1

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

SUBJECT- RTI AND MEDIA LAW

Topic- Censorship In Indian

Cinema- A Critical Overview

SESSION: 2019-20

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

Dr. Sugandha Name-Roma Gill
Bcom.llb (Sem 7)
Roll no.-194 , Section-D
 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance from
many people and I am extremely privileged to have got this all along the completion of my
project. All that I have done is only due to such supervision and assistance and I would not
forget to thank them. This project would not have been possible without the blessing of
almighty. I express my sincere gratitude to almighty who granted me strength and health
without which I would not have completed the Project.

I would like to thank my RTI and Media Law professor Dr. Sugandha for being such a good
guide . She had given me appropriate example and knowledge in order to make us more
understand about the topic “Censorship In Indian Cinema - A Critical Overview”.

I would also like to express special gratitude to Director Prof, Ratan Singh who gave me the
golden opportunity to do this wonderful project which also helped me in doing a lot of
research and I came to know so many new things.

Last but not the least I place a deep sense of gratitude to my family members and my friends
who have been constant source of inspiration during the preparation of this project work.
 3

TABLE OF CONTENT
S.NO TOPIC P.No
1. Critical Overview
2. Introduction, good old days, Contemporary
times
3. Definition, Censorship in India, International
Perspective
4. Why Censorship Required, History, Reason of
Censorship, censor process
5 Mudgal Report, Shyam Benegal Committee

6 Film Certification, Types, Section 5B,

7 Issues of censorship
8 Judicial approach V Film censorship
9 Politics of censorship
10 Findings, Recommendations, Conclusion
 4

TABLE OF CASES
SNO. CASE
K.A Abbas v. Union of India
1.
Bobby Art international v Om pal singh Hoon
2.
Director Genral of Doordarshan V . Anand
3. Patwardhan
Life Insurance Corp v. Prof. Manuhai D. Shah
4.
A Arulmozhi v Goverment of India
5.
Anand Patwardhan V Union of India
6.
Secretary , Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v,
7. Cricket Association of Bengal
8. S Rangrajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and Ors
 5

CENSORSHIP IN INDIAN CINEMA- A

CRITICAL OVERVIEW

ABSTRACT
From beef to porn to advertising alcohol directl y, their are alot of things
which are banned in India. But strange situation is the unbelievable increase
in banning of hundreds of films in India. Yes, India has become quite famous
for restricting cinematic liberties. Be it the North or the South, India has had
its fair share of films like recent controversial hot topic „Padmavati‟. Also,
apart from facing bans certain f ilms have to deal with (mostl y) “ unjust‟
censorship policy taken up by Central Board of F ilm Certification (referred
to as CBFC). Popular Indian movies like “Udta Punjab” and ‘Lipstick under
my Burkha” fell into trouble because it was mainl y felt that its content was
too radical. The irony is that many of films have got rave reviews from
critics who notable watch the uncensored film version. Some of the films got
national award as well. With various questions being raised on the basis of
these bans and censors the real challenge lies when it is matched up with the
facets of law. Freedom of spe ech & expression is an important piece of
legislation in the Indian constitution which serves as the ultimatum in this
regard. A few recent happenings have forced the people to question its latent
existence and the “freedom” it practicall y guarantees. Down the line this
aspect of law needs immediate attention for the necessary progress of our
country in terms of unrestricted quality filmmaking. It is all the more
important when Global Cinema markets like America, China and France have
opened up for Indian C inema mindful of its worthy content .
 6

CENSORSHIP IN INDIAN CINEMA

INTRODUCTION
Cinema is a medium that has enjoyed immense popularity and has become an integral part of
common man s‟ leisure since its advent in 1913. A lot has changed from times when people
waited hours together to see movie clips in Doordarshan (the only TV channel until 1991) to
Dangal s‟ proud Olympics National Anthem moment being played in nearly 9,000 screens
across China. According to a statistics India possess one of the largest film industries in the
world in terms of number of films with about 1,500 to 2,000 films produced every year in
more than 20 different languages. With such vast diversity of products comes along a fair
share of altercations too. Films are allowed to freely discuss sensitive opinions and ideas
which when normally expressed through other forms will face serious opposition. Such is the
special privilege films occupy in bringing to life the unseen, the unheard and the unaware in
the 3 hours people spend watching them. Indian Filmmakers have never shied away from
exploring the so called “sensitive” subjects and are encouraged to take up issue based cinema
that has come out well both critically and commercially. But these kind of films are often left
with only two possibilities-- getting rave appreciation from the major chunk of audiences for
its vivid content or result in the movie struggling to get censor clearance or even worse -
getting banned. But in the midst of these flimsy arguments, no one has referred to the
blueprint of the nation: the Constitution of India as Hon‟ble Justice Raghvendra S. Chauhan
(a sitting judge of the Karnataka High Court) rightly points out. To aptly put it in his words -
It is the Constitution which guarantees the fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression, and defines the contours of the said freedom & perhaps we should consider the
interrelationship between the Constitution and cinema.1

GOOD OLD DAYS - Much before screen cinema could assert its authority in India a
traditional theatre system existed from 1920s and is said to have played a major role in
kindling emotions of freedom struggle through its plays in the pre-independence era. In 1913
India produced its first full-length feature film Raja Harishchandra. Cinema gradually
became a powerful medium and went on to impact people s‟ lives, thoughts and even their
political views. Ever since the drafting of constitution in 1947, freedom of speech and
expression was considered controversial and received periodical dissent. Article 19 (primarily
borrowed from America s‟ First Amendment) proposed for free speech to all citizens of the
state under set limitations specified under Article 19 (2).

Later in 1952 The Cinematograph Act was brought in place to further strengthen the position
of Cinema in the same aspect. This period was touted to be the „Golden Age of Indian
Cinema‟ celebrated for India’s ‟ success at International Film Festivals; Hindi Film “Mother

1
R.S. Chauhan, “Clamping down on creativity” The Hindu <http;/www.thehindu.com/opinion/clampind down
on creativity article 177398 >accessed on (12 Dec, 2019)
 7

India” nominated for Academy Awards as a Best Foreign Language Film and also marked a
beginning for offbeat cinema and the problems that came along.2

CONTEMPORARY TIMES -Fast forwarding to 2018 the heated debate today

seems to be the plight of “Padamvati” or “Padmaavat” as the CBFC prefers to call it. The
film centrally based on yet-to-be-accurately proven life of Rani Padmavati, a Rajput Queen
and a war her kingdom faced. The Karni Sena (a Rajput caste group) was responsible for the
ban of film on account of historical inaccuracies and causing disgrace to Rajput community.
They had gone a mile ahead and put a price on the heads of lead actress Deepika Padukone
who portrays the Queen and the Director Sanjay Leela Bhansali. The rumours are that the
CBFC had asked makers to make a horrendous 300 cuts to their 193 minutes film to grant a
U/A certificate. It is still unclear if this was enough for the Karni Sena to uphold the dignity
of the royal Rajput Community. Later on January 18th the Supreme Court refused to impose
any kind of ban on the film. The film finally released on 25th January opening to rave
reviews from the public and a gross of nearly Rs.100 crore in 3 days.

Another compelling incident happened after the release of Tamil Film “Mersal” (2017) when
the Tamil Nadu BJP party members demanded certain dialogues pertaining to criticism of
GST policy to be removed as it was factually incorrect. They also questioned the makers
regarding the necessity of transforming a temple land into a village hospital whereas a
Church or a Mosque is not used. Like the Karni Sena the state members of the BJP went
ahead and called the lead actor Joseph Vijay highlighting his religious origins for doing such
an anti BJP film.. Later the film achieved huge success both critically and commercially and
was credited for numerous reasons which included the demanded cuts.3

CENSORSHIP –Censorship is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as the 'prohibition or

suppression of any part of the news, books, films, etc. that are considered politically
unacceptable, obscene, or a threat to security.4

The term „censorship‟ means a curb or a restriction on a person’s right to express his ideas in any
form, on the ground that such expression would be harmful .Films are considered an excellent
medium of communication with the general public. The evolution of technology has brought
a sea of change in the way films have been able to reach the public in every corner of India.
Additionally, it has boosted the power of films to significantly contribute to the cultural and
social development of the country. Generally, Press and Films enjoy the same right and status
as far as the constitution freedom related to expression and spreading of an idea is
concerned. Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and
expression. Hence, both Press and Films are regulated under this provision. It is pertinent to
note that the above right is not absolute and has certain limitations. Matters that are against
foreign relations, public policy, integrity and sovereignty of the State, decency and morality,

2
Prof. Dr. A S rilatha “A study on ban and censorship in Indian Cinema <http//.www.acadpubl.eu/hub>
accessed on December13, 2019
3
Ibid
4
Dictionary, Oxford English."OED online."Oxford University Press. http://www. oed. com, Accessed November
12, 2019
 8

public order, etc. are certain limitations to the above, as mentioned in the Article 19(2) of the
Constitution of India.

Censorship is exercised through legislation such as Section 95 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure which has the power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue search
warrants for the same. Where-

(a) any newspaper, or book, or

(b) any document, wherever printed, appears to the State Government to contain any matter
the publication of which is punishable under section 124A or section 153A or section 153B
or section 292 or section 293 or section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), the
State Government may, by notification, stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy
of the issue of the newspaper containing such matter, and every copy of such book or other
documents to be forfeited to Government.

These are extreme rights given to the State Government with respect to censorship, which
cannot be practiced against any media outlet without fulfilling sufficient grounds of reason.
However, in these circumstances, the reason is very rarely employed.

Similarly, Section 124 A of the IPC criminalizes sedition under the clause, whoever, by
words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings
or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection
towards the Government.

Criminalizing sedition is a powerful tool for accelerating self-censorship since there is very
little objectivity in Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code is another vaguely worded clause
which criminalizes any speech that raises questions or objections against a person in the
opposition. Section 292 of the IPC prohibits the sale of books that are classified as
‘obscene’.

The Press Council of India is another institution which does not directly practice censorship
but has often addressed issues concerning the same.

CENSORSHIP OF FILMS IN INDIA

Film censorship is the process of previewing a film and it includes a decision either to allow
it for a public viewing or to allow it for public viewing with certain modification. The
Supreme Court held that film censorship becomes necessary because it motivate thought and
action and assures a high degree of attention or retention as compared to the printed words.

 The Cinematography Act, 1952 ensures that the films fulfil the objective prescribed
by law. It provides for establishment of Central Board of Film Certification the
Cinematography (certification) rules promulgated in 1983 and guidelines issued from
time to time the latest having been issued on December 1991.
 9

 The union legislature derives its power to make laws on censorship of cinema from
the Entry 60 under Schedule VII of the Constitution of India.
 Some states are also empowered under entry 33 of State List to make laws in this
regard.
 A separate piece of legislation known as “State Cinema Regulation Act” already in
place in Southern States like Tamil Nadu (Section 7 of the 1955 Act), Andhra Pradesh
(Section 8 of the 1955 Act), Kerala (Section 9 of the 1958 Act) & Karnataka (Section
15 of the 1964 Act) which gives the power to the Government or District Collector to
suspend exhibition of films which are likely to cause breach of peace. This is mostly
used only as a tool for revenge against Actors & Producers who are opposed to their
party ideologies and to garner the support of a particular class of people but not as a
useful provision of law.

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
 Censor Boards across the world approach films differently. The CBFC in a
neighbouring country like Pakistan are pretty strict in terms of portrayal of its country
and Muslims in films which made them ban most of the Indian Films like “Baby”
(2015) and “Haider” (2014) and the list goes on.
 In contrast, United States & United Kingdom have a slightly direct and clear system
of rating films. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has a 6 type
rating system that includes G – General Audience; PG – Parental Guidance suggested
as content may not be suitable; PG-13 – Inappropriate for people of age 13 or below;
R – Restricted to people over the age of 18 but allowed to accompany a adult if under
17; NC-17 – No children equal to or below the age of 17; NR (or) UR - Not Rated or
Unrated for movies not submitted for rating that can also be played in select theatres.
 Similarly the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has the same system of U,
PG, 12A, 15, 18 and R 18 for films that can played only at licensed adult cinema
halls. They usually proceed based on the version received by them from the crew and
would rarely demand cuts apart from only RECOMMENDING cuts and rate films
accordingly thereby leaving the burden to the filmmakers to decide their fate. Not that
they are lenient to let go anything that comes their way, it is only fair to say that they
decide on what they get and let the people decide what is good or bad for them thus
reducing the issues that may arise regarding censors. So do films don’t face ban on
these countries? As indicated earlier, a freedom has no force unless it imposes some
reasonable restrictions. All censor boards across the globe are quite uncompromising
on strong sexual content and excessive violence which is quite understandable

Why Censorship is required ?- It keeps religious conflicts at bay, this can hold
especially true in a country like India

 . If the ‘Censor Board’ notices a part of a film that can offend a certain community on
religious grounds, it will go ahead and cut that part out which helps keep religious
conflicts out of reach.
 10

 A country’s army is always full of secrets and the secrets are mostly military. This is
when censorship steps into the picture to help maintain secrets of a country’s army.
Books and films that can stir up negative emotions and actions amongst the general
public, and are usually not allowed passing through the watchful eyes of the Censor
Board.
 Censorship actually prevents companies from making tall claims about the products
and services they have on offer.
 If it wasn’t for censorship, almost all of us would have been victims to the marketing
gimmicks of companies’ world over.
 When political, environment, world, or economic disasters occur, People begin to
panic and believe everything that they see, by controlling the information that is out,
and they can help to prevent riots and other problems from happening.

CBFC: A History - The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is a statute

constituted under the Cinematography Act, 1952. The amendment of 1959 bestowed the
board with the powers of certifying a film before allowing for public exhibition. Till 1983, it
was known as Central Board of Film Censorship and from then on it was known as the
Central Board of Film Certification. The board off-late has come under severe criticism for
refusing to permit the screening of recent films like Bollywood’s “Padmavati” (2018)
“Lipstick Under My Burkha” (2017) & “Udta Punjab” (2016) & Hollywood s‟ “Fifty Shades
of Grey” (2015) and list grows. The subject of restraint first came to light in 1959 when a
Bengali film titled Neel Akasher Neechey was banned for two months citing fear of political
disharmony since then CBFC has proved to be the vital cog for the increase in the number of
films getting banned since it is the concerned authority when it comes to cinema.

Common reasons of Censorship or Banning of Film-

In the light of the history of why a film has been banned, or parts of it are censored, the main
categories for why the same is done are as follows-

1. Sexuality- A rigid social structure has been followed in Indian Society. Hence, a
medium which portrays sexuality regardless of the audio, written or visual form
which has not been fathomed by the society and is concerned a social stigma is
banned on the ground that it might have the effect of undignified morals of Indians.
2. Politics- The isolation of political forces is not far when one talks about censorship.
The description of an allegorical political scene, directly or indirectly is banned by the
authorized party to it. Overt political overtones are not appreciated by the
Government and hence is a common reason why certain films are either entirely
banned, or such scenes are censored or removed.
3. Communal Conflict- Under a heterogeneous nation like India , if a film incites or
spurs any type of communal conflict the same is censored. The aim is to avoid the
consequences such film would have on the audience it intentionally or unintentionally
targets. If the state believes that a movie would open a window for riots by a
 11

community for the way they have been portrayed in the film, the same is banned by
the Board or censored.
4. Incorrect Portrayal- Sometimes, a situation arises where a well-known personality
objects his own depiction in a medium which would be exhibited, and consequently
goes for censoring the same. For more clarity, in a situation where the medium is of
biographical nature and the person on whom it is based does not approve the
authenticity of the same.. there have been times when the person has sued for the
medium not to be released , or be edited and released upon approval of such person.
5. Religion- Religion does not appreciate any type of defiance or disobedience towards
the values it proliferates. Hence, any medium which directly or indirectly distorts any
aspect of the religion including its preaching, values, idols, to name a few, is highly
criticized and therefore, censored.
6. Extreme Violence- Indubitably, the portrayal of extreme gore and violence may
meddle and disturb the human mind. Viewing such scenes may have a negative
psychological effect on the mind. If the Board of a similar opinion that such a scene
through any medium may have an underlying negative impact on the viewer, contrary
to the entertainment or knowledge such scene tries to bestow the same may be
banned, edited or censored by the Board in public interest.

Board of films Censors under section 3 of Cinematography Act,

1952- SECTION 3 (1) For the purpose of sanctioning films for public exhibition, the
Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Board to be
called the [Board of Film Certification] which shall consist of a Chairman and [not less than
twelve and not more than twenty-five] other members appointed by the Central Government.

(2) The Chairman of the Board shall receive such salary and allowances as may be
determined by the Central Government , and the other members shall receive such
allowances or fees for attending the meetings of the Board as may be prescribed.

(3) The other terms and conditions of service of the members of the Board shall be such as
may be prescribed.

The certificate given by this board is valid for the period of ten years. The Central Board of
Film Certification was set up in Mumbai initially with three regional offices at Mumbai,
Chennai and Calcutta .At present, it has nine regional centres.

The appeal can lie against the decision given by Board to (FCAT)

Censor Process- The process is carried out by the CBFC (commonly called the
“Censor Board”) consisting of maximum of 25 members and 60 members acting as an
advisory panel to aid and advise the members, all of whom are appointed by the Information
and Broadcasting Ministry. The CEO will be at the helm of administrative affairs. Once an
application has been received the Regional Officer shall appoint an Examining Committee
consisting of 4 members and an examining officer among which 2 members must be women.
The committee shall view the film and come up with a report of possible deletions and
 12

modifications. The regional officer shall certify it U, U/A, A or S based on the report of
committee members. A list of “suggested changes” shall be communicated to the applicant in
case of any dissatisfaction on the applicant’s side. The censor board shall take a maximum of
68 days from date of application to issue a certificate for the submitted content.5 This shall
include the time taken for all cuts and mutes required to be made. The process has recently
been made accessible online to ensure better transparency. If the applicant is still not satisfied
with the certification they can approach the Revising Committee and further appeals reach
Appellate Tribunal and then finally to the court.

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 by the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act of 1981 on the basis of
recommendation by the Supreme Court in the case of K.A Abbas v. UOI .

Constitution of FCAT – FCAT was constituted under section 5 D of the 1952 Act for
hearing appeals against any order of the CBFC. This Tribunal is based in New Delhi. It is
headed by a retired High Court judge or a person who is qualified to be judge of a High Court
as Chairperson and not more than 4 other members appointed by the Central Government for
a period of three years. Its other members have included bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians.
The FCAT is thus a quasi-judicial body

The Mudgal Committee Report (2013) – The Mudgal committee was

set up earlier in 2013 after the government felt the need to update The Cinematograph Act,
1952 in the wake of the controversy over Tamil Nadu’s ban on Vishwaroopam

The major findings and recommendations of the Committee can be summarized as

under:

 It was found by the Committee that “the present procedure for appointment of
members of the Advisory panel, their eligibility criteria and the quality of such panel
is far from satisfactory. At certain locations, members of such advisory panel lack
any form of cinematic understanding, they perceive their role to be that of a Censor
Board to cut and chop scenes and in some cases being affiliated to some political,
religious or social group, impose without restraint, such political, religious or
personal opinions upon content permissible in a film.” The Committee therefore,
first, recommended a change in name of such panel from “advisory panel” to
“screening panel”
 . It then recommended that “the Board sets up a Committee comprising of 9 of its
members in such manner as to ensure language diverse representation with at least
two lady members.
 The Committee was of the opinion that “the provisions in the [Cinematography] Act
dealing with guidelines for certification must include provisions which protect artistic

5
Cinematograhpy Act , 1952 rule 41
 13

and creative expression on the one hand while on the other requiring the medium of
cinema to remain socially responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of
society
 Therefore, the Committee suggested a shift towards internationally prevalent practice
of “age related classifications and certifications” and thereby proposed “a revised
form of classification which comprise of the following categories of public exhibition
being that: unrestricted exhibition as U; to persons who have completed twelve years
of age as 12+; to persons who have completed fifteen years of age as 15+; restricted
to adults as A; restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons,
having regard to the nature, content and theme of the film as S.” Then there is Film
Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) which has been constituted under 5D of the
Act. The Certification also apply to foreign films imported in India or dubbed films.

Shyam Benegal Committee Report on CBFC (2016) - Latest

development as to overhaul the current censorship process in the country is the Shyam
Benegal Committee Report on CBFC . On 1st January 2016, “a Committee was set up under
the Chairmanship of Shri Shyam Benegal to lay down norms for film certification that take
note of best practices in various parts of the world and give sufficient and adequate space for
artistic and creative expression, lay down procedures and guidelines for the benefit of the
CBFC Board to follow and examine staffing patterns with a view to recommending a
framework that would provide efficient and transparent user friendly services.”6 The
objective of these guidelines would be to ensure that:

 “Children and adults are protected from potentially harmful or unsuitable content
Audiences, particularly parents are empowered to make informed viewing decisions
 Artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed in the process of
classification of films, The process of certification by CBFC is responsive, at all
times, to social change .
 The certification by CBFC keeps within the rights and obligations as laid down in the
Indian Constitution.
 In brief, terms of reference of the Committee were: “to study the procedures of
certification being followed by CBFC to recommend guiding principles with respect
to certification of films, within the ambit of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and
suggest a suitable staffing structure for a more efficient service.”.

