P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjevan Ram and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (30 Mar 1989)

Protecting ‘morality’: Sparks in the wrong powder keg

MANU/SC/0475/1989

Media and Communication

The Central Board of Film Certification’s trimming of movies to conform to the ‘morals of society’ may occasionally lead to ‘silent’, blurry and somewhat neutered films in 2015, but it has toned down its rhetoric, really. In 1987 the certifying committee had refused outright grant of a certificate to a film that broke all moral code, despite being recommended for an ‘Unrestricted’ certificate – by questioning the government’s reservation policies. The committee argued vociferously against "Ore Oru Gramathile", for its potential to create “law and order problems” and instigate a “volatile” reaction in Tamil Nadu.

It is uncanny then how apt the Court’s discussion would be over 25 years after those events. “The standard to be applied by the Board or courts for judging the film should be that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not that of an out of the ordinary or hypersensitive man… The anticipated danger [to community] should not be remote, conjectural or far fetched. It should have proximate and direct nexus with the expression.” Finally, the Court opined, “It is [the State’s] obligatory duty to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression… Open criticism of Government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression.”

Relevant : Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India MANU/SC/0133/1978 K.A. Abbas v. Union of India MANU/SC/0053/1970 Article 19 Constitution of India Act

Tags : FILM CERTIFICATION   INTOLERANCE   FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved