Latest News
Back
Document:
K .A Abbas vs Union Of India
|
Year of the case |
24th September 1970 |
|
Appellant |
K.A. Abbas |
|
Respondent |
The Union of India & Anr |
|
Bench |
Chief Justice Hidayatullah, Justice Shelat, Mitter, Vidyialingam, and Ray. |
|
Acts Involved |
The Constitution of India, The Cinemograph Act 1952. |
|
Important sections |
Article 19(1) (a) of Indian Constitution, Section 5-B (2) of The Cinemograph Act 1952. |
Abstract
Freedom of Speech and Expression is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India to all its citizens. It is also regarded as an integral part of most of the modern democracies across the world. Cinema is a mode of expression of thoughts, ideas, and views, and being the part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution it enjoys protection as conferred. However, the reasonable restrictions as imposed on Article 19(1)(a) can similarly be imposed on the mode of expression – Cinema. Restrictions on Cinema are articulated under The Cinematograph Act under which all the guidelines of certification as well as provisions to avoid arbitrariness are mentioned.
In India, Cinema is regulated by The Cinematograph Act, and a regulatory body called The Central Board of Film Certification was set up by the Act which primarily takes the task of certification of films for public exhibition. Thus, it can be termed as a body of rules and regulations are set to date, the arbitrariness and impartiality prevail, and the judiciary here plays an important role as a legal protector of rights and provide justice.
This case analysis tries to outline the background and major facts of the leading case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970), proceeding with the issues involved, and, in the end, shall discuss the Judgement and concepts that gained importance because of this judgment.
Facts Of The case
Khwaja Ahmad Abbas, a film director was also a member of the GD Khosla Committee on Film Censorship formed in 1969. His movie, A Tale of Four Cities, better known as “Char Sheher Ek Kahaani” was based on the contrasting lifestyles in four of the most prominent cities of India at the time, Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta, and Madras.
The movie was at loggerheads with the Censorship Committee’s liberalist claims. It also created a shock wave in the judiciary by questioning the relationship between fundamental rights granted by the constitution and the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The film had portrayed the scenes of Bombay’s red-light districts which proved to be a hard nut to crack for both the Censorship Board and the Judiciary. The director was very much adamant that the scenes had to be shown, at least with a ‘U’ certificate, if not without any restrictions at all.
The Censor Board’s Examining Committee said that a ‘U’ certificate can be granted to a film only if the public viewing was restricted to an audience above the age of 18. An appeal was filed in the supreme court of India, to which the court responded with an order recommending a ‘U’ certificate if some scenes portraying the red-light area, which depicted immoral trafficking, economic exploitation of women, and prostitution, were cut from the actual film.
The petitioner filed a petition arguing that his freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the constitution of India was denied, that the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 were unconstitutional and void, and that he was denied the ‘U’ certificate that his film was entitled to. However, the Central Government allowed granting the ‘U’ certificate without demanding any cuts or changes to be made in the film.
The director then requested to be allowed to amend his petition in light of the altered situation, which was accepted by the court. The petitioner then asked that the provisions of the Act and the power is given to various authorities and bodies under the Act were vague, arbitrary, and indefinite and also questioned the purpose of pre-censorship only in films excluding daily programs and news.
Issues
- Whether pre-censorship by itself offend the freedom of speech and expression or not?
- Even if there is a legitimate restraint on freedom, it must be exercised within the definite principles and no scope of arbitrariness or not?
Judgment –
As held in the leading case of K. A. Abbas v. Union of India, Chief Justice Hidayatullah, Justice Shelat, Mitter, Vidyialingam and Ray delivered their judgment and stated that the court does not accept the distinction between pre-censorship and censorship in general and observed that both are to be governed by the standard of reasonable restrictions within the Article 19(1) of Indian Constitution.
The Constitution has makes it clear that freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right and reasonable restrictions can be imposed on it. Pre-Censorship was permitted under the Constitution for public order and to uphold the rule of law the court observed. The Judiciary is regarded as a legal protector in preserving public interest and ensure justice and Fairplay for all.
Concerning the issue of insufficient guidelines in the Act, the court held that guidelines as provided within Article 19(1) of the Constitution clearly states the provisions and are sufficient. But the thin line of distinction between artistic and non-artistic expression in assessing obscenity needs better understanding and clarity. The Court observed he cannot be the whole reason to strike down the provisions of the Act.
Thus, the Supreme Court of India upheld that the restrictions on public exhibition under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and thereby rejected the petition that challenged the power of censorship and stated that pre-censorship fell under the reasonable restrictions permitted under freedom of speech and expression and that the Act provides the means and provisions to avoid arbitrariness in the exercise of the powers conferred.
Document:
