9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Pre-censorship and Freedom of Speech and Expression 2. Definiteness of Principles for Censorship 3. Reasonable Time-Limit for Censorship Decisions 4. Appeal Process for Censorship Decisions Detailed Analysis: 1. Pre-censorship and Freedom of Speech and Expression The petitioner argued that pre-censorship itself cannot be tolerated under the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court examined whether pre-censorship by itself offends the freedom of speech and expression. The Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on this freedom in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense. The court found that the censorship of films, including pre-censorship, is justified under the Constitution. The court emphasized that the treatment of motion pictures must be different from other forms of art and expression due to their instant appeal and impact, particularly on children and adolescents. Therefore, the classification of films into 'U' (unrestricted) and 'A' (restricted to adults) categories was deemed reasonable. 2. Definiteness of Principles for Censorship The petitioner contended that even if pre-censorship were a legitimate restraint, it must be exercised on very definite principles to avoid arbitrary action. The court examined the principles laid down in Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act and the directions issued by the Central Government. The court found that the general principles and specific instances provided in the directions were clear and within the common understanding of the average person. However, the court noted a flaw in the directions: a total absence of any direction to preserve and promote art. The court emphasized that artistic appeal or presentation of an episode could rob it of its vulgarity and harm, and this aspect was completely forgotten in the directions. The court suggested that the principles laid down in Ranjit D. Udeshi's case for determining obscenity in books should apply mutatis mutandis to films. 3. Reasonable Time-Limit for Censorship Decisions The petitioner argued that there must be a reasonable time-limit fixed for the decision of the authorities censoring the film. The Solicitor-General conceded this point and assured that the government would set legislation to effectuate this at the earliest possible opportunity. The court expressed satisfaction that the time taken for censorship decisions was generally reasonable, except in very rare cases. 4. Appeal Process for Censorship Decisions The petitioner contended that the appeal should lie to a court or an independent tribunal, not the Central Government. The Solicitor-General conceded this point as well, agreeing that the government would set up legislation to ensure that appeals would be handled by experts sitting as a tribunal and deciding matters quasi-judicially. The court agreed that experts deciding such matters would inspire more confidence than a Secretary of the Central Government. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition, noting that the purpose of the petition was served by the assurances given by the Solicitor-General and the observations made by the court. The court emphasized the importance of including directions to preserve and promote art in the censorship guidelines. The court did not make any order regarding costs.
|
