India’s state governments Misusing Laws to Censor Films

0
 India’s state governments Misusing Laws to Censor Films
 India’s state governments Misusing Laws to Censor Films

Two recent movies – S. Durga by Sanal Kumar Sasidharan and Rani Padmavati by Sanjay Leela Bhansali – has caused widespread public furore in recent months.

The government has refused to allow the screening of S. Durga in ongoing International Film Festival of India despite of the Kerala High Court directing it to do so.

The film Padmavati is suffering a more precarious fate. A fringe outfit Karni Sena has vandalised the movie’s sets and made several threats including beheading of its actors. Consequently, five state governments in India- Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Punjab, and Madhya Pradesh, all except Punjab ruled by the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), have declared that they will not be allowing the release of the film in their territories.

According to them, the film, seen as an affront to the powerful Rajput community, could result in a “breakdown of law and order.”

Law and order is a state subject as per the Indian Constitution and caste sensibilities are still a major force in India’s political landscape.

State Governments Defying SC Directives On Film Censorship

However decisions being taken by the central and state governments with respect to screening of controversial films are in defiance of several Supreme Court rulings.

The SC has repeatedly ruled that a film can be censored only in the case if its screenings pose “a threat to public order”. The apex court has further clarified that “public order” is separate from “law and order”.

As specified under the Article 19(2) of the Constitution, freedom of expression is a fundamental right in India and can be curtailed under “reasonable restrictions” of which “public order” is one.

A Supreme Court ruling in the Ram Manohar Lohia case in 1965  held that the public or the community as a whole needs to be affected for an act to be considered as jeopardizing public order.

In the Arun Ghosh case, the Supreme Court offered a clear explanation with examples, wherein the emphasis is on a large section of society getting affected as opposed to a small group alone. This implies that “law and order” is narrower in terms of scope than “public order” and hence the terms should not be used interchangeably.

State’s Duty To Protect Freedom Of Expression

Whenever creative works provoke public outrage, the Supreme Court has held the state responsible for protecting the freedom of expression.

Supreme Court rulings in the S. Rangarajan case  in 1989 and in the K.M. Shankarappa case  have held that a state was abdicating its duty if it gives into blackmail by protesting groups. The state is required to use its systems to protect law and order.

Rakesh Sharma a documentary-maker whose 2003 film ‘Final Solution‘on the subject of the Gujarat riots was not given permission to be screened, despite getting clearance from the censor board.  He said that he was opposed to “various fringe groups wielding the censor’s truncheon” and suppressing the freedom of expression.

Sharma noted that the government and police must take the protestors into preventive custody and allow the films to be screened. However “political expediency” in a “polarized landscape” has resulted in the state giving into the fringe groups rather than following Constitutional norms, he said.

 

.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here