SC: Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Follow if an Officer is Discharged on the Same Charge  ||  SC Clarified the Distinction Between Arbitration “Seat” And “Venue” While Summarising Key Principles  ||  Supreme Court: Wife and Her Family Cannot Be Prosecuted For Dowry-Giving Based On Her Complaint  ||  SC: Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the Ground of Order II Rule 2 Bar  ||  Supreme Court Has Issued an SOP Prescribing Strict Timelines For Filing Legal Aid Appeals  ||  Madras HC: Dhurandhar 2 Release Cannot be Stalled Due to Objections From a Small Section  ||  Delhi HC: Lokpal May Form Prima Facie Opinion Before Show Cause Notice Without Prior Hearing  ||  Bom HC: Family Courts Cannot Casually Order a Spouse’s Medical Examination to Assess Mental Health  ||  Bombay HC: Child Care Leave Protects Motherhood and Denial Violates Rights of Mother and Child  ||  Supreme Court: Amalgamating Company Loss Cannot be Set Off Against Amalgamated Income    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved