entertaining and informative74”
Like other media platforms such as newspaper, books and radio, cinema
plays a creative role in dissemination of ideas.
Likely, the influence of cinema is more noteworthy than that of other

medium. Its educative esteem, if used appropriately is additionally more
72
“Exploring cinema, censorship and its impact”, The Hindu (3 December 2013), available online at
http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-reviews/exploring-cinema-censorship-and-its-impact /article
5415198.ece(last accessed 19 November 2022).
73
Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, (1915) 236 US 230.
74
Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 US 495 (1952) 501
45
prominent. Cine-goers are incomprehensibly large in number which is
going up day by day. The influence of this medium on life of the people is
incredible. The influence it will have in moulding the morality and habits
of the youth cannot be neglected. Cinema is the most influential and
popular form of art. Although to a great extent its object is commercial,
cinema is an effective agent in disseminating ideas. Therefore it should
have the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression in
any Constitution .May be this is the reason that the banning of the films
brings us to the cardinal question do we have the freedom of speech and
expression?
Some nations guarantee specific constitutional protection to movies against

precensorship. Then there are some which do not specifically guarantee
protection to cinema but consider exhibition of movies as a part of freedom
of speech and expression.
The Indian Constitution guarantees citizens the fundamental right to

freedom of speech and expression75. However, unlike the United States
Constitution, the Indian Constitution gives states the power to impose
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right76. In the constituent
assembly, there was severe criticism against the inclusion of restrictions in
the Constitution itself77.
This criticism was mainly based on the Constitution of the United States
where the right was in absolute terms. These criticisms were repelled by
Dr. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, in a letter to the
Chairman of the Constituent Assembly in the following words78:
75
Article 19(1) (a) of The Constitution of India.
76
Article 19(2) of The Constitution of India
77
B.Shiv Rao,Framing of India’s Constitution Vol IV (1968) 34-39.
78
Constituent assembly Debates,Vol.VII 40-41.
46
“There is no question that the fundamental rights of America are not
absolute rights. What the Draft Constitution has done is that rather of
formulating fundamental rights in absolute terms and relying upon our
Supreme Court to come to the rescue of Parliament by inventing the
doctrine of “Police power”, it permits the state directly to impose
limitations upon the Fundamental Rights.”
3.2 CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS
The Constitution seeks to strike a balance between individual liberty and

social control. A limitation on the exercise of the right shall satisfy the
following requirements for its validity79:
i) The restriction must be one imposed by a valid law. A restriction

imposed by executive action will be valid.
ii) The restriction must be reasonable, and
iii) The restriction must be proximately related to purposes

mentioned in the respective sub-clauses of Article 19.
iv) The presence of the term reasonable in Article 19 (2) empowers

the judiciary to sit in judgment over legislative determination.
The Supreme Court time and again pointed out that
79
DD Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (1981)77. See also M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law
(1978) 444.
47
reasonableness will depend upon facts and circumstances of each
case, the evil sought to be remedied and the condition present in
society at a given time.
Justice Mahajan has summarized the scope of the term in the following
words80:
“The phrase ‘reasonable restriction’ indicates that the restriction imposed

on the person who enjoys the rights shall not be arbitrary or excessive and
shall not exceed that which is necessary in the public interest. Legislation
which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain
the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between
the freedom guaranteed and the social control, it must be held to be wanting
in that quality”
The Supreme Court, said in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of

India v. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah81,that “Restrictions were to
be construed strictly and narrowly. Such restrictions are inappropriate
because they are in the nature of curb or restriction on the exercise
of rights, and therefore must be viewed with suspicion. Instead, it imposes a
heavy burden on the authorities that try to impose it.”
As mentioned earlier, film censorship has been prevalent in India since

1918. Before the commencement of the Constitution of India, the question
of constitutional validity of the law did not arise at all. The law continued
even after the commencement of the Constitution until it was repealed and
re-enacted by the Cinematograph Act 195282.The Act provides for the
80
Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P (1951) AIR SC118.
81
(1992) 3 SCC 637
82
So far censorship of films in India is concerned, the power of legislation is vested with the
Parliament under Entry 60 of the Union List (or List I) of the Schedule VII of the Constitution. The
States are also empowered to make laws on cinemas under Entry 33 of the Sate List (or List II) but
subject to the provision of the central legislation. The prime legislation in this respect is the
Cinematograph Act, 1952, No. 37 of 1952, and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, Gen.
S.R. 381(E).
48
establishment of a “Central Board of Film Certification”, the Indian
film regulatory body, to issue certificates to filmmakers for
public screening.
According to the provision of the law83, 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.
3.3 PRINCIPLES FOR CERTIFICATION OF FILMS
In a free society, it is necessary to restrict the freedom of one individual so

that it may not collide with the freedom of others. If liberty is a social
conception, there can be no liberty without social control. Limitations on
the exercise of freedom are an accepted fact. The only controversy is the
extent to which such restrictions are to be imposed.
On the one hand, the freedom is must for human progress. On the other
hand, it is equally important to restrict the freedom not only in the interest
of society. Ideally what is required is to strike a balance between these two
competing claims. The extent of limitations necessarily depends upon the
changing conditions of society.
83
Section 4,Cinematograph Act, 1952
49
Indian Constitution Recognizing the Need to
Limit the Exercise of Fundamental Rights in the Public Interest, expressly
authorizes the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the
said right. The grounds on which these restrictions can be imposed are
enumerated in clause 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution. It is significant to
note that this clause does not impose any obligation on the State to impose
restriction. The provision is only permissive. The concept of
“reasonableness” imports judicial review84.
Section 5 B (1) of the Act lay down the guidelines for certifying films. The
Section is more or less a replica of Clause 2 of Article 19. The Supreme
Court while upholding Section 5 B (1) of the Act held that the absence of
the term “reasonable” in the section would not make any difference at all
and the court could still look into the reasonableness of the action taken by
the Board. The scope and ambit of the grounds mentioned in Article 19 (2)
of the Constitution has been judicially expounded. Because Section 5 B (1)
uses the same terms, the interpretation given to those terms in other cases
may be used for clarifying the scope of the section85.
Sovereignty and Integrity of India:
These words were added to Article 19 (2) of the Constitution by the

Constitution (Sixteenth) Amendment Act 1963 to provide for a legal frame
work to arm the Governments with sufficient powers to effectively respond
to requests for subdivision and transfer of land. The amendment was
incorporated at a time when the disintegrating tendencies in the country
have assumed alarming propositions. Cinema should not encourage these
84
Shashi P.Mishra,Fundamental rights and the Supreme Court:Reasonableness of Restrictions (1984)
43-46.
85
Ibid
50
tendencies. Parliament recognized the potential for such threats and
amended Section 5 B(1) of the Act in 1981 by adding the words:
“sovereignty and integrity of India” in order to refuse certification to a film.
Security of State and Public Order:
The scope of the term „public order‟ is wider than “security of state”
although more often than not the two overlap86.The original Clauses (2) of
Article 19 did not contain the word “public order” for which restrictions
could be imposed.
Measures taken by the Government for maintaining public order or public

safety were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court holding that
the phrase originally contained in Article 19(2) of the Constitution
vis.,”Security of State” would apply only aggravated forms of breaches of
public order such as those endangering the foundations of State or
threatening the over throw of the Government by force and, therefore, any
restriction in the interest of public order not amounting to security of state
would not be valid. In order to overcome the difficulties caused by these
decisions the Constitution (First) amendment Act 1951 introduced “Public
order” as an additional ground in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Friendly relations with foreign States:
Depiction in a film of anything which has the effect of malicious and

persistent propaganda against a foreign State having friendly relations with
India may cause embarrassment to the Governments of both the countries.
This may go to the extent of straining Indian’s relationship with that state.
86
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras,(1950)AIR SC 124,Brij Bhushan v.State of Delhi,(1950) AIR
SC 129,Superintendent, Central Prison v. Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia,(1960) AIR SC 633.
51
Both the Board and the Government have become sensitive in this regard.
On several occasions they have challenged scenes in films that are simply
related to foreign history and culture. The Khosla Committee87 opposed
this practice and argued that such sensitivity to all these foreign objections
was unnecessary. Fearing the slightest objection from sensitive
foreigners is incompatible with our dignity and freedom.
Incitement to an offence:
In order to effectively suppress the crime, it is necessary to punish the

people who assisted or abetted the crimes in addition to the
actual perpetrators. Thus, the Constitution allows states to impose
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech
and expression to prevent incitement to wrongdoing. Incitement to commit
serious crimes such as murder or waging war against the Government of
India may also be considered Act against national security. Such
incitement may be prohibited by law.
Film censors cannot object to a film because it contains incitement to

commit a crime. It can object only to those acts depicted in a film if such
depiction constitutes an incitement to commit an offence directly related to
the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2). Therefore, in order to object to a
film on the grounds of incitement to crime, the Board must decide
two issues. First, whether there is any incitement to commit any crime and
Second, whether there is a reasonable connection between the specific
crime and any ground of section 19(2).
87
An enquiry committee on film censorship headed by Justice G. D. Khosla (1968). Available online at
http://saveourcinema.in/history.html (last accessed 19 November 2022).
52
Morality and Decency:
Another grounds on which reasonable restrictions may be imposed on the

exercise of freedom of speech and expression include “interest of morality
and decency”. These are terms of wide import having no fixed meaning. In
a dynamic society, the norms of decency and morality change colors
according to changes in social norms.
As these terms are indefinable, the judiciary in India has not attempted to
define these terms. Lord Simon88 believed that morality and decency are
not synonymous. The former refers to standards accepted by the general
public and uphold by all law abiding citizens. The latter refers to the
feelings of that section of the general public likely to be exposed to the
offending material.
The concept of obscenity falls within the comprehension of indecency or

immorality but the test of obscenity is more stringent that the latter.
Obscenity test was laid down by Chief Justice Cock burn in R. v. Hicklin89
in the following words: “whether the matter accused
of obscenity tends to tarnish and corrupt those who are open to such
immoral influences and in whose hands publications of this kind may fall”.
The Supreme Court of India in Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra90

adopted the Hicklin test with some modifications, without defining the
indefinite; the Court explained the term “obscene”. According to
the court, the criterion for obscenity is the tendency for
corrupt and depraved material, judged by modern societal standards.
At the same time, the Court noted the need to consider the artistic
presentation of the material. Where obscenity and art intermingle, art must
88
Knuller v. DPP (1973) AC 435
89
(1868) LR 3 QB 360.
90
(1965) SCR (1) 65
53
dominate, either relegating obscenity into the shadows or making it so
trivial and insignificant that it can be overlooked. The Court also pointed
out that obscenity deals with sex in a way that appeals to, or tends to, the
carnal aspects of human nature.
A censor's duties are not limited to the definition of obscenity. This

includes many more. In addition to whether the film in question goes
against the norm, the censor must decide whether it is
morally unacceptable, shocking, or disgusting to the viewer of the film. In
K.A Abbas v. Union of India91 the Supreme Court instructed censors to
adopt and apply the obscenity test set out in the Udheshi case.
Defamation
Defamation is both civil and a criminal wrong. It is the tarnishing of a

person’s image in the estimation of right thinking members of society. It is
defined as the publication of a statement which intends to lower a person
in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally, or which
tends to make them shun or avoid that person92. The Board of film
certification are required to prevent the display of images or words that
contain defamation of an individual or group.
91
(1971) AIR 481.
92
Winfield and Jolwiez on Torts (1971).
54
3.4 JUDICIAL APPROACH VIS A VIS FILM CENSORSHIP IN INDIA
Indian courts have consistently upheld and championed the fundamental

right to free speech and expression enshrined in the Constitution. This
includes the right to express different and opposing views, whether right or
wrong. The judgments from the Supreme Court of India and High Courts
clearly set out key issues relating to freedom of expression and censorship
by the state93.
Photo 3.1
The Constitutional validity of film censorship regulations was challenged

first time in Supreme Court in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India94.
In this case, the Supreme Court considered the important issue of pre
censorship of cinematograph films in relation to the fundamental
93
AP Shah,“The most precious of all freedoms “, The Hindu, 25 November 2011, available online
athttp://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-most-precious-of-all-freedoms /article 2656995. ece (last
accessed 20 November 2022)
94
(1971) AIR SC 481
55
right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution. The petitioner in this Case appealed the Censorship
Board's decision to deny issuance of a "U" certificate for the film “A Tale
of Four Cities”. While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, the
central government issued a 'U' certificate on the condition that certain cuts
were made to the film.
As petitioner's complaint was fully accepted, petitioner petitioned for

Amendment to address the issue of prior censorship in
general, so that those who have invested money in filmmaking can
obtain guidance on this important constitutional issue. The
amendment requested by motion was approved for consideration by
the Supreme Court.
Two questions were posed to the Court:
a. This pre-censorship itself cannot be tolerated due to freedom of speech

and expression and
b. Even if it is a legitimate restriction of liberty, it must be carried out

according to very specific principles that leave no room for arbitrariness
With all this in mind, Hidayatullah, CJ has made it clear that the censorship
of films including prior censorship is constitutionally valid in India as is a
reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). The Supreme Court concluded,
“The censorship of films, their age classification, and their suitability for
unrestricted exhibition with or without excisions,
constitutes a legitimate exercise of authority for public morals,
56
decency, etc. It should not be construed as violating freedom of speech
and expression.
The court further ruled:
India's censorship (and pre-censorship makes no difference in quality) has

full rights in the field of exhibition of films. Fundamental rights differ in
content and value. Film production and screening Censorship imposed on
is in the public interest. If the rules go beyond these justifiable
limits opening up, it can be questioned on the grounds that
legitimate powers are being abused. We therefore hold that censorship
of films, including prior restrictions, is justified by our Constitution.
The constitutionality of censorship was also upheld in the case of S.

Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram95. Case went to the Supreme
Court regarding the annulment of the “U” Certificate for Tamil Film In this
case, the Madras High Court invalidated the "U"
certificate issued to the film titled "Ore Oru Gramathile" ("In Just One
Village") and banned the screening of the film, citing a public outcry. The
film was criticized for reservation policy of the Government of Tamil
Nadu being caste-based and being unfair to intellectuals.
During the pendency of the case, the film won the National
Award from the Director of Film Festival, Government of India.
Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the case was
transferred from the High Court to the Supreme Court, where
the Court upheld the importance of freedom of speech and expression and
the role of film as a legitimate medium in its excercise.
Overturning the decision of the Madras High Court, the Supreme
Court ruled: although movie enjoys the guarantee under Article 19(1)(a)
95
(1989) 2 SCC 574.
57
but there is one important difference between the movies and the other
modes of communication. Movies motivate thoughts and actions and
provide high levels of attention and memory.
Given scientific advances in photography and production, film is now a

powerful communication tool. It has the unique ability to disrupt and
awaken emotions. He has just as much potential for evil as he does for
good. It has equal potential to teach or cultivate kinds of cruel or good
behavior.
The court criticized the state and said Freedom of expression cannot be
suppressed because of the threat of demonstrations and marches or the
threat of violence. Since freedom of speech is guaranteed by the state, the
state has a duty to protect it. It cannot be said that the state is
incapable of dealing with hostile audience problems.
“Lawful and constitutionally protected freedom of speech cannot be atoned

for by narrow groups of people. The fundamental freedoms under Section
19(1)(a) may be reasonably limited only for the purposes referred
to in Section 19(2), and the restriction must be justified by necessity and
not by convenience or semblance of convenience. Outright criticism of
government policies and operations is no basis for limiting
expression. We must be tolerant of the opinions of others. Bigotry is as
dangerous to democracy as it is to individuals themselves”96.
A television series or film is not subject to censorship because it is

broadcast on television only if it has been certified by the Commission.
There was an incident related to the TV series Tamas (Darkness) which
depicted the tension between Hindu-Muslims and Sikh-Muslims before the
partition of India. Appeal was preferred before
96
(1989) 2 SCC 574.
58
the Supreme Court against the judgment of Bombay High Court (which
allowed the telecast of the serial) in Ramesh v. Union of India97 to restrain
the screening of the serial as it was violative of Section 5B of the 1952 Act.
The complainant argued that airing the series on Durdarshan

(a state-owned television network) was a violation of public order and had
the potential to incite people to commit a crime. Supreme Court upheld the
High Court's decision and dismissed the petition.
Here, the Supreme Court concurred with the findings of Justice Vivian
Bose in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government98,that:
“The efficacy of words is to be judged by the standards of a reasonable

and strong mind and a firm and courageous man, not a weak and wavering
mind or one who senses danger from any hostile point of view”
It was believed that "taken as a whole" the film "can leave a lasting
impression on its message of peace and coexistence, and that
people will not become obsessed, overwhelmed or drawn to scenes
of violence and fantacism" as shown in the Film.
Commenting on the reactions of ordinary men, the court ruled that an

average man had learned from their past mistakes and would probably
never make those mistakes again.
Though, the series has received a "U" certificate from the Board.
In Odyssey Communications Private Limited v. Lokvidayan

