Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi High Court: Software Receipts Not Taxable on PE Basis Already Rejected by ITAT  ||  Delhi High Court: Statutory Appeals Cannot Be Denied Due to DRAT Vacancies or Administrative Delays  ||  J&K&L HC: Failure to Frame Limitation Issue Not Fatal; Courts May Examine Limitation Suo Motu  ||  Bombay HC: Preventing Feeding Stray Dogs at Society or Bus Stop is Not 'Wrongful Restraint'  ||  Gujarat HC: Not All Injuries Reduce Earning Capacity; Functional Disability Must Be Assessed  ||  Delhi HC: Framing of Charges is Interlocutory and Not Appealable under Section 21 of NIA Act    

Central Board of Film Certification and Ors. v. Pankaj Butalia and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (15 Feb 2016)

Personal views in interview on ‘sensitive’ Kashmir to not be censored

MANU/DE/0346/2016

Media and Communication

The Delhi High Court rejected calls from the CBFC against the grant of a ‘U’ certificate to a documentary about the suffering caused by the long term violence in Kashmir. The CBFC had directed four excisions from the documentary titled ‘The Texture of Loss’; additionally a disclaimer was to be added stating that the views in the film did not intend hurt to caste, religion or society. Two scenes sought deletion of the expression “disproportionate violence” and a statement by a family damning India after the loss of their son in military action. The Court agreed that violence in Kashmir remains a sensitive topic, however material in the film was not objectionable. Statements made during interviews were personal views which could not have a demoralizing effect on security forces nor could they be termed anti-national.

Relevant : S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjevan Ram and Ors. MANU/SC/0475/1989 Section 5A Cinematograph Act, 1952

Tags : DOCUMENTARY   OBJECTIONABLE COMMENTS   SENSITIVE TOPIC   PERSONAL VIEW  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved