In coming down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government order suspending the screening of the Hindi film Aarakshan, which deals with issues of caste and reservation, the Supreme Court of India has struck another blow for freedom of expression and against the tendency of the state to resort to censorship at the first sign of political protest. Importantly, the court held that the government had no power to suspend screening of a film that had been cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification. The CBFC, or censor board, is an empowered regulatory body constituted to view, rate, and censor objectionable portions of a film prior to its release. To seek to ban or suspend the screening of a film certified by the censor board under the procedure established by law (in this case, the Cinematograph Act 1952) goes against the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution — and is a threat to democratic dissent and artistic creativity. Hearteningly, the court found no merit in the contention that screening the film would cause a breach of peace and law and order. Besides pointing to the fact that the film had been released without difficulty in other parts of the country, the judges referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in the 1989 Ore oru gramathile case and ruled that it was for the state to maintain law and order and that “it shall maintain law and order effectively and meaningfully.” No democratic society can allow unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of expression under cover of maintaining public order.
As for the merits of the contention that a high-level committee appointed by the Uttar Pradesh government had recommended suspension of the film on the ground that it dealt with the sensitive issue of reservation, the Supreme Court was categorical that public discussion on such social issues was necessary in a vibrant democracy, and that informed decisions could be taken on the basis of such discussion and dissent. On the other hand, shutting out discussion on sensitive social issues, far from aiding public order, would have the effect of deepening social divides and breeding public unrest. Political stability and public order, it is clear, cannot be bought at the cost of freedom of expression and right to dissent. Successive Supreme Court rulings on the issue, which draw force from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, should deter governments from going down this road again under pressure from organised groups or special interests or for any other reason. The Hindu hopes that Aarakshan will be the last film to face a ban in India.
Keywords: Hindi film, Aarakshan ban, caste, reservation, Supreme Court order, Central Board of Film Certification
Regular intervention of law and order is necessary in order to make pepole aware that we are living in a democratic country. Untill issues will come and dissused in public no conclusion can be brought out.
The Supreme Court's stand is laudable in giving out this judgement. This issue once again points out the lack of understanding of the nature of Democracy by the very institutes which are supposed to preserve it. Freedom of speech is the basic essence of Democracy, which needs to be preserved at any cost. Moreover, the topic in discussion, reservation in educational institutions has become an issue about which people are so scared that it is blasphemous even to discuss the merits and demerits of it.
I completely agree with Mr. C.S. Padmanabhan. The editorial headline needs an explanation. Please don't underestimate the intelligence of a'The Hindu' reader.
There is no art without freedom of expession or thought.Banning a movie that sparks up unrest in the society is not the response expected. Attempting to solve the real issue of reservation and the repurcussions of it is what we need to talk about.
This really is a hallmark verdict which reinforces the fundamental rights in a democracy guranteed by the constitution.I am quite in agreement with the supreme court's pronuncement that the law and order should be kept in control by the state govt's and that they should not resort to undemocratic means in light of pressure from jingoist organisations and crush the freedom of artistic creativity in a democracy.
My prepositions were always bad.I spent a good 5 minutes in understanding that a blow 'for' freedom meant 'a blow in favour of freedom'. .
it's again the matter of judicial acitivism. Its freedom to express views.
Mr. C S Padmanabhan, I think you misread the title. It describes a blow 'FOR' freedom, not a blow 'AGAINST' freedom.
I differ from this,though we have a democracy but some parts of our society are not mature enough to understand the purpose behind these kind of movies and usually tend to absorb whatever is shown. The issue of reservation is a critical moot point, but is the movie limited to that? No its not .It involves love story ,deepika etc.If it has to focus on social issues why isn't it in documentary section of movies. Indian directors should realize that walking with crutches of social issues isn't going to benefit anyone in this country but them.
The Hindu has always stood for constitutional values.We are proud of that.Every shade of political thought looks the movie through its own prism.While their right to expression is to be respected,they should not strangulate functioning of constitution as this would lead to anarchy.
Dear CS Padmanabhan,: Supreme Court of India has struck another blow FOR (freedom of expression) and AGAINST (the tendency of the state to resort to censorship at the first sign of political protest).
In a democracy, there is always a healthy debate on various issues. Yet again, the Supreme Court has given a verdict and the UP Government should honour this and allow the screening of the film in a peaceful way. Let not the Government exercise its powers arbitrarily.
One of the recent trends of our culture is the promotion of personal aggrandisement at the cost of others freedom. The vested interests take up the cudgels against the freedom of artistic creativity. Apparently this tendency emanates from some special interests for their selfish gain. They read between the lines in what ever the work of art or the piece of writing unveils. This is a dangerous trend that curbs creativity and thus the progress of civilization, for civilisation is not eating choclates or riding in a motor car, as famous British author C E M Joad admonishes. Civilisation is the creation of some thing beutiful, he says. And "a thing of beauty is joy for ever," chronicles poet John Keats. The contextual taint any great work of art carries may be ignored vis a vis its magnificence and the excellence. Our great epics and sculptures make examples of this truism. However your watchful and nascent reaction to the reactionary squabbles is admirable.
Since the constitution or the government had response different organisations or different governing bodies for different subjects, there is no need the state govt of UP to interferer in the act of censer board.. they are aware with the consequences of showing that film to public..
A well deserved and an apt judgement by the supreme judicial authority of our country. Movies are essentially the reflection of how our society functions, the ideas depicted not only resonate but make us muse over the matters of social interest. And as your article rightly mentions how such misplaced ban can actually deter the creativity and will only result in those banal and hackneyed themes centered solely on commercial gains
SC should also have imposed heavy penalty on the UP Govt.
I believe that in today's digital world the objective behind banning a movie or a book has all but lost its meaning . Because of the Internet anyone can download and watch the movie even if it is banned.
While your editorial is to the point and welcome, I fail to understand how Supreme Courts verdict strikes down 'Freedom'? Freedom to exhibit the film or Freedom to ban the film?
The media has played a good role in throwing light on various aspects of 'Aarakshan' as an enlightened and informed citizen it becomes necessary to march a mile thinking conclusively about it.
Let the political class understand that its inability to ensure law and order and provide equity should not prove to be an impediment in ensuring the freedom of expression enshrined in the preamble of the constitution.If a state govt feels it is not capable of ensuring law and order, let the govt go. How can an govt infringe upon a fundamental right ?
While films containing explicit sexual contents run unabated in public halls, those dealing with controversial social issues often face ban on the pretext of causing law and order problem. The Supreme Court has once again proved that its intervention is regularly required to keep our democratic society vibrant.
good judgement indeed! congratulations to indian democracy.
Please Email the Editor