Section 4 provides about examination of films. Section 4(1)iii provides that Board has the
power to direct film makers to carry out such modifications in the film as it thinks necessary
before sanctioning the film for public exhibition or under Section 4(1) it may refuse to
sanction the film.

6
Shyam Benegal Committee submits its report on Cinematograph Act/ Rules to Shri Jaitley” (26 Arpril 2016),
Press Information Bureau (Government of India), available online at
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=142288 (last accessed on 14 DEC , 2019)
 14

FILM CERTIFICATION- THERE ARE BROADLY FOUR TYPES OF

FILM CERTFICATION UNDER SECTION 5A of CINEMATOGRAPHY ACT,1952.

1. UNIVERSAL This type of certification is the Unrestricted Public Exhibition, and the
“U” same holds no limitations for the age groups that may watch the same.
They could be family, educational or social oriented themes. This
category has least violence and minimal foul language. When a movie
is being certified “U” by the Board , it must ensure that the movie is
suitable for a family to watch it together including the Children.

2.PARENTAL This type of certification explains that the film is appropriate for all age
GUIDANCE groups. However it is in the interest of the Children below 12 years of
“U/A” age to be accompanied by their parents. The reason could that the
theme of the movie may not be the most appropriate for the child
without the guidance of the parents. “U/A”
3.ADULTS As the certification suggests this type of film is restricted to adults only.
ONLY Persons above the age of 18 are adults, for the meaning of this
“A” certification. The theme may contain disturbing violent , drug abuse and
Other related scenes which are not considered suitable for viewing by
children who may be influenced by the same negatively. Firms that
meet the requisites of the above mentioned criteria but are not suitable
for exhibition to children or those below the age of 18 shall be certified
“A”
4. RESTRICTED This the last type of certification under the board and the same explains
TO SPECIAL that the films which are rated “S” are meant for a special class of
CLASS OF persons only. For example- doctors. If the Board is of the opinion that
PERSONS “S” with regard to nature , content and theme of the film is to be restricted
to the members of a class of persons or a profession, the above
certification shall be given to such film,

Certification is accorded by the subject matter of movie and how the said subject is depicted.
Antisocial activites with the depiction of glorified acts of violence, or criminal activities that
can invite offence are taken into consideration. Scenes that glorify smoking and drinking are
banned. Racial contempt or problematic communal issues are also not tolerated.

The statutory body has to keep in mind certain principles while certifying films. The
Cinematograph Act, 1952 guides the realm of film certification, often misunderstood as film
censorship in India. Section 5 B (1) of the Act sets out the principles for guidance in
certifying films. The Section is more or less a replica of Clause 2 of Article 19.

5-B (1) A film shall not be certified for public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority
competent to grant the certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of [the
sovereignty and integrity of India], the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
 15

States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is

likely to incite the commission of any offence.

(2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may issue
such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority
competent to grant certificates under this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition.

If we just take a look at the wording of the principles prescribed, it becomes clear to us that
the legislature has given wide discretion to the body which is supposed to be staffed with
competent persons. The statute states that no certificate shall be given to a film if it is against
decency or morality among other reasons outlined in Section 5-B of the law on certification.
It is this particular provision which often leads to a legal contest between the filmmaker and
certifying authority.

The Issues- There isn’t a special modus operandi when it comes to films getting banned
in consonance with procedure. The reasonable restrictions available in Article 19 (2) of the
constitution also mentioned under Section 5(b) of the Cinematographic Act is said to serve
the purpose but this has been wrongly used. Any film affecting the sovereignty and integrity
of India, the 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 is not allowed for public exhibition in India but did all these banned films met
the above criteria is big question mark.

An example for the apt use of limitations would be the banning of “No Fire Zone: In the
Killing Fields of Sri Lanka” because the government couldn’t further worsen their position
with their Sri Lankan counterparts. Apart from the above legal permutations there are many
other unofficial situations which has led to bans. The dispute has always been in relation to
the content of the film more than anything else

A summary of the other permutations are as summarized below.

 “Bandit Queen”(1994), a biographical film based on the life of Phoolan Devi a bandit
and later a Member Of Parliament was banned by Delhi High Court after Devi
challenged its authenticity. “

 “India’s Daughter” a documentary about the 2012 gang rape was prevented from
broadcast by a court order. Eventually the film was uploaded into Youtube and later
removed at the request of Indian Authorities.

 2016“Udta Punjab” saw major opposition by CBFC as it dealt with the inability of
the Punjab government to control drug mafia. The film was initially asked to make a
mammoth 89 cuts for granting certification. Later the High Court took up the matter
and recommended only one cut after which a leaked copy of the film spread online
with a “censor” watermark raising further suspicions.
 16

 “Final Solution” a 2004 documentary based on 2002 Gujarat violence was stopped
from screening citing fear of communal violence. It was later allowed for release
after public support poured in.

 “Madras Café” & “Inam” were banned in Tamil Nadu because it was filmed in the
backdrop of Sri Lankan Civil War.

 “Santa Banta Pvt Ltd” a Hindi comedy drama was banned in Punjab as the film had
portrayed Sikhs in a defamatory manner.

 “The Da Vinci Code”, a popular Hollywood flick was banned in Punjab, Goa, Andhra
and Tamil Nadu fearing that it might hurt Christian sentiments.

 The ban on “Lipstick Under my Burkha” due to the depiction of Muslim women in
bad light. Even before its official release in India it had won 11 International Awards,
was shown at over 35 film festivals and was India’s entry at the Golden Globe
Awards.

 “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” & “Fifty Shades of Grey” along with its sequel
“Fifty Shades Darker” didn’t see a release in India due to its explicit sexual content
after directors refusing to make the cuts recommended by CBFC.

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
put forward different and contrary views, 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 state.

 The Constitutional validity of film censorship regulations was challenged before the
Supreme Court for the first time in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India7. The challenger
was the producer-cum-director of a documentary film. Before the hearing of the case
started the government decided to grant certificate without cuts as previously ordered.
Thus the petition had become infructuous. However the court showed an extra-
ordinary enthusiasm in expounding the Constitutional issues raised in the case
because it felt the at the issues were important and a clear guidance would be of
immense help to those who invest capital in producing films. The petitioner, K. A.
Abbas, a veteran writer, producer and director, produced a documentary film, A Tale
of four Cities. There is an obvious contrast between luxury and squalor, and riches
and poverty in our cities. In his film the petitioner attempted to depict this contrast in
the lives of the people in four cities- Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Delhi. He
applied for a „U‟ Certificate, i.e. for unrestricted public exhibition, under the

7
(1971) AIR SC 481
 17

provisions of the cinematograph Act 1952. The Censor Board, which is now known
as the Board of Film Certifications after the amendment of the Act in 1981, decided
provisionally to grant an „A‟ Certificate restricting the exhibitions of the film to
adults only. The Central Government was the appellate authority under the Act at that
time. The petitioner appealed. The appellate authority decided to grant a „U‟
Certificate after ordering for certain cuts in the film. Dissatisfied with this decision,
the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. He claimed that censorship itself
offending his freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of the
Constitution.

The petitioner raised four arguments-

(1.) Censorship itself cannot be tolerated under the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of
speech and expression,

(2.) Even if it is a legitimate restraint on the freedom, it must be exercised on very definite
principles which leave no room for arbitrary action,

(3.) There must be a reasonable time limit fixed for the decision for the authorities censoring
the film, and

(4.) The appeal shall lie to a court or an independent tribunal and not to the Central
Government. The respondent, Union of India, conceded the third and the fourth and assured
the court that early steps would be taken to cure these defects. The Court therefore considered
only the other two arguments. The Court thereby held the view that “censorship of films,
their classification according to the age groups and their suitability for unrestricted exhibition
with or without excisions is regarded as a valid exercise of power in the interest of public
morality, decency etc. This is not to be construed as necessarily offending the freedom of
speech and expression”

 In the case of Bobby Art International v Om Pal Singh Hoon8 the respondent had
challenged the grant of “A” CERTIFICATE issued o the movie “ The Bandit Queen”
and to stop its screening in india on the ground that the scene shows frontal nudity,
and vulgar language which demeans the Gujjar Community. The Delhi High Court
had set aside the granting of :A” certificate and had prohibited its screening in India.
The Appellant Bobby Art International appealed before the Supreme Court. Allowing
the appeal the Supreme Court observed that “A Film that illustrates the social evil
necessarily must show the Social evil.. No film that extols it or encourage it is
permissible, but a film that carries the social message that film carries the social evil
cannot be made impermissible on the ground that it depicts social evil. At the same
time the depiction must be just sufficient for the purpose of the film. The Apex Court
set aside the judgement of High Court and restored the “A’ certificate and permitted
the film to be exhibited in India.

8
(1996) 4 SCC 1
 18

 In the Case of Directorate General of Doordarshan and ors. V . Anant

Patwardhan and anrs.,9 Anant Patwardhan has challenged the Doordarshan’s
refusal to telecast his film Father, Son an Holy War .The first part of the
documentary looked at the problems faced by Hindu and Muslim women within their
own religion.Part II examined the construction of the values of manhood. As the film
proceeds it reveals the inner psyche of men and shows how men are conditioned into
believing that violence is desirable. The film looks at the rhetorics of the street sellers
of aphrodisiac who create feeling of male insecurity and impotence in their audience
and offer their cheap medicine as a cure. The movie looks at the rhetorics of
politicians( both Hindu and Muslim) who appeal largely to their male audiences.
They too are taunting them for their impotence, but the medicine they offer for the
creation of real man is hatered against the other community. Allowing the petition the
hon’ble Supreme Court observed “ In our opinion, the respondent has right to convey
his conception on the oppression of women, flawed understanding of manhood and
evils of communal violence through the documentary film produced by him. As
already noticed, this film has won awards for best investigating film and best film on
social issues on the national level. The documentary film has won awards at
international level as well. The freedom of expression which is legitimate and
constitutionally protected, cannot be held to ransom on mere fall of a hat. The film in
its entirety has a serious message to convey and is relevant in the present context.
Doordarshan being a state controlled agency funded by public funds could not have
denied access to screen the respondents documentary except on specified valid
grounds.
 In Life Insurance Corporation Of India v. Prof. Manubhai D Shah10 ,
Doordarshan refused to telecast a documentary film on the Bhopal Gas tragedy titled
“Beyond Genocide” inspite of the fcat that the film won Golden Lotus Award being
the best non-feature film in 1987 and was granted “U” certificate by Censor Board.
Reasons cited by Doordarshan were inter alia , political parties had been raising
various issues concerning the tragedy and claims for compensation by victims were
sub-judice . In this case hon’ble Court held : Merely because it is critical of State
Government...it is no reason to deny selection and publication of the film. Also,
pendency of claims for compensation does not render the matter sub-judice so as to
shut out the entire film from the community.
 In a noteworthy case of A Arulmozhi v . Government of India11 the court held that
mere grant of certificate to other films which have more or similar obscene or
pornographic scenes could not automatically entitle a producer of film to a
certification under section 5A.
 In Anand Patwardhan v. Union of India and others12- An award winning
documentary film, “In memory of Friends” , about violence and terrorism in Punjab

9
2006(8) SCC 433
10
AIR 1993 SC 171
11
AIR 2006 Mad 49
12
 19

was rejected by Doordarshan even after being granted “U” certificate by Censor
Board, reasoning if such documentary is shown to people ,it would create communal
hatred and may even lead to further violence. Court quashed the order emphasising
state cannot prevent open discussion and open expression, however hateful to its
policies. Everyone has a fundamental right to form his own opinion on any issue or
general concern. He can form and inform by any legitimate means.
 In case of Secretary , Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v, Cricket
Association of Bengal- 13It was held by the Supreme Court that freedom of speech
and expression includes “right to acquire information and to disemminate it to public
at large. Hence, Article 19(1)(a) also acquire information and to disemminate it to
public at large”. When a movie falls out of the caste of certain power holders, they try
to ban movie simply because it does not suit a group of persons with whom they have
no link. Thus, when a movie is banned , right of viewers is also offended.
 Finally in the case of S Rangrajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and Ors.,14 the Hon;ble
Supreme Court proclaimed “, If the film is unobjectionable and cannot
constitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2) , freedom of expression cannot be
suppressed pn account of threat of demonstration and procession or threats of
violence. That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and surrender (sic) to
blackmail and intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of
expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The state rights cannot
lead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem”. Hence, the state cannot be
permitted to abdicate its constitutional responsibility to protect and promote the
creative arts.

In the Da Vinci controversy, the Supreme Court rejected the writ petition filed by All India
Christians Welfare Association who claimed it to be against Article 2515 of the constitution of
India and that it hurt the sentiments of the Christian community. The court observed that
since many predominantly Christian countries have no objection to the content of the movie,
and since the movie has been approved by the censor board and central government, it is
moot to ban it. Thus, the court has interpreted the provisions of Article 19 and the
Cinematograph Act, 1952 to bring out the ambit of censorship and scope of freedom of
speech and expression.

POLITICS OF CENSORSHIP- Then, there was controversy over Rajkumar

Hirani‟s movie PK (2014). The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) demanded for its ban. Its
members, along with followers from the Bajrang Dal took to tearing up the film‟s posters and
halting screenings. According to VHP spokesman Vinod Bansal, “PK made fun of
Hinduism”. Members of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board too demanded that the
Censor Board remove some scenes in the interest of maintaining “communal harmony”. The

13
(1995) 2 SCC 161
14
1989(2) SCC 574
15
Right to Freedom of religion
 20

other charge against PK was that it promoted „love jihad‟ 16 with a romantic track that
revolves around a Pakistani man named Sarfaraz and a Hindu woman with the goddess-like
name of Jagat Janani, the “creator of the world.” However, the Supreme Court's order rescued
the film caught in a swirl of legal controversy after its poster showed Amir Khan standing in
the buff on a rail track with a transistor covering his private parts. Indian society is mature
enough to distinguish between art and obscenity, the Supreme Court said while dismissing a
petition seeking a ban on the release of PK for promoting nudity According to VHP
spokesman Vinod Bansal, “PK made fun of Hinduism”. Members of the All India Muslim
Personal Law Board too demanded that the Censor Board remove some scenes in the interest
of maintaining “communal harmony”. The other charge against PK was that it promoted
“love jihad”with a romantic track that revolves around a Pakistani man named Sarfaraz and a
Hindu woman with the goddess-like name of Jagat Janani, the “creator of the world.”
However, the Supreme Court's order rescued the film caught in a swirl of legal controversy
after its poster showed Amir Khan standing in the buff on a rail track with a transistor
covering his private parts. Indian society is mature enough to distinguish between art and
obscenity, the Supreme Court said while dismissing a petition seeking a ban on the release of
PK for promoting nudity17

The month of August 2014, CBI 18 arrested CBFC19‟s then CEO, Rakesh Kumar, for
purportedly accepting a bribe to clear a Chattisgarhi film under a provision for emergency
certification.246 The arrest questioned the functioning of the CBFC. This was followed, in
January 2015, by the resignation of then chairperson of the CBFC, Leela Samson in the midst
of debate over clearance for Messenger of God featuring Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet
Ram Rahim Singh. 247 More than half of other board members quitted soon afterwards. The
resignation was made amid complaints of interference, coercion and corruption. Actually the
ban of the said movie was revoked by FCAT20. Leela and 13 members protested that the
government was treating the board in a high handed and cavalier way.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. 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‟, All these developments have aroused
16
Often used to denote practice under which young Muslims seduce non-muslim girls with the aim of
converting them to Islam.
17
“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 on 14th dec, 2019))
18
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the national investigation agency for investigation and collection of
criminal intelligence information in India
19
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
20
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. T
 21

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 films.21However, 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.

Findings
Finding 1 – CBFC has not been treating every film equally

In reference to the comparisons made between censoring of “Mohenjodaro” & “Unindian”

and “Ram Leela” & “Shahid” apparently shows there is no proper standard when it comes to
CBFC s‟ handling of the process. While big films mostly escape the board’s wavering
standards it is the small films to which its wrath is unleashed. Of course big films sometimes
do come under the scanner as well but that happens when there is a larger controversy like
the one in “Padmaavat”.

Finding 2 – When it comes to cinema it’s for the people that they are made and they are the
best judges.

Films like “Fifty Shades of Grey” which have been brought down by the board but has
received warm welcome from the audience ultimately proves that this is not what people
want. Though it is deemed to be a cautious effort fears of revenue loss, thousands who
worked for the film left uncredited or cuts hampering the narrative are matters of great
concern. In case of such instances post release where action is necessary before things go
haywire there is always an option of removing the film or the scenes from screens within no
time as everything has been digitalized and is controlled from one central place.

Finding 3 – Censoring does not make a huge difference it just spoils the movie watching
experience

Audiences of “A” Rated film watch these film knowing the violence or the explicit content it
would offer, they would obviously expect such stuff and as adults understand that cinema and
reality are far apart. Hollywood works in the same way and does not censor these scenes
unless it proves to be too much.

Finding 4 – Bans are sometimes used as a political weapon by governments.

When bans are imposed by governments they are either used to display their political upper
hand or just as an effort to please a section of objectors. In a rare case of real law and order
problem arising where the state is unable to hold talks nor control the parties the government
could then take the issue in its hands and impose a ban if necessary. Instead the governments
see this as an opportunity let the people know that they are still in control and it is a cautious

21
Someswar Bhowmik, Cinema and Censorship -The politics of Control in India (Orient Black Swan Delhi
2009).
 22

move for common good that the action was taken. “Vishwaroopam” is an apt case of
government using the film for its political motives using it for their own good.

Finding 5 – The censoring system that exists in India is outdated in comparison with other
countries.

Culture and lifestyle has drastically changed and hence people have a better understanding of
cinema. When the people of UK, US and many other countries have the capacity to handle
mature content why can’t we? The existing system literally has no room for grown-up content

and has been treating us like kids. India must make way for different content and make sure
the right film reaches the right set of audience.

RECOMMENDATIONS-
There isn’t an easy and permanent solution for every problem especially when it concerns art
which is ever developing. Few of the possible and practical suggestions are briefly mentioned
below.

(i) Expanded Rating System: In India we do not have “R” or “R-18” unlike the other
certifying bodies around the world. An “R” rating would mean that the film passes without
cuts and is allowed for restricted exhibition. The closest we have to these ratings is an “A”
(Adult) which is not appropriate for films based on certain subjects. An amendment in the
system could be seen as long term solution to solve the whole issue of films getting banned or
losing its artistic integrity due to unnecessary censor issues.

(ii) Public Participation: The time has come where common man must have a say in
censorship apart from the officials appointed by the CBFC. This would ensure there would be
no concerns about biased decisions and also a form of public representation in such
processes. Signing of a simple Non-disclosure agreement would also protect the content and
make sure his/her opinion has a part to play in the final decision of the board. To further
strengthen public inputs, an experimental system of „voluntary rating‟ followed in US seems
to be the right way forward. Under this highly successful system, an independent group of
parents having children aged between 5-20 years rate submitted works based on 2/3rd
majority. This group came to be known as Classification and Ratings Administration
(CARA) and its members change every 7 years leaving no space for any abuse of powers.

(iii) Uncensored adult content only for adults: Re-censorship of films for playing on
television sounds logical as no one would have any clue what kids are up to while watching
TV but when a legal adult purchases a movie ticket for a “A” rated film he expects the film to
treat him as an adult too and not as a kid or a teenager. Indians do have the capacity handle
mature content and hence it is high time that the CBFC, the Government puts down its
scissors and treat adults as adults who can understand mature content. Moreover this is what
people want! Proof ? We live in a country where over 17,817 people have signed a petition
seeking ban on censorship of adult films created initially by an irritated movie buff who had
to shell out Rs.600 to watch a film with most of its dialogues muted in the name of
 23

censorship. So, Adult rated films shouldn’t require cuts to enhance viewer interest because
that’s what he has paid for.

Conclusion
The blame cannot be fully placed on CBFC or the Government, but they must only be clipped
of their powers to restrict exhibition of any film and let the people decide if anything offends
them or not. The 1983 change from Central Board of film censor to Film Certification itself
pretty much explains the limited responsibility vested with the CBFC and it would only be
right for it to stick to what it is legally entitled to do. It would also be fruitful if censorship
laws in India see substantial changes to adapt to the current society where every household
has an internet connection and even a 10-year old kid is able to access all kind of stuff
available online. On the other side, film makers must try to find out ways where films can
deal with sensitive issues and be sensational yet not problematic. Avoidable inclusion of
explicit content in films might prove to be less laborious to Cinema Authorities not only here
but around the globe. At the same time it is necessary to strike a balance between preserving
culture and encouraging art but not by imposing unnecessary ban on films.
 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY-

 http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in>bitsream> critical
analysis of censorship of film accessed on 18 November,
2019 at 10:00pm
 http://www.researchgate.net>publication> CASE
STUDY: FILM CENSORSHIP IN INDIA accessed on 17
November, 2019 at 10:00p.m
 http://acadpubl.eu>hub> A study on bans and
censorship of films accessed on 17 November, 2019 at
10:00p.m
 http://www.livemint.com> 100 years of Censorship in
India- Livemint accessed on 18 November, 2019 at
10:15p.m
 http://www.indiewire.com>2017>india film censorship
accessed on 18 November, 2019 at 10:20 p.m