Sanghatana99,the television series “Honi Anhonee” tried to
be stopped on grounds that it could spread blind beliefs and superstitions.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's injunction, holding that
97
(1988) 1 SCC 668.
98
(1947) AIR NAG 1
99
(1988) AIR SC 1642
59
the right of citizens to show films on television would be limited only in
the circumstances set forth in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
In another case, Doordarshan refused to broadcast a documentary

film about the gas disaster in Bhopal called "Beyond the Genocide", even
though film won the Golden Lotus Award for Best Nonfiction Film in 1987
and was granted Certificate "U" from the Censorship Board. The case was
referred to Supreme Court in Life Insurance Company of India v. Prof.
Manubhai D. Shah100,the reason cited by Doordarshan is that political
party in particular has raised various issues regarding the tragedy and
claims for compensation by victims are pending.
Upholding freedom of speech and rejecting the above claim, the Court held
that : merely Because film criticizes the state government is not a basis for
refusal to select and publish films. Therefore, considering
compensation claims does not lead to considering Subject to end the
entire movie in the community.
The Court clarified that under Article 19(2), citizens have the right
to publish, circulate and disseminate their views in order to form public
opinion on issues of national importance. Accordingly, all
attempts to prevent or refuse the same are subject to Art. 19(1)(a).
In these circumstances, “Burden would heavily lie on the

authorities seeking to impose it to show that the regulation is reasonable
and legally permissible.” That is, the burden of proving that the benefit of
the restriction of freedom was on the state is far greater than the damage
caused by speech or depiction.
The screening of the film “Bombay” in Telugu (Official Language of

Andhra Pradesh ) in Sree Raghavendra Films v Government of
100
(1993) AIR SC 171
60
Andhra Pradesh101 has been discontinued by
exercising the authority under Sec.8(1) of the A.P. Cinemas Regulation
Act,1955,despite being certified by the Censorship Board for
unrestricted broadcasting. The court found that the authorities
who issued the impugned order had not even seen the film. As a
result, Court quash the order as being arbitrary and not based
on adequate material.
Photo 3.2
In Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon102 Supreme

Court held that "films showing the effects of social evil must show it"
.Films that denigrate or promote social evil are not
allowed, but films that convey the message that social evil is evil cannot
be disapproved for portraying social evil.
“First, the scene where she is humiliated, stripped naked,

paraded, surrounded by hundreds of men and forced to draw water from
a well by Exposing her breasts and genitals to these men was intended by
those who undressed her to humiliate her. It couldn't do any better to
convey the impact she had on her than to make this scene explicit. This was
not to arouse desire in the audience ,but to arouse pity for the victim and
101
1 (1995) 2 ALD 81
102
(1996) 4 SCC 1
61
disgust for the perpetrator. “Bandit Queen” tells a powerful human story,
in which scene of Phoolan Devi's forced nude parade is central. This helps
to explain why Phoolan Devi became what
she was: her anger and revenge against the society that had heaped
indignities upon her”.
Anand Patvardhan's award-winning documentary "In Memory

of Friends" was rejected by Doordarshan for violence and terrorism
in Punjab despite being 'U' certified by Censor Board by saying that this
can fuel hatred between communities and lead to more violence. The
Bombay High Court overturned the ruling and held : “Everyone
has the fundamental right to form his or her own opinion on
any matter or cause in general. He can form and inform in legal way103
In another case, Bombay High Court overturned an FCAT

censorship order for film “Chand Bujh Gaya” in F.A. Picture
International v. Central Board of Film Certification104 and said that
"In a free society, censorship is tolerable within the
narrowest limits, strictly within the constitutional provisions."
The feature film Chand Bhuj Gaya tells the story of the hardships of a
young couple, a Hindu boy and a Muslim girl whose friendship and life are
torn apart by the riots in the state of Gujarat.
The court strongly criticized the role of the relevant authorities:
The Certification Authority and the Tribunal were plainly wrong in

rejecting the film because it contained people who looked like real people.
The constitutional protections enjoyed by film maker under Section
103
Anand Patwardhan v.Union of India,(1997) AIR BOM 25, 32
104
(2005) AIR BOM 145
62
19(1)(a) are not subject to the premise that film maker must portray
things that are not true. The choice is entirely up to him."
What mattered to CBFC and FCAT was that the film depicted
gruesome intergroup violence. CBFC also ruled that "violence in Gujarat
is a burning issue and hurts national sensibilities and screening of film is
sure to make things worse."
The Bombay High Court overturned both CBFC and FCAT's rulings and
said that “opposition is the essence of democracy, and those who question
obvious assumptions serve to change social norms. Democracy is based on
respect for their courage. Therefore, any attempt by the state to suppress
freedom of expression must be condemned.”
In the Da Vinci controversy, the Supreme Court also dismissed Court

Petition from the All India Christian Welfare Association to ban the film on
the grounds that the film hurts the religious sensibilities of Christians.
Additionally, no country with a predominantly Christian population
has banned the film, and applicants have not provided specific reasons for
banning the film in India105. In the states of Andhra Pradesh106, Kerala107
and Tamil Nadu108, respective high courts overturned bans imposed by the
state governments and charged the government with costs. Upholding the
right to freedom of speech and expression, the Courts found the
Government action “irrational” and “unconstitutional”.
In all those cases of Da Vinci, it was alleged that the film violated inter
alia, Article 25 of the Constitution with concern to the Christian
105
Court rejects petitions seeking ban on film, THE HINDU, June 13, 2006, available online at
http://www.hindu.com/2006/06/13/stories/2006061314410100.htm.(last accessed 23 November 2022).
106
Lakshmi Ganesh Films v. Gov’t of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) (4) ALD 374.
107
Kerala HC declines to ban The Da Vinci Code, THE TIMES OF INDIA, May 25, 2006, available at
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1568062.cms.( last accessed 23 November 2022).
108
Sony Pictures Releasing of India Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu,(2006) 3 M.L.J. 289.
63
community109.Especially in the case of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High
Court held that for the harmonization of Sections 25 and 19, it is clear from
reading these provisions that Section 25 rights are subject to other
provisions of Part III; which means they are subject to article 19(1). It was
also not clear to the court that how showing the film would interfere
with anyone's freedom of conscience or right to profess, practice, and
propagate a particular religion.
The aspect of the viewer's right to freedom of

information was not overlooked by the courts. Of course, freedom of
information is inextricably linked with freedom of speech. If the speaker
cannot express his/her opinion, the listener cannot receive that information.
In the case of Secretary, Ministry of I & B v. Cricket Association of
Bengal110, Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and
expression included "the right to receive and disseminate information to the
general public".
In Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa111 ,the Supreme Court declared

Section 6(1)112 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 ultra vires the Constitution
and held:
“The government decided, among other things, to create a quasi-judicial

body empowered to determine the effect of films on the public. When a
decision is made by a quasi-judicial body, such as Appellate Tribunal
(FCAT), which is composed of retired or qualified High Court Judges and
subject matter experts, the decision is final and binding upon
109
INDIA CONST. art. 25. cl. 1. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation
of religion. – Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all
persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and
propagate religion.
110
(1995) 2 SCC 161.
111
(2001) 1 SCC 582.
112
Provides revisional power to the central government.
64
administration and government. The executive must obey judicial orders.
Therefore, Article 6(1) is a parody of Article of the rule of law, one of the
basic structures of the Constitution. The executive cannot appeal,
review, or revise the judicial order113.”
At the same time, the court emphasized that the government should be
bound by the tribunal's final decision.
In CBFC v. Yadavalaya Films114, FCAT granted an "A" certificate to

the film Kutra Pathirikai subject to several cuts and deletions that
producer agreed to. The film deals with the assassination of former Prime
Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi and subsequent events including the
investigation and fate of the assassins and a
number of accomplices and masterminds.
However, CBFC challenged the FCAT order. Madras High Court

was of the opinion that the film should be granted an "A" certificate under
Certain Cuts and Deletes . CBFC appealed that decision. A Division Bench
of the Madras High Court after dismissing the appeal held that Each of the
pieces of evidence presented in the film is "a matter of public record and
public knowledge." It was held that
“Constitutional protection is not limited to fictitious representations of
artistic themes. Artists, directors and playwriters have the right to refer to
the events that occurred and present versions of events that they believe are
balanced depictions of social reality. The choice is entirely up
to the filmmaker. Critical evaluation is a cornerstone of democracy, and
the power of film as a medium of expression lies in its ability to contribute
to evaluation. ”
113
Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa (2001) 1 SCC 582.
114
1 (2007) 1CTC 1
65
Vital Media v. state of Punjab115 is the case about film “Sadda Haq”
, showing the real life of Punjab in the days of the militants. It was a
story about hockey player Kartar Singh Buzz. His circumstances stifled his
passion for the game and forced him to become an militant instead.
The story of film shows that many of India's highly gifted Sikh youth fell
victim to circumstances, becoming something they
never intended to be. The unregulated use of torture made the period from
1980 to the mid-1990s as one of the most disturbing periods in Punjab
history.
The film was scheduled for release on April 5, 2013. However, on 4

April 2013, the Punjab government issued a notice to suspend screenings of
films and pointed out that a committee set up by the Punjab government,
made up of Chief Secretary and other high officials,who viewed the film,
was of the opinion that screening the film could lead to public disorder.
Following this notice, another Notice dated April 5, 2013 was issued by
the NCT Government of Delhi and subsequently by the District Magistrate
of UT Chandigarh for exactly the same reasons.
One of the main reasons for banning of film screening was use of the
song "Baggi", which was allegedly used as a publicity engine for to
promote the film. Accordingly, Vital Media filed a writ petition in the
Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutionality of the stay order
and praying that the stay order be overturned so that the film can be
screened in the aforementioned three states.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court asked the
group made up of four well-informed senior lawyers116 practicing in the
Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, to watch the film and submit a report
115
(2013)WP (C) 205.
116
Fali Nariman, Rajiv Dhavan, Indira Jaising (Additional Solicitor General) and Rebecca John.
66
to the Hon’ble Court.The committee dismissed concerns from the Delhi,
Punjab and Chandigarh Union Territory governments that screening the
film would violate law and order.The lawyers submitted their written
opinion and recommended changing the film's certificate from 'U' to 'A',
which the petitioner accepted unconditionally. They also opinioned that the
song "Baggi" should not be used for advertising purposes or as a
background for a film. The song mentioned should never be equated with
the movie "Sadda Haq".
The Hon'ble Court also ordered the Censor Board to make a decision on the
issue and give the film an 'A' certificate by Monday 19 April 2013
because the movie has already been released in other parts of the country
and pirated CDs of the movie are circulating in the market.
The Court held that the suspension of the screening of the film
on grounds that it would lead to a violation of public order and required
preemptive action by the public authority was completely unreasonable.
After reviewing the report of a four-member committee that had
watch the movie a bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir said to
the Central Board of Film Certification which is the statutory authority, to
review its decision, after which the film could be released worldwide.
The Supreme Court refused to consider the public interest

litigation in seeking a ban on release of film “PK” for promoting nudity
and vulgarity. Rejecting the plea, the Supreme Court told the
petitioner, "If you don't like it, don't watch the film, but
don't put religious aspects in it, Additionally, "These are matters of art
and entertainment, let's leave them as they are117."
117
Available online at http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/aamir-khans-pk-in-another-legal-tanglepil-
seeking-ban-filed-in-sc/1/377072.html(last accessed 23 November 2022)
67
In the K. Ganeshan v. Film Certification Appellate Tribunal118, it was
held that "Film censorship must be applied on a case-by-case basis and
there cannot be a single policy determining whether a film is eligible for
public screening."
Photo 3.3 Udta Punjab Film Poster
The movie "Udta Punjab" has become a new controversial scene. The
case strikes a sharp balance between the need to censor films
and the way excessive censorship stifles creativity and freedom of
expression. The film has been under the control of the censorship board due
to use of cuss words, references to drug trafficking and state of Punjab etc.
The CBFC review committee approved films with 13 deletion. However,
the filmmakers raised the same objection in the Bombay High Court. The
Bombay High Court directed the Central Board of Film Certification
(CBFC) to issue an "A" certificate to films with one scene removed and a
modified disclaimer119.
118
(2016) SCC OnLine Mad 9355, decided on 29.09.2016.
119
Available online at http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/Udta-Punjab-set-to-soar-withone-cut-
%E2%80%98A%E2%80%99-certificate/article14420435.ece(last accessed 23 November 2022)
68
Recently, the CBFC refused to certify Prakash Jha's film “Lipstick Under
My Burkha” on the grounds that it promotes vulgarity120. The
film also allegedly fell victim to regressive censorship laws121.
3.5 CONCLUSION
The Indian Constitution protects the right of artists to portray social reality
in all its forms. Some of these descriptions may take the form of challenges
to established social values and norms. The beauty of literature lies in the
ability of its writer to criticise idiosyncrasies around.
In the same sense, a writer, producer and director of a film deserve the
freedom to depict the harsh realities of life. It would
be completely inappropriate to expect that in a film based on the theme
of community violence, the film would avoid mentioning what happened.
In addition, where there is a conflict between freedom of expression and
restrictions, a compromise must be made between freedom of expression
and special interests. In order to understand the object and purpose of
constitutional freedom of artists and writers, it would be apt to conclude by
referring to what Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had held in F.A. Picture
International v. Central Board of Film Certification122
“Artists, writers, playwrights and directors are the eyes and ears of a
free society. They are the true lungs of the free society because the power
of their medium imparts a breath of fresh air into the drudgery of daily
120
“Censor Board Strikes Again: Award-Winning Film „Lipstick Under My Burkha‟ Denied
Certification”, The Wire, 23 February 2017, available online at https://thewire.in/111434/censorboard-
strikes-award-winning-lipstick-burkha-denied-certification/( last accessed 23 November 2022).
121
A 2015 Report titled “Imposing Silence: The Use of India's Laws to Suppress Free Speech” brought
out as the result of a joint research project by the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) at the
University of Toronto, Faculty of Law; PEN Canada, the Canadian Centre of PEN International, PEN
International discussed the Indian regressive laws regarding censorship of literature and movies. See
“Twelve laws that make freedom of expression in literature, cinema and art difficult in India”, Scroll,
22 May 2015, available online at https://scroll.in/article/728997/twelve-laws-that-make-freedom-of-
expression-in-literature-cinemaand-art-difficult-in-india(last accessed 23 November 2022).
122
(2005)AIR BOM 145
69
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 critical views of prevailing social realities hold
important positions in the constitutional order. History tells us
that opposition in all spheres of life has contributed to social progress.
People who challenge undeniable assumptions contribute
to changing social norms.
Democracy is founded upon respect for their courage. Therefore,

any attempt by the State to suppress freedom of expression must
be condemned.”
70
CHAPTER 4 LEGISLATION OF FILM CENSORSHIP
4.1 EARLY CENSORSHIP LEGISLATION
England was the first country to pass specific legislation on

films with the Cinematograph Act of 1909. An immediate concern of
the UK Government was the enforcement of adequate fire safety
measures in cinema hall. The provisions of Law do not address security and
structural issues. Gradually, however, it was used for purposes other
than those originally intended, until, almost inevitably, the subject matter
of the film became subject to intervention under this Act. The BBFC
(British Board of Film Censors) was established by the film industry in
1912 in response to the unusual use of this act. BBFC
eventually established itself as the sole censorship body in the UK123.
In Norway, the government set up a censorship board in 1913 to

inspect films intended for release124.
In Denmark, a decree was issued on 1 January 1914, providing for a

censorship board to examine and certify films and unconditionally
approve them with or without cutting, or subject to the conditions under
which children under the age of 16 are not allowed to watch the film125.
Around the same time, Sweden also set up a Film Censorship Board.
In 1916, a censorship Commission was set up in France for examination

films and regulation of their exhibition nationwide. The aim was to prevent
123
2009)
124
Ibid
125
Ibid
71
the outbreak of disorder that might result from the exhibition of criminal
acts and modes of crime in films126.
In America , The Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission

litigation127 resulted in a federal court verdict that movies were
entertainment and as such not vehicles of protected speech. The case thus
legalized state and local censorship in the land of free speech.
Over the period of time, film censorship became the manifestation of a

complex of psychological phenomena applied in a social context seeking
preservation of morality and maintenance of ethical standards, religious
propriety, political stability and social hygiene.
4.2 LEGISLATION IN INDIA DURING PRE INDEPENDENCE

PERIOD
On 7 July 1896, India was introduced to novelty of motion pictures with

the first film show organized on by Maurice Sestier on the soils of India at
the Watson‟s Hotel in then Bombay. Maurice Sestier was a representative
of M/s. Lumiere Brothers of France who were instrumental in organizing
the first ever commercial show of live visuals projected on screen in
1895128 and thereby starting film history.Success of the show led to the
screening of more foreign films in India. The first full length feature film
made in India was Raja Harishchandra. This path breaking movie was
produced by Dadasaheb Phalke and was released on 3rd May 1913.As most
of the early Indian movies were based on mythological themes, the
producers of films had not yet realized the full potential of the newly
invented medium as a form of creative art, possessing aesthetic,
126
Ibid
127
236 US 230(1915).
128
The first exhibition of cinematograph took place in Paris on 28th December 1895 at Paris
72
entertaining and propaganda value. Censorship in these circumstances was
not scarcely necessary nor did anyone think of evolving rules and
regulations for censorship129.
Soon the popularity of cinema spread rapidly all over the country. Cinema
left behind the traditional forms of communication far behind by virtue of
its power of verisimilitude, or the appearance of being true. The British
rulers watched keenly the growing popularity of cinema across the length
and breadth of the country. They were concerned about the evocative
power it wielded, and its ability to transcend the boundaries of sense
experiences.In Britain, these concerns were taken care of by the
Cinematograph Act 1909. But in the colony they had different set of
apprehensions in relation to cinema.
In India, the first major legislative attempt to control cinema took place in
1918 when the Cinematograph Act130 was enacted. Initially there was an
effort In 1876, the Dramatic Performance Act was amended to include
provisions governing the screening of films. But the then secretary of the
home department thought that the film medium called for a special method
of surveillance.In his speech introducing the Indian Cinematograph Bill
1917 in the imperial Legislative Assembly, Sir William Vincent, the home
member in the Governor General’s Executive Council, had affirmed:
“Most other civilized nations are aware of the need to revise and amend
their existing laws governing the management of entertainment,
particularly with respect to the management of exhibitions. Two points are
to be considered:
a)Safety of the audience and
b)Prevention of objectionable films being exhibited.
129
The Report of the Enquiry Committee on Film Censorship (Government of India 1969).
130
Act 2 of 1918.
73
It is obviously necessary to guard against the exhibition of indecent and
improper films, or those which wound religious or racial feeling131.
The Indian Film Act of 1918132, which eventually evolved from Bill, paved
the way for an all-knowing and all-powerful film censorship system. The
exhibition of films was under the strict supervision of statutory authorized
government officials.
In order to ensure the safety of the audience and the prevention of

exhibition of objectionable films on Indian soil the statute provided for two
things-
(i) licensing of cinema theatres, and
(ii) censoring of films.
The law prohibited the exhibition of films elsewhere than in a place

licensed under the act by the licensing authorities and in violation of the
licence conditions133.The main consideration for licencing was, of course,
the safety of the persons attending exhibition of films134.
Two things were made mandatory:
obtaining a permit from the local authority by any prospective exhibitor &
Mandatory pre-censorship of all films, whether domestically produced or
imported from abroad. This was done to verify its suitability for
public display.
As regards certification of films for public exhibition, the statute

authorized the local or provincial Governments to constitute an Authority
for that purpose135.It did not lay down any principles to be followed by
131
Home (political)/November 1917/779-91 (Part B) file at the National Archives of India, New Delhi
132
The Act came into effect from 1 August 1920.
133
The Cinematograph Act 1918, s 3.
134
Ibid.
135
74
such authority while it decided the suitability or otherwise of films. Thus
we see that the law conferred very wide discretion on the authority to grant
or refuse certificate.
As far as licencing provisions were concerned, the act was generally

modeled on the British Statute, vis., the Cinematograph Act of 1909. As
local self-government system was not introduced into India at that time,
therefore, the Act of 1918 could not envisage licencing by local
governments. Because of this, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner
of Police was designated as the licencing authority under this act136.
However, the Indian model of censorship under the act of 1918 was
different from the British model. While the Indian censorial authorities
were institutionally part of the officialdom, the British practice was that the
job was carried out by local bodies and the board of censors.
The absence of local bodies and an organised association of the film

industry persuaded the British authorities to introduce a more practicable
method of censorship in India through official bodies.
Two years later, in 1920 censor boards were instituted in Bombay (Now
Mumbai), Calcutta (Now Kolkata), Madras(Now Chennai) and Rangoon
(Now Yangon137) to examine and certify films138.Subsequently, in 1927,
another censor board was established in Lahore139. These Boards were
authorised to carry on censorial activities with the help of inspectors.
Theses authorities initially worked without specific guidelines for

evaluating films. Section 8(2) of the Cinematograph Act 1918 conferred
power on the boards to frame rules for censorship of films. Exercising this
136
137
Former capital of Myanmar.
138
Monika Mehta, Censorship & Sexuality in Bombay Cinema (University of Texas Press 2012).
139
Ibid
75
power, the Boards drew up some guidelines for the Inspectors. The
guidelines issued by the Bombay Board were very elaborate and notable
furnishing a pattern for subsequent developments of censorship in India140.
The guidelines warned against rigidity and called for logical decisions
judging films on their own merits. The honest opinion of the inspectors on
the moral impact of a film was endorsed. Extenuation of crime,
glorification of criminals and vicious characters, contempt against the
institution of marriage, exhibition of nudity, character assassination,
disrespect to foreign nations, fermenting social unrest and spreading
disaffection or resistance to government were the important objectionable
practices prohibited under the guidelines. The Inspectors were to assess the
film on the basis of the impression likely to be made on an average cinema
audience in India. While considering the effect of a cinema, the bad
reputation, if any of the book on which it is based should also be taken into
consideration by Inspectors.
The Inspectors were further authorised to order for a change in the title or
subtitle of the film or to cut out portions from films. Further, the guidelines
listed forty two specific matters that were objectionable for public
exhibitions141.
The other boards in India also drew up rules for censorship but they were
less elaborate142. The Indian view was that such films polluted Indian
culture and norms of morality, and copied the worst in western films like
140
The Report of the Enquiry Committee on Film Censorship (Government of India 1969), 6-8 and 30,
31.
141
These were largely based on the well-known TP O‟Connor (Second President of the British Board
of Film Censors appointed in 1916).
142
The Bengal Board of Film Censors formulated four principles viz., moral, racial, religious and
political .These principles mentioned eight subjects as objectionable viz.,rape,drawing of young girls
astray,prostitution,feminine nudity,scenes showing women in drunken state,exaggerated scenes of
debauchery at cabarets,desecration of places of worship ,torture or cruelty scenes by whites against
blacks or vice versa
76
excessive love making, indecently dressed woman, scenes of cruelty and
torture, criminal acts and the use of violence.
4.2.1 Criticism of the working of the 1918 Act
In time the Indian film industry began to develop. Coming out of their shell
of religious themes they began to imitate the American movies shown in
India mostly of a lower quality. This led to lots of criticism of the
functioning of the censors in India. Even in England, articles critical of the
functioning of the boards were written143.
The Secretary of State for India in one of his minutes (1924) regarded the
film censorship system in India as inadequate and emphasized that the
censor should himself see the film and should not entrust the job to “low
paid Inspectors”.
Eventually, the colonial authorities formed the Indian Cinematograph

Inquiry Committee in 1927144.Headed by a prominent Indian lawyer, T.
Rangachariar, the terms of reference of the committee included
examination of the organization and the principles and methods of
censorship, survey of the organization for the exhibition of cinematograph
films and the film producing industry, and consideration of the steps to be
taken to encourage the exhibition of film produced within the British
Empire generally and the production and exhibition of Indian film in
particular145.
The committee rejected the old criticisms on censorship, and cleared the
Censor Boards of the charges of laxity and dereliction of duty. The
committee further found that the cinema was not responsible for increase
143
Westminster Gazette, November 17, 1921.
144
Monika Mehta, Censorship & Sexuality in Bombay Cinema (University of Texas Press 2012).
145
The Report of the Enquiry Committee on Film Censorship (Government of India 1969) 12-14.
77
in delinquency or in shaping the modus operandi of criminals. Based on
the evidence of police witnesses, the committee opined that cinema had not
in any way, increased the criminal propensity of an individual. The opinion
of the committee was that most of the criticism against cinema was based
on vulgar posters and advertisements and in many cases the critics entirely
relied on these posters and advertisements without seeing the films. Setting
up of a Central Board of Film Censors with a whole-time chairman and
non-official members, appointment of whole time Chief Censor and deputy
Censors and provision for an appeal from the decision taken by the board
were some salient features of its liberal approach to censorship 146.The
committee was against any classification. Still, it recommended for the
adoption of the then existing British practice of issuing two types of
certificates, one for universal public exhibition and the other for public
exhibition restricted to adults147.
The committee’s recommendations remained unimplemented for a long

time probably because they gave a green signal to the working of the then
existing Boards or because political and constitutional issues stood in the
way.
4.3 POST INDEPENDENCE DEVELOPMENT
Theoretically, there was indeed no need for the rulers of independent India
to carry forward the colonial legacy, called film censorship. But they
surprised everybody by choosing to retain the system of film censorship in
the postcolonial era.
146
Ibid
147
Ibid
78
Towards the end of 1948, The governments of Bombay and Madras issued
"Production Codes", including a set of proposals to guide filmmakers. The
Code was written "to ensure that cinema plays its proper role in building a
healthy national life". The industry did not reject the Code. But the Code
did not lead to any substantial change148.
Since the days of the interim government, the film trade had begun to
express itself strongly in favour of a centralized system of film censorship
in order to weed out the regional differences in judgments.In the immediate
post-independence scenario, the government allowed regulation of films
for exhibition and of cinemas themselves to be carried out under the
provisions of the Cinematograph Act 1918, wherein power of certifying
films for exhibition remained with the state governments.
Situation changed with the passage of Government of India (Amendment)

Act 1949 which was brought to amend the Government of India Act 1935
that was still in force in matters of general governance.
Under Section 3(b)(1A)(b) of this amendment, the executive powers of

the central government have been extended to provisions relating
specifically to matters relating to the approval of cinematograph film. The
central government soon put sanctions on the exhibition of film under the
union list. This was a significant shift, as in the Government of India Act
1935, censorship of films was a current subject, which meant that it was
under the joint control of the central and the provincial governments. Now
the Central Legislature could pass laws in this matter, even superseding
Provincial Laws, but the responsibility of executive action was solely on
the Provincial Governments.
PM Bakshi, “Censorship of Films: Some Glimpses from history”, Lawyers Collective (6 June
148
2001), available online at http://www.lawyerscollective.org/mag/2001/6-jun.pdf (last accessed on 28

November 2022).
79
The central government utilized its newly found authority by passing the
Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1949149 . Although, it was still related
to the pre-independence Cinematograph Act 1918. It introduced two
categories of censor certificates: „U‟ for unrestricted exhibition and “A”
for exhibition restricted to adults only (people above the age of eighteen
years).
On 29 August, 1949, the Government of India appointed a Film Enquiry

Committee under the chairmanship of S.K.Patil, who was a member of
constituent Assembly.
The directives before the committee were:
a) to examine the growth and organization of the Indian film industry

and provides directions for its future development and
b) to examine what measure should be adopted to enable films in India to

develop into an effective instrument for promotion of national culture ,
education and healthy entertainment.
The committee so appointed supported the centralization of censorship in

the country.
As a result the Cinematograph (Second Amendment) Act, 1949150 .The

very objective of this amendment was to centralize the machinery for
censorship of films. For this, Section 6 to 9 of the Cinematograph Act 1918
were thoroughly rewritten. By setting up a Central Board of Film
Certification (CBFC), a centralized film censorship regime was formally
put in place under the sole control of the central government. With effect
from 15 January, 1951, the autonomy of the regional boards was abolished.
But the Regional Boards, retained with them powers of previewing films.
149
Act 39 of 1949.
150
Act 62 of 1949.
80
Another change was conferment on the central Government of an appellate
jurisdiction. The central government was given power to make rules
providing for the conditions under which censorial powers were to be
exercised by the authority and a reserve power to overrule the decisions of
the Board. The State Governments or local authorities were conferred with
the power to suspend the exhibition of a film if they were satisfied that the
film was likely to cause a breach of peace.
The Cinematograph (censorship) Rules 1951 were consequently

promulgated under section 9(1) and (2) of the Cinematograph Act 1918 (as
amended up to 1949).These set out the composition of the centralized
Board and its ways of functioning.
Another major development of that time was adoption of the Constitution

on 26 January 1950, which declared India as a sovereign democratic
republic granting several fundamental rights to Indian citizens. These were
listed under Article 19(1).
The Right to freedom of Speech and Expression was on top of this list as
Article 19(1)(a):
All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Exceptions to this freedom were granted under Article 19(2), which read:
Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall effect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevents the state from making any
law relating to, libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any matter
which offends against decency or morality or which undermines the
security of, or tends to overthrow the State.
With the commencement of the Constitution of India some changes

occurred in the powers of State and central Governments relating to
cinema. The Center became the competent body for the matter
81
of "approving cinematograph films for screening"151.The power of the state
to deal with cinemas was subject to the power of the Centre 152.In the
changed setting there was difficulty in administering the then existing law
relating to cinema. There were calls for greater Central Control and for
separation of film censorship from cinema house licencing.
Moreover, there were series of judgments in 1950 and 1951, striking down
statutes that did not restrict the exercise of regulatory executive powers to
grounds authorized in Article 19(2).
In prompt reaction to this development, the government enacted the

Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951. It fundamentally altered the
spirit and scope of the original Article 19(2). It was in this state of affairs,
that the Cinematograph Act 1952 was passed. The new legislation unveiled
the post-colonial agenda for pre censorship of films in independent India.
4.4 AN INSIGHT INTO THE CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1952
4.4.1 Brief Introduction
Britishers brought silent films from England to India for their private
entertainment in their bungalows. But this form of entertainment could not
remain limited to their bungalows for long. With the passage of time,
cinemas sprang up in the country and took the fancy of Indian
public In response to this situation, the legislature passed the
Cinematograph Act of 1918 to regulate the screening of cinema
film, certification and licensing as suitable for public display. Post-
independence, although the 1918 Act was amended in 1949 but that was
not sufficient to meet the changed circumstance after independence of the
151
The Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule , List I , Entry 60.
152
Ibid ,List II, Entry 30.
82
country. Hence the cinematograph Bill was introduced in the parliament.
After getting passed by both the houses of Parliament, the bill received the
assent of the President on 21st March, 1952. It came into effect from 28th
July, 1952153
4.4.2 Statement of Objects and Reasons
The ostensible purpose behind the enactment of The Cinematograph Act

1952 was the separation of the provisions relating to the sanctioning of
films for exhibition (Union subject154) from the provisions relating to the
licensing and regulation of cinemas (State subject155) in order to redefine
the whole system for content control in cinema.
4.4.3 Parts and Application of The Cinematograph Act, 1952
The Cinematograph Act, 1952 was divided into parts I, II, III and IV. Parts
I, II and IV extended to the whole of India except Jammu & Kashmir, and
part III was applicable to Part C states only. Part I of the Act comprised of
the preliminary sections dealing with definitions and application of the Act.
Part II of the Act dealt with certification of films for public exhibition. It
contained Sections 3 to 9.
Section 3 formalised the existence and responsibility of a centralised Board

by saying
“The Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette,

constitute a Board of Film Censors, consisting of such number of persons
as may be prescribed, for the purpose of sanctioning and certifying films
153
S.R.O.1066, dated the 10thJune ,1952,published in Gazette of india,1952,Pt.II, Sec.3 945
154
Entry 60 of the Union List.
155
Entry 33 of the State List.
83
as suitable for unrestricted public exhibition or for public exhibition
restricted to adults and prescribed in the manner in which the board shall
exercise the powers conferred on it by this act”.
Using the constitutional provisions of the seventh schedule, Section

4 of that Act reads:
1) If, after examination, the board determines that the film is suitable
for unrestricted public exhibition, or is not suitable for

such exhibition, but is only suitable for
adult public exhibition, it shall grant the person applying for a
certificate in respect of the film a “U” certificate in the former case
and an “A” certificate in the latter case, and make the film marked
in the prescribed manner, and any such certificate shall,be valid
throughout India.
2) If the Board determines that a film is not suitable

for either unrestricted public screening or restricted public
screening for adults, it shall inform the person applying for the
certificate of its decision.
So we see that initially, there was no express provision that enabled the
Board to demand deletion or modification in a film before it was granted
certificate.
Under Section 8, the central government reserved for itself the power to
make rules. To give effect to this provision, the Cinematograph
(Censorship) Rules 1951 were revalidated in order to govern the operations
of CBFC.
A four-page document called "Guidelines for Examining Committees on

the Principles to Follow in Deciding Whether a Film is Eligible for Public
Screening" was also prepared and published.It contained a detailed list of
84
objectionable matters in films as it is desirable that there shall, as far as
possible, be the single criterion for determining whether a film
is eligible for unrestricted public screenings or adults-
only public screenings156.
4.4.4 1953 Changes
In order to strengthen the revisional powers of the government and to make

the penalty clauses more deterrent, the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act
1953 was passed. The act specified that the central government could at
any time suspend the exhibition of a film for such period as may be
specified but not exceeding two months.
Another major change made in 1953 was alteration of the Cinematograph

Censorship Rules, 1951. Initially a certificate for permitting exhibition was
issued on the basis of prior examination. The then existing values and
trends were applied in such examination. To expect that a certificate once
granted with regard to the then conditions would never fall out of tune with
prevalent standards was unreasonable. To make such examination
reasonable, Cinematograph Censorship Rules, 1951 were altered in order
to limit the validity of a censorship certificate to five years.
4.4.5 1954 Directive
In place of the original CBFC Guidelines issued in 1951, in September

1954, the CBFC re-issued "Guidelines for Examining Committees"
concerning the principles to follow when determining whether a film is
suitable for public screening.
The new guidelines lay out three general principles of censorship
156
2009) 78.
85
1. No picture can be certified for public display if it lowers the moral
standards of those who see it. Therefore, public sympathy must not
be directed on the side of crime, misconduct, evil or sin.
2. The standard of living taking into account the standards of the

country and people to which the story refers should not be
portrayed in a way that corrupts the morality of the audience.
3. Prevailing laws must not be ridiculed so much as to arouse sympathy

for violating such laws.
CBFC developed these principles in a series of detailed guidelines covering

different undesirable parameters.
These were related to crime, immorality, relations between opposite sexes,

exhibition of the human body, attitude towards public servants, promotion
of social disorder and unrest and the sensitivities of foreign nations.
4.4.6 Cinematograph Amendment Bill 1956
On 17 August 1956, the Lok Sabha passed a private member’s resolution,

moved by C.R. Narsimham, suggesting that the government should seek
additional powers for improving the standard of films in the interest of
national unity and progress. Consequently a Cinematograph Amendment
Bill was introduced in December 1956 to provide for the construction of a
National Film Board for the purpose of promoting the development of
films as a medium of culture, education and healthy entertainment and for
the regulation of exhibitions by means of the Cinematograph. But the bill
was dropped in August 1957, on grounds of economic difficulties.
86
4.4.7 Cinematograph Amendment Act 1959
This act heralded a thorough overhauling of the principal Cinematograph

Act 1952.Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 were substituted for by newly framed
sections 3, 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C and 6. These revised sections spelt out the
functions of the CBFC and the central Government more elaborately than
in the Principal Act. The most important feature of this amendment is
that section 5B of the amended Act includes the “Guiding Principles for
Film Certification”.
This section consisted of two clauses, as follows:
1. The film may not be released to the public in the opinion of

the authority responsible for issuing certificates, the film or any
part thereof is contrary to national security, friendly relations with
foreign countries, public order, decency or morality , or defamation
or contempt of court, or likely to provoke a criminal purpose.
2. Subject to the provisions contained in subsection (1), Central

Government
may issue any orders it deems appropriate establishing the
principles to be followed by the authorities competent to issue
certificates Under this Act when authorizing films for
public exhibition.
These clauses therefore provide for two things. First, it incorporated in the
statute books the specific grounds on which public exhibition of any film,
or a part of it, could be forbidden. Second, it expressly authorized
sanctioning of films for public exhibition .The hegemony of the state over
the film medium was complete.
87
4.4.8 Guidelines of 1960
Consequently, in 1960 Government of India itself issued a set of guidelines

regarding censoring of films. This was done by the Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting by a notification dated February 6, 1960 under section
5B (2) of the amended Act 1952. These set out the principles, which would
guide the CBFC in sanctioning films for public exhibition.
Through these guidelines the government abolished whatever leverage the

CBFC was granted regarding film censorship in the 1950s and with the
installation of a triad of act, rules and guidelines, devised and monitored
by the bureaucracypolitician nexus , the state’s hegemony over the entire
pre-censorship machinery was complete.
4.4.9 Procedural Changes for Examination of Films in 1963
The newly introduced Section 4 of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act

1959 necessitated certain changes in the procedure for examination of films
by the CBFC. These changes were incorporated by introducing two
amendments to the Cinematograph(Censorship) Rules in 1963.
In May 1963, the Cinematograph (Censorship) Amendment Rules1963

provided for a final appeal to the central government by an applicant who
was dissatisfied with the verdict of the CBFC. Then in September 1963,
the Cinematograph (Censorship) Second Amendment Rules 1963 provided
that the chairman of the CBFC might on his own behalf or on the request
of an applicant, refer a film to a revising Committee subsequent to its
examination in the examining committee.
88
4.4.10 After Nehruvian Era
First evaluation of film censorship was done by the Estimate Committee

(1966- 67) of the Third Lok Sabha in 1966.However this committee could
not finalise its report due to sudden dissolution of the LokSabha on 3 March
1967. A new Estimates Committee, constituted under the fourth Lok Sabha
examined the minutes of evidence prepared by its predecessor and came
down to its own conclusions.
Its core suggestions were
1. Relocation the Head quarter of the CBFC in a central city
2. Cut down administrative cost Made a general appeal to the government

to evolve a new national policy encompassing both film production and
film censorship in consultation with film industry
It called for a suitable modification of the censorship code in order to

reflect the spirit of the times.
4.4.11 Khosla Committee 1968
The completely government dominated system of film censorship was

subject to severe criticism from all quarters especially by the film industry.
On May 7, 1965 the Rajya Sabha passed a resolution demanding for a
thorough enquiry into the working of the censorship regulations in India.
Accordingly, the central government decided in 1968 to establish a Film
Censorship Inquiry Commission chaired by Judge G. D. Khosla
to investigate the operation and related issues of the existing procedure for
certification of cinematograph picture films for
public screening in India157.
157
Resolution No.14/35/64 F.C dated 28th March 1968 by the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting
89
The committee conducted extensive studies and produced an excellent and
elaborate report. Its recommendations though controversial, were
notable.They said that Regional Boards should be abolished158.In their
place the central board should exercise the whole censorial powers. The
Board should consist of about twenty persons drawn from different regions
and should view all films before certification is given. The decisions of the
Board shall be made final and the Central Government should be diverted
of its appellate as well as revisional powers159. Significantly the committee
recommended for scrapping the entire directions. Another remarkable
recommendation of the Committee was to widen the categories of
certificates. The commission opined that the censor while censoring films
should evaluate the overall impression of the films on the viewers .This
recommendation was in due course accepted by the government although
many remained unimplemented, to a great extent.
4.4.12 K.A Abbas Case 1969
Soon after the submission of the Khosla report, the Supreme Court had the
occasion to examine the validity of censorship regulations .The Court
upheld the validity of these regulations. It laid emphasis on the need for
flexibility in approach by the censors. The court insisted that the censors
should take into account the artistic excellence in presenting the theme by
film makers. This line of thinking led the court to disapprove the
mechanism of Government or in other words the bureaucracy to hear
appeals against censorial decisions and make a suggestion for institution of
an independent appellate authority which the government conceded in the
case160.
158
The Report of the Enquiry Committee on Film Censorship (Government of India 1969) 100
159
Ibid, p.95
160
See also AG Noorani, “Censorship and the State”, Frontline (10-23 September 2011), available
online at http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2819/stories/20110923281909100.htm (last accessed 30
Nov 2022).
90
4.4.13 Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1973
Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1973 was passed by the parliament in

order to extended the domain of the Cinematograph Act 1952 to the state
of Jammu and Kashmir. Although it was another matter, quite unrelated to
the ongoing issue but having some bearing on film censorship.
With great enthusiasm and zeal and in pursuance of the recommendations

of the Khosla Committee, the Central Government piloted an amendment
to the Cinematograph Act in 1974.
Accordingly the power of the Regional was taken away and the Central
Board161 was enjoined to preview films for censorship with the help of
panel of assessors. The amendment provided for a Revising Committee 162
for the purpose of review by the Board. It proposed for the establishment
of Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals against the decisions of CBFC163.The
Central Government would have all the comprehensive power to revise the
decision of the board and the appellate tribunal.Act was to come into force
from 1 July 1975. But it was set aside. The official reason put forward
mentioned that the Cinematograph (Rules), which were also to be amended
by another set of rules to implement the Amendment Act, had not yet been
notified.
161
The Central Board of Film Censors was to consist of a Chairperson, five other whole time, salaried
members and six honorary members appointed by the Central Government. The Cinematograph
(Amendment) Act 1974, Section 3.
162
It would comprise the chairperson, one whole-time member and one honorary member
163
The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1974, s 10
91
4.4.15 Censorship Guidelines 1978
Another significant event in the field of censorship took place in 1978. The
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued fresh guidelines 164 to the
CBFC. In fact they did not deal with new areas but considerably simplified
the old directions and made them compact. This was ostensibly done as a
result of scathing attack on the 1960 guidelines by the Khosla Committee,
which insisted that the guidelines should not go beyond the scope of
restrictions enumerated in Article 19(2).
Emphasis was laid on the broad objectives of film censorship, which as per
guidelines were to ensure that the medium of film remains responsible and
sensitive to the value and standards of society, artistic expression and
creative freedom are not duly curbed and censorship is responsive to social
change.
Attention of the Board was drawn to some specific objectionable matters

in cinema. These were: glorification or justification of violence, modus-
operandi of criminals or other visuals or words likely to incite the
commission of any offence, pointless or avoidable scenes of violence,
cruelty and horror, vulgarity, obscenity and depravity, visuals or words
contemptuous of racial , religious or other groups, depiction of scenes or
visuals affecting sovereignty and integrity of India ,security of the state,
friendly relations with foreign states or public order and visuals and words
involving defamation or contempt of court165.
Under these guidelines the CBFC was for the first time advised to take into
consideration the overall impact of a film.
164
Via Notification No. S.O.9 (E0 dated 7 January 1978).
165
Paragraph 2 of the Censorship Guidelines 1978.
92
4.4.16 Working Group on National Film Policy 1979
A Conference of State Information Ministers, held on 14 November 1977,

recommended the revival of the efforts towards the formulation of a
National Film Policy166.In the wake of emergency, the Janta Party
government took it up as a means to upstage the previous regime.
Accordingly, a working group on National Film Policy was set up167 under
the chairmanship of Dr. K.S Karanth. The group came out very strongly
against the Revisional Powers of the Central Government. It recommended
that except on grounds of integrity and sovereignty of India, security of
state and friendly relations with foreign states, the revisional and appellate
powers of the central government over the decisions of CBFC shall be
taken away and given to a proper judicial tribunal.
Another significant recommendation was the introduction of an additional

category of censorship certificate with a view to warning the parents on the
unsuitability of the film to be seen by children below twelve years of age,
which they called UA.
The organizational structure of the Board envisaged by the 1974

amendment was endorsed by the Working Group168.Further it
recommended for the introduction of three additional Regional Boards at
Bangalore, Hyderabad and Trivandrum in order to strengthen the
enforcement machinery under the Act169. According to the Working Group,
the Board should constantly try to maintain a balance in a continuously
changing environment170.
166
As suggested during the National Film Seminar in November 1976.This seminar was organized by
the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on from 1-3 July 1976 under the chairmanship of Styajit
Ray
167
Set up by Government of India Resolution no. 5/6/77-F(1) dated 8 May 1979.
168
Report of the Working Group on National Film Policy (Government of India 1980) 78-79
169
Ibid pg. 79
170
Ibid
93
There was a regime change in January 1980. The new government reverted
to the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1974, which could not be
implemented earlier. The government promised to initiate immediate
exercise to formulate a new one, taking into consideration the
recommendations of both the Khosla committee and working group.
The 1981 Act changed the name of the Central Board of Film Censorship
to the Central Board of Film Certification to underline a more tolerant
attitude of the government.
Membership of the board was increased from nine to not less than twelve
and not more than twenty five.
Accepting the suggestion of the Karanth Group, the act expanded the two-
fold classification of films, namely the ‘U’ and ‘A’ categories. Two more
categories were introduced –“UA” for unrestricted public exhibition
subject to the film being endorsed with the caution to the parents/guardians
to satisfy themselves as to whether they would like their children or wards
below the age of twelve years to see a film and “S” for public exhibition
restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons with
specific interest in the nature , content and theme of a film.
The 1981 Act also amplified the principles of certification of films under
section 5 B (1) of the principal act. This was in the light of amendment
effected to Article 19(2) of the Constitution by the Constitution (Sixteenth
Amendment) Act 1963 which added to the clause one more restriction –
„in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India‟ on the freedom of
expression. It provided for constitution of an appellate tribunal.
Such tribunals should consist of a chairman and not more than four other
94
members appointed by the central government. The Chairperson was to be
a person who was a retired judge of a High court or someone qualified to
be a judge of a High Court. As regards the qualification of the four other
members, it was simply stipulated that that they should be such persons
who, in the opinion of the central government, were qualified to judge the
effect of films on the members of the public.
The said act gave the central government more powers to deal strongly with
cases of violation of the conditions of censor certificate like exhibition of
uncensored films, exhibition of certified films with portions directed to be
deleted by the CBFC, exhibition of films with portions not shown to the
CBFC(interpolation), showing adult films to non-adults, failure to comply
with any order of the central government or the CBFC in exercise of the
powers conferred on it by the 1952 Act or rules there under. As a response
to this, the central government was given power to suspend or revoke the
certificate granted by the CBFC in cases of public exhibition in
contravention of the provisions of Part II of the principal Act or rules made
thereunder.
The said amendment act came into effect from 1 June 1983, more than one
and a half year after notification. The delay was necessitated by the
government’s intention to formulate and bring simultaneously into effect
the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983 to replace the
Cinematograph (Censorship) Rules 1958.
Significant features of these rules were: -
1. Clear provisions for fair representation of women on boards (Rule 3
A)
2. The creation of a new post of Chief Executive Officer at the
headquarters in Bombay Rule 9(1).
95
On the whole it ushered in a new era in the history of film censorship in
India.
The basic objective of this amendment was to provide for more stringent
punishment for contravention of the provisions of censor certificate as laid
down in Part II of the principal act and the rules framed accordingly.
In the eighties, both the state and commercial film industry encountered
threats on account of the video boom in the country. Whereas the state
wondered how to regulate theses new media, the film industry sought ways
to lure audiences to theatres. In addition viewers had access to pirated
videos of new or prohibited films. Cable television also increased access
to films. In any neighborhood, viewers could easily ask their local cable
service to screen films of their choice. The fact that the new media
circumvented state authority and in the process gave the public access to
unregulated material provoked the anxieties of the state. Due to these
developments, exercise of control over mediating technologies was at
stake. It had become easier for some unscrupulous persons to violate the
norms attached to censor certificate as there was an effort by certain owners
of video parlours to claim immunity from the conditions of censorship for
exhibition of films. The state sought to expand its control over these
technologies by passing new laws that policed video piracy and required
video certification.
4.4.19 The Indecent Representation Of Women (Prevention) Act 1986
As an indirect result of the passing of the Indecent Representation of

Women (prevention) act 1986 the following item was added to the 1978
Guidelines:Scenes involving sexual violence against women, like attempt
96
to rape, gang-rape, murder or any other form of molestation, or scenes of a
similar nature shall be avoided and if for any reason such scenes are found
to be inevitable for the sequence of a theme they shall be properly
scrutinized so as to ensure that they do not create any adverse impression
on the viewers and the duration of such scenes shall be reduced to the
shortest span.
4.4.20 Certification Guidelines 1991
Till 1989, film censorship/certification had three main objectives, namely

responsibility and sensitivity of the film medium to “the values and
standards of society”, respect for „artistic expression and creative freedom‟
and responsiveness to “social change”. In 1991, the Central Government
issued new guidelines in order to guide the process of film certification.
The guidelines included two more goals: providing "clean and
healthy entertainment" and promoting "good standard" films. The said
guidelines have guided the process of certification for the past two and a
half decades.
97
4.5 CONCLUSION
The development and popularity of Cinema in India had put the Legislators
a tough task to deal with. What we see here is that until 1918, the film
maker and the film exhibitor in India enjoyed total freedom .For all
practical purposes, film censorship began in India with the passing of the
Cinematograph Act in 1918.
Soon Censor boards were set up, in accordance with the terms of the said
Act. The said colonial legacy was retained in the post-independence period.
Eventually, Cinematograph Act 1952 was passed.
The Law had to run behind the artistic work to ensure the morality and
cultural values in India. The kinds of Films being released were out of
reach of the prevailing law for the reason of creativity behind such work.
One major challenge was that, we could not have applied the similar laws
prevailing in other countries or adopts such character for the reason of
difference in the culture, language and ethics involved. The Cinema was
not limited to entertainment but also enshrining the problems in the society
but eventually the shift to global issues became important and hence to
regulate the same was a herculean task.
The amendments from time to time were incorporated to ensure a

mechanism followed to applaud the artistic creativity as well as meeting
up the moral, cultural and religious norms in India.
To sum up, what we see here is that, as on date, the CBFC discharges its
function of certification in accordance with the following provisions:
a) The Cinematograph Act 1952
b) The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983
98
c) The Guidelines issued in 1991 by the central government under Section
5B of the Cinematograph Act.
In addition, CBFC is required to take into consideration the provisions of

the following Acts, Rules and Guidelines while certifying films:
 Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 read with the Cable
Television Network Rules, 1994.
 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
 Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and

regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution)
Act, 2003& Rules 2004.
 Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
 Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971.
 Drug and Magic Remedies Act
99
CHAPTER 5 POLITICS UNDER FILM CENSORSHIP
5.1 POLITICS
In August 2014, CBI171 arrested the then CEO of CBFC172

Rakesh Kumar for accepting bribes to clear Chhattisgarhi films under
emergency accreditation clauses173. The arrests cast doubt on the
functioning of the CBFC. Then, in January 2015, Lila Samson, then CBFC
president, resigned, in the midst of debate over clearance for Messenger of
God featuring Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh174.Soon
after, more than half of the other board members resigned. The
resignation came after complaints of interference, coercion and corruption.
Actually the ban of the said movie was revoked by FCAT175 . Leela and 13
members protested that the government was treating the board in a high
handed and cavalier way176.Samson did face external pressure in the past
also when the CBFC refused a government demand to trim scenes from
PK, a movie depicting the emergence of self-styled gurus in the society.
“There was total interference on every film, big and small”, said Samson
after resigning.
171
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the national investigation agency for investigation and
collection of criminal intelligence information in India.
172
Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is a statutory body under the Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting, Government of India regulating the public exhibition of films under the provisions
of the Cinematograph Act 1952. Available online at http://cbfcindia.gov.in/ (last accessed 30
November 2022).
173
“Simply put: How does the Censor Board work; why is it controversial?”, Indian Express (7
December 2015), available online at http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/simply-put-howdoes-
the-censor-board-work-why-is-it-controversial/ (last accessed 30 November 2022)
174
Ibid
175
The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) is a statutory body, constituted under Section 5D
of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952), under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India. The Tribunal hears the appeals filed under Section 5C of the Act under which
any applicant for a Certificate in respect of a film who is aggrieved by an order of the Central Board of
Film Certification (CBFC), can file an Appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has its headquarters in
New Delhi. Available online at http://mib.nic.in/fcat/( last accessed 30 November 2022)
176
Ibid
100
Soon after resignation of Samson, the Bollywood director Pahlaj Nihalani,
who was the mind behind the BJP campaign video “Har Har Modi Ghar
Ghar Modi’, was designated in her place. Almost every new member which
was subsequently appointed to the board was linked with BJP-RSS177. The
composition of the new board - especially the number of BJP sympathisers
on it - does little to allay the accusations made by Samson and her co-
workers. In a televised interview, Nihalani said he is proud to be a "BJP
man" and called Modi "an action hero" and "the voice of the nation".
One of the CBFC newly appointed members even ran for the 2014 General
Election on a BJP ticket178
Immediately after taking charge, Pahlaj Nihlani focused on cleaning up

Indian cinema179. He blamed the previous government for all the current
problems of the Board. He came up with a list of words and actions that
India’s film censorship board sought to enforce their ban in films. Although
the list was kept on hold on account of media uproar, but it again
questioned the way CBFC works.
Nihalani touts a desire to restore the CBFC's "battered image", but almost
every month there is talk of the CBFC and its boss, Pahlaj Nihalani180. A
few filmmakers have whined of arbitrary “suggested” cuts or objections by
CBFC. NH 10, produced by Anushka Sharma, had certain words muted
177
“I‟m proud to be a BJP man and Narendra Modi is my „action hero‟, new censor board chief Pahlaj
Nihalani says”, The Times of India (20 January 2015), available online at
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Im-proud-to-be-a-BJPman-
and-Narendra-Modi-is-my-action-hero-new-censor-board-chief-Pahlaj-
Nihalanisays/articleshow/45956537.cms (last accessed 30 November 2022).
178
“I‟m proud to be a BJP man and Narendra Modi is my „action hero‟, new censor board chief Pahlaj
Nihalani says”, The Times of India (20 January 2015), available online at
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Im-proud-to-be-a-BJPman-
and-Narendra-Modi-is-my-action-hero-new-censor-board-chief-Pahlaj-
Nihalanisays/articleshow/45956537.cms (last accessed 30 November 2022).
179
“Simply put: How does the Censor Board work; why is it controversial?, Indian Express (7
December 2015), available online at http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/simply-put-howdoes-
the-censor-board-work-why-is-it-controversial/ (last accessed 30 November 2022).
180
Ibid
101
out despite it’s Adult certification181. Titli’s producer Dibakar Banerjee and
director Kanu Behl had to mute nearly all cuss word from their film despite
being certified Adult.
A kissing scene in the latest James Bond film, Spectre, has been
abbreviated182. Notwithstanding deliberate cuts and mutings of cuss words,
the CBFC examining committee asked the makers of Angry Indian
Goddesses to beep out reference to a man as a woman’s lunch, and obscure
visuals of goddesses Lakshmi and Kali183.Than recently there was lots of
politics over depiction of drug abuse in Punjab in Udta Punjab.
5.2 BASIC ISSUES
All these developments have aroused considerable concern. In terms of

academics, the basic issues of film censorship are at stake in India.
Surprisingly, the resignation episode specifically posits film censorship
against the representation of delicate themes/matters in films184.
However, the scope of film censorship/certification per se is not confined

to intervention over moral and sexual issues in cinema. At global level, the
Film censorship operates in three areas; obscenity, violence and politics.
India is no special case in such manner. Yet intercession over
representation of brutality in India appears to have been completed more
by unwinding than by recognition. The blood smeared scenes of shocking
savagery or realistic depiction of assault on silver screen for the sake of
authenticity is declaration to this impact. It has not made as much
181
Ibid
182
Ibid
183
Ibid
184
Delhi 2009)
102
contention as that over sexual representation. Current pattern is that heat
and dust have picked up over political matters185.
Over the period of time, the film censorship administration in India has
come under intense scrutiny, for one reason or another. But from time to
time, it has been encircled within the domain of post-colonialism, which
explains the simplified, and often partial, perception, which clarifies an
intersection between continuity and change. The film censorship
foundation in India is an astounding site of this wonder. While the methods
of substance control, characteristic to the colonial film censorship
administration, are especially with us even today, the operational
components are experiencing ceaseless control in light of rising methods
of location, making a facade of progress. The state, the media, the
citizenery and even the judiciary go on highlighting its “ethical”
parameters. Media debates over exhibition of movies like Fire, Kama
Sutra, Nishabd, Cheeni Kam, Delhi Belly, Arakshan, Khap, Oh My
God, Vishwaroopam, Haider, PK, Messenger of God, Dharam Sankat
Mein, Aligarh and Udta Punjab in India have centralised around
morality, bypassing substantial questions of new social realities emerging
in the wake of globalisation. But despite unilaterally emphasizing the
moral implications of film censorship, political proclamations continue to
influence film management. Just these have turned out to be a great deal
more unpretentious, complex, and in spite of prominent observation,
widespread and powerful. In the past, the State has promoted violent
movies like Border and Gadar-Ek Prem Katha instigating audiences
enough to yell against Pakistan. But the producer of the documentary Jung
Aur Aman had to look for judicial mediation against CBFC for
questioning homemade jingoism. The state permitted Sathya on one go,
185
Ibid
103
which depicted aimless violence whereas documentaries like The Final
Solution and Amu were initially declined certificate for portraying real
violence during riots. In the 1970s, two films,
"Aandi" and "Kissa Kursi Kaa" were shown narrating the biography of
then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, one had its
censorship certificate rejected and the other withdrawn from theaters.
Aandi was re-released a few weeks later when Indira Gandhi
herself approved after consulting some critics. On other hand, “Kissa
Kursi Kaa” ended up being the most disputable film ever constructed in
the history of Indian cinema. The film was accused of criticising the
functioning of the Government under Indira Gandhi. The film reel was
burnt by the then ruling party minister and the film had to be re-shot. In
fact, national film industry had truly a troublesome time amid Emergency
plotted by Gandhi.
A lot of pressure has been put on the industry to help

with the government's propaganda campaign. Filmmakers and artists who
refused to cooperate were blacklisted, and censors refused to
issue exhibition certificates for their films186.
Things didn’t change much after emergency too. The post emergency
Janata Regime (1977-1979), which always stood for fundamental rights
and civil liberties, battered two documentaries on political prisoners:
Prisoners of conscience and Mukti chai187.
Then in 2008, the Mumbai unit of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) sent a
note to the Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association and the Indian
Film Directors Association requesting them to intimate the party before
186
Madhavi Goradia Divan, Facets of Media Law 46 (EBC Lucknow 2006)
187
Delhi 2009)
104
they come up with any film on either BSP founder Kanshi Ram or BSP
present head Mayawati188.On the off chance that such a claim is made and
no consent in reality is concurred, resistance would be defended. Recent
confrontation among political parties over the release of Udta Punjab
added another feather to the same.
Today the grim reality is that we cannot separate film censorship's ethical
motivation from its political agenda. Right from the selection of members
of panels involved in the film censorship, framing and execution of
censorship guidelines, everything is politically motivated.
5.3 HISTORY OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PROTEST RELATING

TO FILM CENSORSHIP
5.3.1 Era of Emergency
Period of emergency interrupted an otherwise continuous pursuit of

democratic freedoms since independence in 1947. It vividly
illustrates the film's overall vulnerability to central
government pressure and the distortions that can occur when decisions are
based on an individual's personal or narrow political considerations189.
188
“Making a film on Mayawati or Kanshi Ram? Check with us first, says BSP”, Indian Express (4
April 2008), available online at http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/making-a-film-onmayawati-or-
kanshi-ram--check-with-us-first-says-bsp/292347/ (last accessed on 30 November 2022).
189
Aruna Vasudev, Liberty and Licence in the Indian Cinema (Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd, New
Delhi).
105
Photo 5.1 Aandhi film poster
The situation was such that, the whole attention of the government around
emergency was on the political phenomenon. The first film that went
through difficulty during this period was Aandhi (1974), a political drama
starring Sanjeev Kumar and Suchitra Sen, directed by Gulzar. The film was
initially given “U” certificate by the CBFC. As the character of its female
protagonist was inspired by Indira Gandhi, the government suspended the
film’s certificate for exhibition under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.
The film was banned. The director was ordered to reshoot the heroine’s
drinking and smoking scenes and emphasise that the film had no
biographical elements.The filmmaker solved the problem by inserting a
scene where the heroine stood in front of a photo of Indira Gandhi
and called Indira her idea190.
190
Aandhi(1975) By Ziya Us Slam”, The Hindu(23 May 2013) , available online at
http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cinema-columns/aandhi-1975/article4742988.ece(last
accessed 30 November 2022)
106
Next year it was Andolan (1975). It was given a “U” certificate on 27 May
1975.The CBFC also classified it as predominantly educational (PE)
because it depicted the Quit India Movement of 1942.
However before the film was released, Emergency was proclaimed and the
government recalled it, using its discretionary powers. Then after
prolonged deliberations, the producer was asked to carry out several drastic
cuts. All these related to revolutionary and political activities of the Quit
India Movement. But the government construed that these scenes would
incite commission of offence leading to disturbance of public order191.
At least Andolan was initially passed by the CBFC, the film

Telugunadu(1975) was not so lucky. Its storyline also had a political
movement as the backdrop. However this reference was to a more recent
happening, the violent agitation for the partition of Andhra Pradesh from
1969 through 1972.The CBFC refused to grant a certificate to the film on
grounds that it may cause social unrest, promoting disorder, violence, a
breach of law and resistance to government. Though the director himself
was a Congress MP, who had lost an eye in the violent agitation during the
movement depicted in the film. So now he was ostensibly arguing against
violence and trying to make a plea for unity. However both his clout as a
leader of the ruling party and his persuasive skill invoking political
idealism failed to make any impression on the authorities. Even his offer
to change the name of the film and undertake modification as per
government advice did not workout. The Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting thought that the film contravened public order, decency and
morality and was likely to incite the commission of an offence. After
191
Delhi 2009).
107
struggling for seventeen months to release the film, the producer B
Narayanmurthy was forced to seek judicial intervention192.
But the most politicized movie was Kissa Kursi Ka (1975), a political
satire on former PM Indira Gandhi and the Emergency The film depicted
the desperate and corrupt practices adopted by politicians in order to siege
power by all means. There was no unanimity among the members of the
Examining Committee. While three members recommended grant of a “U”
certificate subject to drastic cuts, another member and the regional officer
were for the banning of the film. Their reasoning was that the film was
derogatory to democratic system of government and likely to impact
adversely on the law and order situation. The case was referred to the
revising committee, which decided by the majority of six to one that that it
be granted a “U” certificate subject to extensive cuts. The CBFC did not
agree with this majority view and referred it to the government under
Section 25(1) of the Cinematograph Censorship Rules, 1958 for necessary
action.
The film maker filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, praying for a
writ of mandamus, directing the government to issue a “U” certificate to
his film. But before any judicial order was passed, Emergency was
proclaimed. And such was its impact that the new minister for Information
and Broadcasting ordered that all the print of the film be taken possession
of and kept in careful custody irrespective of the course of the court’s
proceedings. This was done, inspite of the matter being still subjudice.
Within a week, the grant of certificate was refused. The government
declared the film undesirable and therefore forfeited, under the Defence
and Security of India rules. The film maker was forced to part with the
192
Delhi 2009).
108
print, negative, even stills and publicity material relating to the film. The
court however directed the government to preserve the material in proper
condition until the disposal of the writ petition193.
In fact, the government propensity for secrecy reached an extreme level

during the Emergency. Several guidelines regarding the depiction of
violence and vulgarity on screen were issued in 1975, followed by more
comprehensive ones towards the end of 1976. All this led to considerable
confusion within the film industry.
The producers had to frequently ask the censor officials in Mumbai, and
even travel to Delhi for guidance or clearance from the ministry. Producers
were unnecessary harassed by the censor officials. Films like Dus Numbri,
Nehley pe Dehla, Kalicharan etc. which had already been censored, passed
and released, were recalled for review by the government in the name of
redressing public grievance related to excessive violence shown in the
films.
5.3.2 Decade of 90s
In the decade of 90s Hindi cinema was firmly embedded in the quarrelsome
sphere of politics. India’s CBFC, historically considered an essential
regulatory mechanism of Hindi Cinema and custodian of public morality
by both the citizenry and the state, got itself caught in the grasp of moral
protest politics. The said decade was marked by a gradual alignment of the
right –wing nationalist agenda with the historically existing regulatory
concerns of the state over the deleterious “effects” of cinema on vulnerable
audiences resulting in an unprecedented “censor-wave”.
193
Delhi 2009).
109
This decade represented the censorship of a sensitive issue for the Indian
state-sex and religion in prevailing climate of reactionary right wing
politics, anxieties over cultural invasion by globalizing forces and unstable
coalition governments.
Photo 5.2 Khalnayak Film Poster
The first major movie to be politicized amid this period was Subash Ghai’s
Khalnayak (1993), which demonstrated how female sexuality was viewed
as a danger to customary Indian culture and Indian womanhood by the
patriarchal collusion of the state, Hindu nationalist discourse and the
viewers, resulting moral panics and the demand for stringent obscenity
regulations.
The main question that erupted during 90s was who was the public cultural
regulatory authority?
110
The rudimentary associations, many with more or less formal ties to
established political parties, have removed media censorship from the
preview field and examining committees into the streets. At times, it
looked like a battle between state institutions such as the CBFC and non-
constitutional candidates for censorship positions. At other times, the line
between legal and illegal activity was completely blurred.
Especially from 1995 to 1999, when Shiv Sena, the violent indigenousist
of Bal Thakeray, and the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janta
Party (BJP), jointly ruled the state government of Maharashtra,
the boundary between the gravity of the state and violent street
politics often escalates blur194.
The chilling effect of the Shiv Sena’s “informal” or “extra constitutional”

censorship was such that producers and actors shied away from screenplays
that were even mildly critical of the Sena. Cultural politics was at peak195.
The BJP was unable to form a national government until the spring of 1998,
by which time their alliance with the Shiv Sena was growing strained. But
although the Shiva Sena itself lost control of the Maharashtra state
legislature in 1999, its informal regulatory authority remained strong. This
put the CBFC in an ambiguous position.
Even former CBFC chair Vijay Anand acknowledged, quite pragmatically,

that it made sense for film producer to seek Bal Thakeray’s blessing for a
major release, simply to avoid trouble. Phone call of Thakeray was good
than dragging the matter in the court for decades196.
194
William Mazzarella ,CENSORIUM Cinema and the Open Edge of Mass Publicity( Orient
Blackswan 2013).
195
Ibid
196
Ibid
111
The said uncertainty continued during the second half of the 90s. Movies
started going through regulatory gauntlets of unprecedented
complexity. At this point, the officially established authority of the state
as the arbiter of public media is in question197.
Politics with cinema during this period continued in Mani Ratnam’s

Bombay (1995), which explored a highly sensitive issue –relations
between Hindus and Muslims198.It was a Hindu-Muslim love story set
against the backdrop of Babri mosque demolition in December 1992 and
the violence that followed in Bombay in 1992-93. For a whole host of
reasons, the film was ripe for controversies: its sensitive subject matter and
its ambiguous realism. Since director Mani Ratnam was based in Chennai,
Bombay originally submitted to the local CBFC Regional Office in
late 1994. But due to sensitive storyline, trouble was smelled and the film
was passed on to CBFC headquarters in Mumbai199.
CBFC could not act on its own in certification of Bombay. Police officers
were called in as expert consultants at the Mumbai office on questions of
public order. Not only police officers, private screenings were held to
secure the approval of all manners of players that included Home Ministry
officials, the then State Chief Minister, Sharad Pawar and most
controversial Bal Thackeray. This was not all .Once word got out that Bal
Thackeray had been consulted, Muslim groups also demanded a say.
Muslim leaders are particularly angry that Thackeray was apparently

allowed to demand his own cuts in Bombay after the CBFC approved
it200.The authorities willingness to comply with Thackeray’s demands was
197
Ibid
198
K.Moti Gokulsing and Wimal Dissanayake, Indian Popular Cinema: A narrative of cultural change
(Orient Longman).
199
William Mazzarella ,Censorium Cinema and the Open Edge of Mass Publicity( Orient Blackswan
2013)
200
Ibid
112
an affront on both ,communal and “secular” grounds as it clearly meant
that state was capitulating to Hindu extremist opinion, and it represented a
violation of the CBFC’s legal sovereignty. By this time Shiv Sena had
formed a state government with the BJP and appointed Manohar Joshi as
chief Minister. A special screening was eventually arranged for Muslim
leaders. Amid bomb scares and death threats, vitriolic communal
discourse, and exceptionally heavy security, Bombay was finally
released201.
Photo 5.3 Aggressive responses to cinema by Public for releasing Fire Film202
Then came Deepa Mehta’s Fire(1998) which depicted the intimacy that
emerges between two sisters-in-law in a middle - class Delhi household,
an intimacy that was interpreted as “lesbian”. The supposed foreignness of
201
Ibid
202
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/keeping-the-flame-alive-what-made-
deepa-mehtas-fire-such-a-pathbreaking-film/ (last accessed 30 November 2022)
113
lesbianism was a central plank in the Hindu right’s attack on the film, with
the Shiv Sena taking the lead.
Unlike Bombay, Fire did not thematize Hindu-muslim relations. But this
time right-wing activists positioned woman-to-woman sex as a foreign
perversion.
The names of Fire's two main characters, Radha and Sita, are placed above
certain symbols of marital devotion in Hindu mythology., whether
devotion of Radha to Krishna or the more solemn and self-sacrificing
devotion of Sita to the God-king Ram. Thackeray captured
an apparently blatant insult to the dignity of Hinduism by demanding that
the protagonists be given new Muslim names, Shabana and Saira.
Two successive ministers of information and broadcasting -Mukhtar Abbas

Naqvi and Pramod Mahajan, both leading lights of the BJP suspended the
screening of Fire and sent it back to the CBFC for re-examination203.
Fire was cleared for a second time in February 1999, without cuts, although
in Mumbai the names of the two female protagonists were dropped
altogether.
Aggressive responses to cinema became a routine occurrence. Cinema paid

the price when government gave in to fringe elements. Extra constitutional
interference became way of life wherein violence was seen as the most
legitimate way to address moral issues.
203
William Mazzarella ,Censorium Cinema and the Open Edge of Mass Publicity( Orient Blackswan
2013)
114
5.3.3 2000 Onwards
Around 2000, the then censor board unleashed a repressive regime of

indiscriminate excision and expurgation of films that included
documentary cinema. The treatment meted out to Anand Patwardhan’s
War and Peace (2002) illustrated extreme politicization of the censorship
process. War and Peace was a documentary film which explored the rise
of Indian jingoism, militarism and the globalization of the arms trade.
Beginning with the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi the film covered the
rise of fundamentalism and spread of nationalist propaganda in India204.
Photo 5.4 Activists of the Bajrang Sena burn a poster of Hindi film
‘Girlfriend’ during a protest205
Theatre screening the lesbian action drama Girlfriend (2004) directed by

Karan Razdan were attacked by the Shiv Sena’s student wing and Bajrang
204
Nandana Bose, The Hindu right and the politics of censorship: three case studies of policing Hindi
Cinema, 1992-2002 (University of Texas Press, Velvet Light TrapSpring, 2009)
205
https://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040615/nation.htm
115
Sena which had serious criticisms around the way the film portrayed
homosexuality206.
Than it was turn of Final Solution, a 2004 documentary film directed by

Rakesh Sharma concerning the 2002 Gujrat riots in which both Hindus and
Muslims were targeted by political extremists .The documentary consists
mostly of interviews, with both communities with different views
regarding the causes, justifications and the actual events of the violence
that occurred, as well their prospects for the future. The film in
question was initially banned in India by a censorship board due to fears
that the film would provoke mass communism and radicalism. The ban was
lifted after a sustained campaign that included online petition, hundreds of
protest screenings multi city signature campaigns and dozens of letters to
the government.
Considerably, the political discourse underlying film censorship eventually

in the end rose above the routine system of observing and control even. We
have perceived how the shooting of Deepa Mehta’s Water (2005) was
prematurely ended through a realpoltik for purportedly attempting to depict
Indian women in a "disdainful" way. Water portrayed the treatment of
indigent Hindu widows critically. Mehta had to stop producing
water in Varanasi, one of India's holy places on the banks of
the Ganges, after Hindu nationalists protested that the film was anti-Hindu.
In the same year there was uproar over the Sunny Deol starrer Jo Bole So
Nihaal (2005) on grounds of religious sentiments. Shiromani Gurdwara
Prandhak Committee (SGPC) dubbed the film as an insult to the Sikh
slogan and sensibilities207. SGPC’s objections were with the title, a Sikh
206
Nandana Bose, The Hindu right and the politics of censorship: three case studies of policing Hindi
Cinema, 1992-2002 (University of Texas Press, Velvet Light TrapSpring, 2009)
207
“Unfair Trial By Fire”, India Today (6 June 2005), available online at
http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20050606/cinema.html? (last accessed 30 November 2022).
116
slogan uttered in prayer and in the battle which means „he who takes the
Lord’s name will be blessed208.SGPC along with other radical Sikh bodies
also objected the portrayal of the Sikh image by the main Actor who played
a role of Punjab Police Constable flirting with guns, girls and crimes209.
Although producer who apparently anticipated trouble had tried to take

precautions by setting a panel under Akal Takht210 Jathedar Giani Joginder
Singh Vedanti comprising little known Sikh leaders, to examine the
complaint he had received against the film. The panel flew to Mumbai to
see the film and filed a report stating that there was nothing to hurt
the feelings of the Sikhs211. The Akal Takht seal report was released the day
before the Punjab High Court and Haryana heard the petition for the film
and it was used by the film producer as clearance by the Akal Takht
considered to be the highest temporal seat of the Sikh faith212. But far from
clearing the air, the report played the role of a radicalist red rag
who accused Jasedar of giving the film a blank slate.
Another panel was set up to review the film, although the CBFC's 10-
member review panel allowed the film to be screened after preview by
order of the High Court213. Second panel declared the entire movie
“polluted” and used the row to lay down an SGPC mandated code for the
film and serial makers on casting Sikh characters and practices.
Deeming the film's title and theme to be disrespectful, the jury asked
the film's director and producers to change the title, delete unwanted
208
Ibid
209
Ibid
210
Akal Takht is the primary seat of Sikh religious authority and central altar for Sikh political
assembly. It provides guidance or clarification on any point of Sikh doctrine or practice referred to it.
Available online at http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/events/akaltakht.html(last accessed 30
November 2022).
211
http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20050606/cinema.html?( last accessed 30 November 2022).
212
http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20050606/cinema.html?( last accessed 30 November 2022).
213
Ibid
117
scenes, or withdraw the film nationally214.All this happened with Jo Bole
So Nihaal despite being cleared for screening by the Censor Board.
There was another religious protest against screening of a movie when

Roman Catholic organisations demanded a ban on the Vinod Pande film
Sins (2005) for depicting a priest having a sexual relationship with a young
girl .Though it was based on a Kerala priest who was sentenced to death
on sexual harassment and murder charges in 1988, but it was not well
received by the Catholics.
In 2006, there was a lot of political controversy surrounding the screening

of Aamir Khan's lead actor Fanna. This was due to Aamir Khan's
commentary on Narmada Bachao Andolan, who announced that he would
help rebuild those displaced by the Narmada Dam project in Gujarat. The
political parties took great offence at this and as a result, screening of
'Fanaa' was unofficially banned in Gujarat .The posters and Aamir Khan's
effigies were burnt.
In 2007 Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister led the charges against the use of the
allegedly derogatory term “Mochi” in Madhuri Dixit starrer Aja Nach Le,
claiming that it demeaned the lower caste and hurt the feelings of Dalits.
Film was banned in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab215.
5.3.4 Post 2010
The first major film during this period, the release of which was politicized,
was Sharukh Khan’s My Name is Khan (2010).Approximately two weeks
prior to the film release, the film plunged into controversy after Sharukh
Khan commented about no participation of Pakistan’s Cricket players in
214
Ibid
215
Monika Mehta, Censorship & Sexuality in Bombay Cinema (University of Texas Press, 2012)
118
Indian Premier League216 (IPL). Raising slogans against the release of the
film, Shiv Sena immediately called on Sharukh Khan to apologise for the
same, threatening ban if he did not comply217.
Then came, Prakash Jha’s Aarakshan (2011), a movie which was based
on castebased reservation in the Indian education system. It faced flak from
certain groups who claimed that the movie was anti-reservation. The
National commission for Scheduled Castes dubbed the movie as anti-dalit
and days before the release of the film, demonstrators in Chennai, Mumbai,
Bangalore and Mysore burnt film posters, vandalized cinema and chanted
slogans against the director. The film was banned before its release in Uttar
Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh because local governments feared it would
spark communal violence.
In spite of censor certificate, different groups tried to prevent its release.

The director had to appeal to India‟s Supreme Court to overturn the state
bans. Protest against the movie was criticized by stalwarts like Shabana
Azmi and Mahesh Bhatt.
After controversy over reservation, next year it was turn of blasphemy.

Protest rose against anti-ritualistic attack on religion in Umesh Shukla’s
Oh My God (2012). This film raised questions on the commercialisation
of religion in our country. Posters were burnt and theatres were vandalized.
Although the movie was screened for Shankracharya before its release.
Several organizations led by Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal stopped it from
being screened in major cities in Punjab after release. Case was file against
216
The Indian Premier League (IPL) is a professional league for Twenty20 cricket competition in India.
Available online at http://www.firstpost.com/topic/event/india-premier-league-profile91650.html (last
accessed on 30 November 2022)
217
Monika Mehta, Censorship & Sexuality in Bombay Cinema (University of Texas Press, 2012).
119
film producer, director writer and actors for hurting religious sentiments.
Due to fear several cinema halls owners chose not to screen the film.
"I recently became aware of the attacks on Hinduism in two films, Oh My

God and Student of the Year (2012). The latter mentions that Radha
cannot dance and is invited to the dance floor to learn how to dance. Why
are the attacks in the film only against the Hindu faith and names like Sita,
Radha and Kaushalya?" said Sushma Sauraj, then opposition leader of
Lokshabha”218.
Next, it was Kamal Haasan’s Vishwaroopam (2013) which made news for
several critically viewed controversies. First issue was the title of the
movie, where it was demanded a change from its current Sanskrit title to
purely Tamil one. Despite of its clearance from censor, district collectors
in the state of Tamil Nadu gave orders to the theatre owners not screen the
film, in the wake of demands from Muslim groups to ban the movie.
Muslim groups made such demand on account of some scenes that they
said would hurt Muslim sentiments. The ban in Tamil Nadu triggered the
stop of screenings in neighbouring Indian states as well as few foreign
markets. Outraged by these controversies, Kamal Haasan said that if
situation would be the same, it would force him to leave the state of Tamil
Nadu and India.
In the state of Tamil Nadu, there was politics over release of Madras Cafe
(2013), wherein, the MDMK219 leader Vaiko and Seeman, Founder of
Naam ThamizharKatchi (We Tamils Party) sought a ban on the same
alleging that it potrayed the outlawed LTTE220 in a bad light.
218
“'OMG', 'Radha'; BJP upset with attacks on Hinduism”, News 18 (8 November 2012), available
online at http://www.news18.com/news/politics/omg-radha-bjp-upset-with-attacks-on-
hinduism520730.html (last accessed on 30 November 2022)
219
Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
220
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was one of the many groups that came into existence
in Srilanka to fight for Tamil rights. See “The history of the Tamil Tigers”, Aljazeera (28 April 2009),
120
Photo 5.5 Hindu Protest against Anti Hindu Film ‘PK’ to ban and boycott
the film221
Then, there was controversy over Rajkumar Hirani’s movie PK (2014).

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) demanded for its ban. Its members,
along with Bajrang Dal supporters, began tearing up the film's posters
and disrupting screenings.
According to VHP spokesman Vinod Bansal, "PK was making fun

of Hinduism." Members of the All India Muslim Personal Law Council
also demanded that the censorship board remove certain scenes to maintain
"public harmony". Another allegation against PK is that it is promoting
available online at http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/2008/11/2008112019115851343.html(last accessed

30 November 2022).
221
https://hinduexistence.org/2014/12/29/increasing-hindu-protest-against-anti-hindu-film-pk-
hundreds-fir-lodged-demand-to-ban-the-film/ (last accessed 30 November 2022).
121
'Love Jihad222, with a romantic track centered around a Pakistani man
named Sarfaraz and a Hindu woman with the goddess name Jagat Janani ,
"the creator of the world".”
But the Supreme Court ruling saved the film from engulfing in legal
controversy by showing a poster showing Amir Khan standing on
a railroad track and covering his private parts with transistors.Indian
society has matured enough to distinguish between art and obscenity, the
Supreme Court said in rejecting a PK ban petition for promoting nudity.
Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha, heading a Bench of Justices Kurian

Joseph and Rohinton Nariman, said tolerance to works of art and fiction is
the hallmark of a tolerant society223 .
“It is fiction, a matter of art. Do not try to include religious aspects in works
of fiction and art. You must have tolerance”, the Chief Justice told Nafis
A. Siddiqui, counsel for All India Human Rights and Social Justice Front,
the organisation which sought the ban in its petition224.
In the end of 2015, there was politics over Rohit Shetty’s Dilwale (2015)
and Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Baji Rao Mastani (2015).
222
Often used to denote practice under which young Muslims seduce non-muslim girls with the aim of
converting them to Islam. See “Muzaffarnagar: 'Love jihad', beef bogey sparked riot flames”,
Hindustan Times (12 September 2013), available online at
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/muzaffarnagar-love-jihad-beef-bogey-sparked-riotflames/story-
C4zF5w9K1FoS5Sffu0DU2L.html (last accessed on 30 November 2022).
223
“Indian youth smart enough to know PK is fiction: SC”, The Hindu (14 August 2014), available
online at http://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/supreme-court-dismisses-plea-againstaamir-says-
nothing-wrong-with-pk-poster/article6317775.ece (last accessed 30 November 2022)
224
Ibid
122
Photo 5.6 ‘Dilwale’, ‘Bajirao Mastani’ face protests in Maharashtra, MP,
Gujarat225
Angered by Sharukh Khan’s statement on intolerance in the country

several BJP and Bajrang Dal protestors staged protest across some parts of
the country against film “Dilwale”. Screening of the same was stopped in
several cities. Posters of Sharukh Khan were burned down. At one of the
theatres in Bihar, the activists burnt an effigy of Sharukh Khan226.
Members of the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti protested against twisting of

historical facts in Bajirao Mastani.The Samiti leader said that
several songs in the film portray the history of Peshwa rulers Bajirao and
Mastani in a distorted light. After filing a complaint about the film with the
CBFC and the Union Ministry of Culture, Samiti demanded that the film
225
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/dilwale-bajirao-mastani-face-protests-in-maharashtra-
mp-gujarat/article8005124.ece (last accessed 30 November 2022)
226
“Shah Rukh Khan's 'Dilwale' faces protest over intolerance comment”, Zee News (December 18,
2015) available online at http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/protests-against-shah-rukhkhan-starrer-
dilwale-and-ranveer-singhs-bajirao-mastani_1835845.html (last accessed 30 November 2022).
123
be banned unless director Bhansali removes the parts of its history. Some
political parties too joined the protest. Several shows were cancelled227.
5.4 CONCLUSION
The above events reflect the nature of dictatorship and discretion of the
authorities, vested interests of political parties and their endeavors to
unnecessary curtail the freedom of expression through films which they
cannot digest. To exercise their constitutional right to expression, the
filmmakers have to depend either upon the fantasies of anti-democratic
forces or to fight delayed legal battles with lots of unpredictability.
So, we can conclude that if democracy is to move forward, it is only fitting

that films should not be rejected for reasons based on mere speculation
because such a prohibition amounts to a constitutional prohibition of the
right to freedom of expression. It is high time that we wake up to the
different manifestations of political manipulation of film censorship in
India.
The political parties must understand that public in India today is mature
enough to handle truth and fiction, understanding the difference between
the two. Cinema must be a part of the lives of all of us. It must belong to
the masses of our people as well as the few.
227
“Historical facts twisted in „Bajirao Mastani‟: samiti”, The Hindu (14 December 2015) available
online at http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/historical-facts-twisted-inbajirao-mastani-
samiti/article7985595.ece (last accessed 30 November 2022)
124
CHAPTER 6 CONSTITUTION OF CENSORSHIP BODY
6.1 CINEMATOGRAPHIC FILM
A cinematographic film is not defined under the Cinematograph Act 1952

.However, Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines it “as any
work of visual recording on any medium produced through a process
from which a moving image may be produced by any means.” It includes
a sound recording accompanying such visual recording. Feature films as
well as documentaries fall within its scope. In M/S Super Cassettes
Industries v. Board of Film Certification & Ors.228 , the said definition
has been accepted to be applied for the purposes of Cinematograph Act
and Rules.
6.2 CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION (CBFC)
Central Board of Film Certification (known as the Central Board of Film

Censors till June 1, 1983), is a branch of India’s Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting. It regulates the public exhibition of films in accordance
with the Cinematograph Act 1952. The chairperson and members of this
board are appointed by the Central Government.
No film can be exhibited in India without being certified by the said board.
Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act 1952, requires the CBFC to
examine works against the principles of sovereignty and integrity of India,
the security of the States, friendly relations with foreign State, public order,
decency, morality, defamation, contempt of court or likelihood of inciting
the commission of any offence.
228
WP (C) No. 2543 of 2007(Delhi High Court, 24th November 2010)
125
6.3 OBJECTIVES OF FILM CERTIFICATION
The Central Government, in exercising its powers under Section 5B(2) of

the Cinematograph Act, 1952, has established principles to guide the
CBFC in approving films for release. The relevant part of those guidelines
is as follows:
“The purpose of film certification is to ensure that -
 the medium of film remains responsible to values and standards of the

society
 artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed
 the certification is responsive to social change
 the medium of film provides clean and healthy entertainment and
 the aesthetic and cinematic value of the film should be of good standard.
The CBFC also needs to take care that the film is judged in its entirety from
the perspective of its overall impact and is examined in the light of the
period delineated in the film and the contemporary standards of the nation
and the general population to which the film relates, provided that the film
does not deprave the morality of the audience229.”
6.4 ORGANIZATIONAL SETUP OF CBFC
The CBFC is a two level association with its headquarters at Mumbai and
the nine Regional Offices. The said Regional Offices are assisted in the
examination of films by Advisory Panels, the members of which are people
from different walks of life nominated by the Central Government.
229
Guidelines for certification of films for public exhibition. See “The principles for guidance in
certifying films”, Central Board of Film Certification, available online at
http://cbfcindia.gov.in/html/uniquepage.aspx?unique_page_id=1 (last accessed 30 November 2022)
126
6.4.1 Board of CBFC
The statutory power to certify films for public exhibition in India is

conferred on the Board of CBFC230.The Board of the CBFC consists of a
chairman and some other members numbering between 12 and 25
appointed by the Central Government. No specific qualifications have been
prescribed in the Cinematograph Act for the chairman and other members
appointed by the Government. Tenure of members is subject to the pleasure
of the Central Government, whereas the chairman holds office for the
period of three years and continues till his successor is appointed231.
6.4.2 Regional Offices of CBFC
“The nine Regional Offices of CBFC are situated at Bangalore, Kolkata,

Chennai, Cuttack, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Mumbai, New Delhi and
Thiruvananthapuram, each of which is supervised by a regional officer232.
230
The Cinematograph Act, 1952, s 3.
231
Rule 3 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983.
232
Available online at http://cbfcindia.gov.in (last accessed 30 November 2022)
127
6.4.3 Jurisdiction of Regional Offices of CBFC
Jurisdiction of various regional offices of CBFC is tabulated as under:
Figure NO. 6.1
Sr.No. Regional Office Films imported into or produced in
1 Bangalore State of Karnataka
2 Mumbai States of Maharashtra, Goa,

Gujrat, Madhya Pradesh and the Union
Territories of Dadra Nagar Haveli and
Daman &Diu
3 Kolkata West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand and the

Union Territory of Andaman and
Nicobar Islands
4 Cuttack State of Orissa
5 Delhi States of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal

Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan
and Uttar Pradesh and the Union
Territories of Chandigarh and Delhi
6 Hyderabad State of Andhra Pradesh
7 Chennai State of Tamil Nadu and Union

Territory of Pondicherry
8 Thiruvanthapuram State of Kerala and Union Territory of

Lakshwadeep
9 Guwahati States of Arunanchal Pradesh, Assam

,Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura
128
6.4.4 Advisory Panel
Advisory Panels are attached to the regional offices233.The Members of

these panels represent cross cultural interests of the society. The
Cinematograph Act does not prescribe any educational qualification for
becoming an advisory panel member. Members are appointed by the
Central Government after consultation with the Board. They are generally
selected for two years or hold office till such time as directed by the Central
Government. Members are eligible for reappointment. Due representation
of women in an advisory panel has to be ensured by the government in
order to make such panels gender sensitive. Members of the Examining
Committee, Revising Committee and Re-revising Committee are drawn
from the same pool of these advisory panels.
Members of the advisory panels are required to attend the meetings of

Examining Committees, Revising Committee (if nominated)
workshops/seminars along with visiting cinema houses to detect violations
of the certification norms in the films.
6.5 FUNCTIONS OF THE CBFC
Under the Cinematograph Act 1952, it is determined by the CBFC through

its certification process that whether a film is fit for exhibition in India or
not. The CBFC may sanction the film under any one of the categories, or
may not sanction the film at all.
i) U- for unrestricted public exhibition or Universal viewership

ii) A- for public exhibition restricted to adults (persons who have
attained majority, completing their 18th year of age)
233
The Cinematograph Act, 1952, s 5.
129
iii) UA- for unrestricted public exhibition with an endorsement of
caution to the parents or guardians of children below the age of
12 years
iv) S -for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession
or any class of persons
Under the provisions of the Act, the Board is competent to order deletions
in the films before certifying them. In order to determine the principles to
be observed in certifying films, the Board may from time to time take
required steps to assess public reactions to films323 like:
 Arranging symposiums and seminars for film

critics, filmmakers, community leaders and those working in the film
industry.
 undertaking local or national surveys in order to study the impression of

different genres of films on the public mind.
Photo 6.2 Certificate issued by Central Board Of Film Certification
130
6.6 PROCESS OF CERTIFICATION
The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 prescribe elaborate

procedure for preview of films for the purpose of certification of films in
India. The CBFC has two panels, the Examining Committee (EC) and the
Revising Committee (RC), both of which play a crucial role in the
certification of films.
6.6.1 Examining Committee
On receipt of an application for examination of films, the Regional Officer

refers the film to an Examining Committee (EC) to examine the same 234.
The films are previewed and certified on the basis of the recommendations
of the Examining Committee.
6.6.1.1 Composition
The Examining Committee (EC) consist of-
(a) For short films, either advisory board members and judges
must be women and
(b) For long films, the advisory council consists of four members and a
reviewer, of which at least two members are female235.
“The said examination shall be made at the cost of the applicant on such
date, at such place and at such time as the Regional Officer may determine.
The film to be examined by the Examining Committee shall be in its final
form with the background music and all sound effects duly recorded on the
film itself.”
234
Rule 22 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983
235
Ibid
131
6.6.1.2 Maintenance of Confidentiality
“All film previews for purposes of certification testing and related reports
and records shall be confidential. In order to maintain confidentiality, it is
provided under the rules that the names of the members of the Examining
Committee examining the film shall not be disclosed to any official or non-
official not concerned with the preview of the particular film or to any other
person including the applicant or his representative. The applicant or his
representative is not allowed to be present inside the preview theatre. For
assistance, if some members of the staff are required, the Chairman may
by special or general order permit any member of the staff to be present at
the preview for rendering such assistance236.”
6.6.1.3 Principles of guidance in certification of films
The Rule 22(8) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules,1983 provides

that the main function of the Examining committee is to examine whether
the film or any part of it is not against the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the States, friendly relations with foreign
State, public order, decency or morality or involves defamation or
contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence237.
Along with this, the Examining Committee examines the film in light of
following guidelines:
1- Anti-social behavior such as violence is not glorified or justified.
2-The modus operandi of criminals is not depicted.
3-Scenes showing involvement of children in violence as victims,

perpetrators or as forced witness, abuse or ridicule of physically and
236
Rule 22 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983
237
The Cinematograph Act 1952, s 5 B (1)
132
mentally handicapped persons, cruelty to or abuse of animals are not
presented needlessly.
4-Scenes of meaningless or avoidable violence, brutality, horror, violence

primarily for entertainment purposes, or scenes that may desensitize or
dehumanize people will not be shown.
5-Scenes which have the effect of justifying or glorifying drinking are not
shown.
6-Scenes tending to encourage, justify or glamorize drug addiction or

consumption of tobacco or smoking are not shown.
7- Human feelings are not hurt by vulgarity, lewdness, or depravity.
8-Such dual meaning words obviously cater to basic instincts are not
allowed.
9- Scenes that insult or slander women in any way are not presented.
10- Scenes containing sexual violence against women, such as

attempted rape, rape or any form of molestation or scenes of a similar
nature must be avoided and, where such incidents are relevant,
kept to a minimum and details not disclosed.
11- Scenes showing sexual perversion should be avoided, and

such incidents should be minimized when relevant to the subject matter,
and details should not be shown.
12-Visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are

not presented.
13-Visuals or words which promote communal, obscurantists, anti-

scientific and anti-national attitudes are not presented.
14-The sovereignty and integrity of India is not called in question.
15-The security of the state is not jeopardized or endangered.

133
16-Friendly relations with foreign states are not strained
17-Public order is not endangered.
18-Visuals or words involving defamation of an individual or a body of

individuals, or contempt of court are not presented.
19- National symbols and emblems are not displayed except as required by
Section
of the Emblems and Names (prevention of Improper use act), 1950238
6.6.1.4 Opinion of the Examining Committee
After the examination of the film the Examining Committee either

sanctions the film for restricted public exhibition or unrestricted public
exhibition or order to make necessary changes or to deny permission for the
film to be released to the public239.Generally films are sent for certification
a week or two prior to release. As huge amount of money is at stake,
practically the approach of film makers is that they agree to the cuts
recommended by the examining committee, in order to screen their film on
the release date.
238
The Cinematograph Act 1952, s 5 B (2)
239
Rule 22 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983.
134
6.6.2 Revising Committee
In case, the applicant is not satisfied by the opinions recommended by the

Examining Committee due to any reason, there is a provision for revision
by the Board itself. On the receipt of recommendations of the Examining
Committee, the Chairman may, either suo moto or on the request of the
applicant refer the film to a Revising Committee (RC)240
6.6.2.1 Composition
Rule 24 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules,1983 provides for

Revising Committee. The said committee gets to work once the examining
committee refuses certification for a film. It is composed of the
Chairperson or in his or her absence a Board Member and not more than
nine members of the Board/Advisory Panel, provided that none of them
was on the original Examining Committee332 .The quorum of the Revising
Committee shall be five members of whom at least two persons shall be
women.
6.6.2.2 Examining by the Revising Committee
The Revising Committee shall examine the film de novo. The procedure
prescribed for the examining for the Examining Committee shall mutatis
mutandis, apply to the Revising Committee241.
6.6.2.3 Opinion of the Revising Committee
After the examination of the film, like the Examining Committee, the
Revising Committee too either sanctions the film for restricted public
240
Rule 24(1) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules ,1983.
241
Rule 24(6) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules ,1983
135
exhibition or unrestricted public exhibition or directs to carry out necessary
modifications or refuse to sanction the film for public exhibition242.
The decision of a Revising Committee is that of the majority of the

members attending the examination of the film243.
In the event of an equality of votes, the presiding officer has a second or

casting vote337. Where the Chairman disagrees with the decision of the
majority of the committee, the board shall itself examine the film or cause
the film to be examined again by another Revising Committee. The
decision of the Board or the second review committee, as the case may be,
is final. Most reviews by the review board usually lead to a satisfactory
conclusion. But if there is still contention, the filmmaker is free to take his
or her work to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT)244.
6.6.3 Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT)
Earlier appeal from a decision of the board lied to the Central government.
This failed to generate confidence among film makers who were of view
that such an appeal should lie to a court or tribunal. FCAT was
established under the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act of 1981 on
the recommendation of the Supreme Court in the case of K.A.
Abbas v UOI245.
242
Ibid
243
Rule 24(12) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules ,1983.
244
Ibid
245
(1971) 2 SCR. 446
136
6.6.3.1 Constitution of FCAT
The FCAT was created under Section 5 D of the 1952 Act to

hear appeals of all orders of the CBFC. This tribunal is located in
New Delhi. The chairperson is a retired high court judge or a person
qualified as a high court judge, and up to four members appointed by
the central government serve for a three-year term. Its other members
included bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians. The FCAT is thus a quasi-
judicial body246. The Chairman and other members of the Tribunal hold
office during the pleasure of the Central Government. The affairs of FCAT
are managed by a Secretary, who is a full time employee and holds the post
on deputation basis.
6.6.3.2 When to approach FCAT
Any person aggrieved by an order of the Board based on the decision of

Revising Committee may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within thirty
days from the date of such order247.
6.6.3.3 Categories of orders which can be appealed against
The following orders of CBFC can be challenged in the Tribunal:
 Refusal to grant a Certificate
 Granting “A” Certificate only
 Granting “S” Certificate only
 Granting “UA” Certificate only
 Directing the applicant to carry out any excisions or modifications248.
246
Union of India v. K.M Shankarappa, (2001) 1 SCC 582.
247
The Cinematograph Act, 1952,s 5C.
248
Ibid
137
So the present position is that appeals from an Examining Committee’s
decision are decided by a Revising Committee. The Film Certification
Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) hears appeals from the Revising Committee’s
decisions. If any film maker is aggrieved with the FCAT’s decisions, he or
she may file a writ in court.
6.7 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
Offences relating to the violations of certification provisions are

cognizable and non-bailable. The Cinematography Act 1952 provides that
“if there are interpolations or tempering of certified films or if there is any
violation of certification provisions or if non-certified films are exhibited,
or where films meant for adult audience are shown to non-adults or where
an “S” certificate film is shown to persons other than those for whom it is
meant, than penalties specified therein can be imposed. Penalties may also
be imposed for failure to comply with Section 6A. Under Section 6A,
the person providing the film to the seller or
distributor must also provide details of the cut, certification,
title, length, and conditions of certification.”249
“A person guilty of violation is punishable with imprisonment for a term

which may extend to 3 years or with fine which may extend to one lakh
rupees or with both, and with a further fine up to Rs. 20,000 for each day
for continuing offence. Showing of video films which violate the rules in
the manner prescribed in this section attracts imprisonment of not less than
3 months by which may extend to three years and fine of not less than Rs.
20,000 but which may extend to Rs. 1 lakh and a further up to 20,000 for
each day for continuing offence.”250
249
The Cinematography Act 1952, s 7.
250
Ibid
138
Furthermore, the trial court can direct the offending film be fortified to the
government. The act states, “Any police officer may enter a hall where
an offensive film is being screened, search the premises, and confiscate any
printed matter251”.
6.8 ROLE OF VIEWERS IN CHECKING VIOLATION OF

CERTIFICATION
Although the role of police is important in checking violation, but being

over burdened with other tasks, the police cannot play its role fully without
able cooperation of the general public. Viewers with societal commitment
are useful in this regard. Under the rule 30(3) of the Cinematography
(Certification) Rules, 1983 “each cinema must clearly display the
certificate issued for the film showing as well as cuts or modifications
made by the CBFC.” Here it is expected from viewers seeing a film that if
they come across any scene which they feel should not bring the matter in
the notice of police, which can register a First Information Report under
Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act 1952.
6.9 ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN CHECKING VIOLATION OF

CERTIFICATION
Although there is an official machinery to check any violation of

certification, but on its own the Central government from time to time has
been alerting the State Government and Union territory administration in
this regard. In case the film in respect of which the certificate was granted,
is exhibited in a from other than the one in which it was certified or if there
251
The Cinematography Act 1952, s 7A.
139
is exhibition of any film or any part thereof in contravention of the
certification provisions under the Cinematography Act 1952 or rules made
thereunder, the central government has the power under Sec 5E of the
Cinematograph Act 1952 to suspend or revoke certificate of such film by
notification in the Official Gazette.
6.10 EMERGING CHALLENGES
During the nineties, new media became a problem for the state and the film
industry. With the advent of liberalization, the government and the film
industry faced a powerful challenge in the form of satellite television.
Satellite television was not subject
to government censorship, so viewers had easy access to government-
banned movies and shows. State censorship appeared to be totally
pointless. The film industry compounded the state troubles by pressing for
more liberal censorship guidelines with respect to sex and violence so that
they could compete with satellite television.The nineties saw vigorous
debate about how to compete with new forms of entertainment and protect
culture and traditions of India from the onslaught of Western culture and
values represented in the new media.
All this compelled the government to revise and reissue its censorship
guidelines. There was a lot of public outcry over explicit sexuality on
Indian screen which started in the early nineties252. Certification of these
movies was encountered by protests by various cultural groups, leading to
debates over censorship. The situation was, that the labels “banned” and
“censored” became advertising gimmicks to entice global and local
audience. The censorship fueled desire, resulting in an increase in revenue
for filmmakers and film industries.
252
Exhibition of movies like Khalnayak (1993),Bandit Queen (1994),Fire (1996) etc
140
The sexuality continued to play a central role in debates on censorship
during the twenty –first century’s first decade.
Heading towards globalization, film industry was feeling suffocated with

half century old legislation. To overcome this situation, Late Vijay Anand,
a wellknown filmmaker and the then chair of the CBFC, proposed a review
of the 1952 Cinematograph Act in the year 2002.Seeking a possible
liberalization of the film censorship, Vijay Anand made a number of
suggestions that included granting the CBFC fiscal autonomy and selecting
members of its advisory panels on professional rather than political
considerations .His most provocative plan was introduction of an ‘XA’
certificate that would legalize screening of “soft core” pornographic films
in select cinemas and advocated following the rating systems used in the
US and Britain because he believed that unlike prohibition, certification
would reduce desire in this regard.
Whereas Vijay Anand recommended more liberal reforms in his proposed

comprehensive review, on the contrary, T. Subbarami Reddy submitted an
amendment to the Rajya Sabha in 2002 that called for strengthening the
restrictions against excess sex, vulgarity and violence which he said were
„corroding the morals and values of the people and thereby creating
negative impact on the minds of the people , especially the youth.‟ This
amendment sought to change not only the guidelines but also the structure
of the boards.
141
6.11 CONCLUSION
So we see that Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is the statutory

body responsible for regulating the public exhibition of films in India under
the Cinematograph Act 1952.Although it is certification body but as it
works like censorship body, it is still popularly known as “Censor Board”.
In the recent decades, Cinema has opened up to new themes, bold enough
to spark off debates among social and political arenas. With the
development of technology, audience has also changed.
To cater their demands, film makers have opened up to almost every issue
emerging in the society. But their imagination is tamed in the name of
adherence to guidelines and rules enshrined under the Cinematograph act
1952.
The whole certification process is under the control of the Government,

leaving very little space for the film industry. Film fraternity has time and
again raised voice against the current working set up. They compare the
working of CBFC with the standards set by BBFC and Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA).
From the Late Vijay Anand’s proposal for review of the Cinematograph
Act to the recent Shyam Benegal Committee Report, there has been
demand to tune the working of CBFC with the changed global
circumstances doing away with present corruption and nepotism bringing
in openness and transparency in the system.
It is in best the interest of the society that censorship guidelines are

periodically reviewed in the wake of newly developed technologies. It is
high time that CBFC is revamped. Giving up the role of moral policing is
the most immediate change that is required as of now.
142
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
Father of film D.W Griffith said ‘My task is to make you see. There will
always be people who do not want to see beyond their perception.’
When we look at film history, one observes that there are as many people
who do not believe in censorship, as there are who vehemently support it.
However liberal censorship becomes, at least one section would be there
to oppose due to some reason or another. The real problem in working of
film censorship is the subjectivity involved. Multiple standards are
required in order to censor effectively and intelligently, thereby making the
whole process a complex task. The present research has been framed in the
light of post-independence controversies related to film censorship in
India. The research has been divided into various chapters in order to draw
a complete picture of the same. Firstly, the constitutional dimensions of
film censorship have been discussed. Under this, the principles of film
censorship have been highlighted within the scope and limitations of the
Constitution. In the light of popular cases, it has been examined how Indian
judiciary has been handling the issues pertaining to the film censorship.
Secondly, the evolution of film censorship legislation has been analysed.
Depicting the popularity of cinema, it has been shown how amendments
were incorporated from time to time in order to balance the artistic
creativity and cultural norms.
Thirdly, the issue of political censorship of films has been studied. It has
been discussed how extra-legal censorship was exercised in order to curtail
the constitutional right to freedom of expression of various film makers. In
the light of incidences, it has been shown how the filmmakers had to
depend either upon the fantasies of anti-democratic forces or to fight
delayed legal battles to exercise their constitutional right. Fourthly, it has
143
been analysed what all bodies are involved in the regulation of public
exhibition of films in India. In the wake of recent technological
developments, it has been discussed how the current mechanism of film
certification/censorship needs complete overhauling. Significant
recommendations by recently appointed expert committees on film
censorship have been mentioned. Indian cinema is still one of the most
heavily censored. Overall it has been shown, how with the spreading wings
of film censorship, making of films in India is becoming difficult year in
and year out.
In view of above conclusions, following suggestions are being made:
 There is a need for the CBFC to be proactive in order to reach out to the
film fraternity. Interactivity can help the officers of the CBFC to clearly
understand the demands of the film makers.
 There is a need to make the film censorship process simple, accountable

and transparent. Online system of application for film certification by
CBFC can help in this regard.
 Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal must be expanded to permit any

person aggrieved by a decision of CBFC to file an appeal against it. This
will reduce the burden on the High courts dealing with issues related to
film censorship.
 Lots of provisions under the Cinematograph Act 1952 have past their
expiry date considering the pace at which technology is developing. In this
scenario various definitions like ‘film’, ‘cinematograph’, ‘exhibition’ etc.
must be amended in order to broaden their scope.
 The CBFC must act as a certification body. It must do away with the
censoring of any sort of the movies.
144
 The panels involved in the film certification must have members from
cross sections. Such panels must have representatives from all vulnerable
sections of the society like Minorities, Backward Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
Scheduled Castes and Physically Challenged in order to make them
inclusive.
 Moreover women shall have fifty percent representation on the panels

involved in the film certification in order to make the system gender
sensitive.
 Selection of members in the certification panels must be purely on merits.

Human interference must be phased out for the purpose of eliminating
chances of nepotism in the process of selection.
 Website of CBFC must be updated with all the latest developments

regarding film certification. The said site must be interactive providing
facilities like online feedback form, online grievance reporting etc.
 Alternative platforms must be introduced in order to release the films,

thereby shifting the focus away from theatres.
 Global trends must be incorporated in the censorship process.

Certification guidelines must be amended accordingly.
Practically speaking, cinema is a depiction of what’s happening around us.

Stimulated by the technological developments and globalisation, new age
film makers are coming up with unconventional themes that nobody dared
to touch upon.
With the penetration of Internet, violence and vulgarity of any degree can
be easily accessed through smart phones, thereby challenging the
credibility of any sort of censorship. Taking all this into consideration,
ultimately what researcher wants is that the Film makers must have
sufficient space to showcase the real picture.
145
Even judiciary has recognized the fact that films are a powerful and an
effective medium of speech and expression, the right which people
achieved after a long struggle for independence. Film makers must have
liberty to make films on issues of their choice.It is an accepted truth that
every political party that is in power has its own idea of ‘nationalism’,
‘moralism’ etc. But in a diverse country like ours, the character of Film
Media should be such that it is not polarized. Narratives must not be
imposed on the film makers, who have to compete with global standards in
order to survive in today’s era of globalization. Confining the creativity of
film writers, artists and performers can hamper the Bollywood’s global
ambitions.
It is high time that we wake up to the different manifestations of political

manipulation of film censorship in India. The authorities must understand
that public in India today is mature enough to handle truth and fiction,
understanding the difference between the two. Cinema is not only a major
source of entertainment but also of awareness. The said medium must be a
part of the lives of all of us. It must belong to the masses of our people as
well as the few.
146
BIBLIOGRAPHY
List of Books:
 A.G.Noorani, Constitutional Questions and Citizens’Rights,(Oxford

University Press,2006).
 Annette Kuhn, Cinema ,Censorship and

Sexuality,(Routledge,London,1988).
 ArvindP.Datar,Datar Commentary on The Constitution of

India,(Wadhwan,Nagpur,Vol.1,Second edn.2007).
 Asharani Mathur (ed.), The Indian Media Illusion Delusion and Reality
essays in Honour of Prem Bhatia ,(Rupa &Co.,2007).
 Bare Breasts and Bare Bottoms: Anatomy of Film Censorship in India

By CK Razdan(Editor) Jaico Publishing House,1975,Bombay
 Bollywood Uncensored:What You Don’t see on Screen and Why,Derk

Bose Rupa &Co.,New Delhi 2005.
 C.J Nirmal(ed.), Human rights in India Historical Social and political

perspectives,(Oxford University Press,2000).
 C.Suzzane Bailey,Chana Barron,Constitutional law,(Thomson,2006).
 Censorium: Cinema and the Open Edge of Mass Publicity William

Mazzarella Orient Blackswan, 2013.
 Censorship & Sexuality in Bombay Cinema By Monika Mehta

University of Texas Press,2012.
 Censorship and Silencing Practices of Cultuarl Regulation Edited by

Robert C Post . B
147
 Censorship in south Asia: Cultural regulation from sedition to seduction
Raminder Kaur, William Mazzarella Indiana University Press, 2009.
 Cinema and the Indian Freedom Struggle By Gautam Kaul Sterling

First Edition 1998
 Communication Cinema Development From Morosity to Hope Gaston

Roberge,Manohar 1998.
 Corey K.Creekmur and Mark Sidel (eds.),Cinema ,Law and the State in
Asia,(Palgrave Macmillan,2007).
 DD Basu,Commentary on the Constitution of India,(Wadhwa and

Company,Eighth edn.2007).
 Dr.Subash Kashyap, Constitutional law of

India,(Universal,Vol.1,2008).
 Eric Barendt,Freedom of Speech,(Oxford University Press,2007).
 Erwin Chemerinsky,Constitutional LawPrinciplesand Policies,(Aspen

,Third edn.2006).
 Everybody Wants a Hit Derek Bose 10 Mantras of Success in

Bollywood Cinema Jaico Publishing House 2006.
 Film Stars in Indian Politics By Ram avtar Agnihotri Common Wealth

Publishers(New Delhi) India 1998.
 Filmi Jagat A Scrap Book Shared Universe of Early Hindi Cinema,

Niyogi Books
 H.L.A. Hart,The Concept of Law,(Oxford University

Press,NewDelhi,1961).
 H.MSeervai,Constitutional Law of India A Critical Commentary,

(Universal,Vol.1,Fourth edn.2006).
148
 Hilaire Barnett,Constitutional and Administrative law,(Routledge
Cavendish ,Sixth edn.2006).
 Hindi Cinema An insider’s View Anil Saari Oxford University Press C
 Ideology of the Hindi Film: A historical Construction by M Madhava

Prasad 1998 Oxford ,Delhi
 Indian Cinema in the Time of Celluloid From the Bollywood to the

Emergency By Ashish RajdhyakshaTulika Books 2009.
 Indian Cinema Today –an Analysis By Kobita Sarkar, Sterling

Publishers Pvt.Ltd, New Delhi ,1975.
 Indian Popular Cinema :A narrative of cultural change K.Moti

Gokulsing and Wimal Dissanayake, Orient Longman
 Jack Beatson, Yvonne Cripps(eds.), Freedom of expression and

freedom of information Essays in Honour of Sir David Williams(Oxford
University Press).
 Jagadish Swarup,Constitution of India,(Modern Law

Publications,Vol.1,Second edn.2007).
 Larry Alexander,Is there a Right of Freedom of Expression,(Cambridge

University Press,2005).
 Liberty and Licence in the Indian Cinema Aruna Vasudev , Vikas

Publishing House Pvt Ltd, New Delhi.
 M.P Jain,Indian Constitutional Law, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths

Wadhwa, Nagpur, Vol.1,Sixth edn. 2010).
 M.PSingh,V.NShukla’sConstitution of India,(Eastern Book

Company,Lucknow,Eleventh edn.2011).
149
 Madhavi Goradia Divan,Facets of Media Law,(Eastern Book
Company,Lucknow,First edn.2006).
 Narratives of Indian Cionema Edited by Maju Jain,Primus

Books,Delhi,2009.
 R.M Dworkin(ed.),The Philosophy of Law,( Oxford University

Press,New York,1977).
 Someswar Bhowmik,Cinema and Censorship –The politics of Control

in India,(Orient BlackSwan,Delhi,2009). D
 Subject: Cinema Object: Woman A study of Portrayal of Woman in

Indian Cinema By Shoma A.Chaterji Calcutta Parumita Publication 1998
 The Art of Cinema An Insider’s Journey Through Fifty Years of Film

History, BD Garga Penguin Viking
 The Public is watching Sex Laws and Videotapes Larence Liang with
Mayur suresh and Namita Avriti Malhotra,PSBT.
 Travels of Bollywood Cinema From Bombay to LA Edited by Anjali

Gera Roy Chua Beng HuatOUP,2012.
List of Articles:
 Arpan Banerjee, “Political Censorship and Indian Cinematographic

Laws: A Functionalist-Liberal Analysis”, Drexel Law Review
Vol.2,(2010);
 Ratna Kapur , “Post colonial Erotic Disruptions :Legal Narratives of

Culture ,Sex and Nation in India”,Columbia Journal of Gender and law
(,2001);
 Sangeeta Datta , “Globalisation and Representations of Women in

Indian Cinema”, Social Scientist, Vol.28, No.3/4, Mar-Apr.,(2000)’;
150
 Streets of fire: Shiv sena and film censorship in contemporary India,
Rutgers Journal of Law and religion, Spring,( 2012);
 Subhradipta Sarkar, “Right to free speech in a censored democracy”,7

U.Denv.Sports& Ent.Law j.62,(2009).
List of Websites:
 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com;
 http://cbfcindia.gov.in;
 http://eumc.europa.eu;
 http://indianexpress.com;
 http://indiatoday.intoday.in;
 http://mib.nic.in;
 http://pib.nic.in;
 http://www.aljazeera.com;
 http://www.dailyo.in;
 http://www.dnaindia.com;
 http://www.firstpost.com;
 http://www.frontlineonnnet.com;
 http://www.hindustantimes.com;
 http://www.ibnlive.com;
 http://www.indiatvnews.com;
 http://www.lawyerscollective.org;
151
 http://www.prsindia.org;
 http://www.thehindu.com/books;
 https://rsf.org;
 https://scroll.in;
152

Wa0002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Wa0002

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

Wa0002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Indian Censorship is an instrument of state intervention, which is defined

Photo 1.1 Birth Of Cinema

Censorship has been seen as an ideal option in many countries, including

At the same time, Sweden also established a Film Censorship Board,

This study reviews film censorship in India compared to other systems.

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH:

Existing legal, political and social scenarios require a comprehensive

The study analyzes the workings of censorship regulatory bodies such as

Whether the mischief of censorship has been correctly addressed by the

1.6 RESEARCH PROBLEM:

The research shall focus on the following Problems :

1. To what extent does film censorship in India comply with Article

Sources of Information – The research is primarily based on primary

Researchers reviewed the following available literature:

MP Jain in his book titled ‘Indian Constitutional Law’12 mentions about

A.G Noorani, in his book entitled ``Constitutional Questions and

Dr.DD Basu in his book titled ‘Commentary on the Constitution of

Arvind P.Datar in his book entitled ‘Datar Commentary on the

A book titled ‘Cinema and Censorship - The Politics of Control in

A book titled ‘The Public is Watching Sex, Laws and Videotapes’18 by

In a book titled ‘Bare Breasts and Bare Bottoms: Anatomy of Film

Monika Mehta in her book titled ‘Censorship & Sexuality in Bombay

An article title “Political Censorship and Indian Cinematographic

Subhradipta Sarkar in his article titled „”Right to free speech in a

An article titled ‘Streets of fire: Shiv sena and film censorship in

CHAPTER 2 HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF CENSORSHIP

CHAPTER 3 CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION OF FILM

CHAPTER 4 LEGISLATION OF FILM CENSORSHIP

CHAPTER 5 POLITICS UNDER FILM CENSORSHIP

CHAPTER 6 CONSTITUTION OF CENSORSHIP BODY

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Censorship is an amalgamation of multiple concepts that are interrelated,

2.2 HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF CENSORSHIP

In ancient times, censorship enforced orthodox practices that

The use of censorship to limit the dissemination of information is

India is an amalgamation of multiple cultures, races, religions, ethnic

During India's pre-independence period, the first major attempt at

Movies have the power to unite and divide people regardless of

The Cinematograph Act establishes similar restrictions

The landmark verdict of KA Abbas v Union of India40 is based on

Regarding film censorship, the Indian Film Censorship Board has

2.4 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

India became independent in 1947. When the Constitution was adopted,

2.5 CINEMATOGRAPH ACT 1952

On 29 August 1949, a Film Enquiry Committee was created and named by

the film industry’s organizational growth and giving

promoting national culture, wholesome entertainment, and education57.

This Committee paved the way for the Cinematograph (Second

2.6 EVENTS THAT LED TO THE CHANGE IN THE

The advent of liberalization witnessed a robust challenge in the form of

On the contrary, T. Subbarami Reddy submitted to the Rajya Sabha an

2.7 DRAFT CINEMATOGRAPH BILL, 2010

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) prepared a Draft

 The new definition of “presentation” is defined as “the

 Further, the draft bill suggested two new certification categories,

2.8 MUDGAL COMMITTEE REPORT, 2013

In 2012, the controversy over the ban on ‘Vishwaroopam’ by the Tamil