The document discusses censorship and freedom of expression in India. It summarizes several court cases that challenged censorship decisions by the Central Board of Film Certification. The courts generally ruled in favor of allowing depictions of controversial topics or events, finding that censorship should not limit introspection or understanding of social realities. The document also discusses how freedom of speech is important for democracy but can be reasonably restricted by laws in the interest of public order. It concludes by quoting Professor Milton Friedman on the importance of understanding freedom and acting courageously to preserve it.

1. Here’s Why We Need To
Retrospect Intolerance And
Censorship
By Kush Kalra

2. K.A.Abbas’s case
• “The task of censor is extremely delicate and its duties cannot
be the subject of an exhaustive set of commands established by
prior ratiocination….Our standards must be so framed that we
are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least
capable and most depraved amongst us determines what the
morally healthy cannot view or read. The standards that we set
for our censors must make a substantial allowance in favor of
freedom thus leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret life
and society with some of its foibles along with what is good.”
• The task of censorship is to teach the viewer to become a
citizen through a particular spectatorical practice, and the
imagined gaze of the citizen viewer determines the specific
content of censorship laws.

3. Censorship on the decline
• In general, prior restraint regarding film screenings has been
on the decline over the decades in the democratic world.
• Since the 1960s in the United States, the courts have
prescribed rigid criteria for prior restraint in cinema.
• However, supervision of film still exists in the shape of film
classifications introduced by the Motion Picture Association
of America.
• Similarly, in England, the common practice is that censorship
is based on the classification of movies according to their
suitability to different audiences.
• However, in contrast, certain countries such as India and
several other Asian countries still retain censorship powers on
films.

4. Censor board has failed
• Despite the power of regulating the content of films being
vested in the Censor, the Central Board of Film Certification
(CBFC) has often failed in the task entrusted to it by either
stifling creativity or hijacking morality and trying to
substitute it with the morality of certain vested interests.
• It is at times like these that the courts have to step in as the
savior of freedom, safeguarding different forms of expression
against the censorial instincts of the state.

5. Censorship against depiction of the
aftermath of Godhra roits
• The case of F.A. Picture International v. CBFC was regarding
the film ‘Chand Bujh Gaya‘, which depicted the ordeal of a
youth couple- a Hindu boy and Muslim girl- whose lives were
torn apart in the State of Gujarat.
• The CBFC held that “the Gujarat violence is a live issue and a
scar on national sensitivity.
• Exhibition of the film will certainly aggravate the situation.”
• The Bombay High Court held that no democracy can
countenance a lid of suppression on events in society and
stability in society can only be promoted by introspection
into social reality, however grim it may be.

6. • In Ramesh Pimple v. CBFC , the documentary film
‘Aakrosh’ focused on the communal riots in Gujarat.
• The CBFC sought to curtail the screening of the movie on the
ground that such exhibition would incite suppressed
communal feelings.
• However, overruling this objection, the court gave the
opinion that it is when the hour of conflict is over that it may
be necessary to understand and analyse the reason for strife.
• We should not forget that the present state of things is the
consequence of the past, and it is natural to inquire as to the
sources of the good we enjoy or for the evils we suffer.

7. Freedom of speech?
• Protection of freedom of speech is important for the
discovery of truth by open discussion, for self- fulfillment and
development, for expressing belief and political attitudes,
and for active participation in democracy.
• It is necessary to maintain and preserve freedom of speech
and expression in a democracy.
• Accordingly, under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India,
the State may make a law imposing “reasonable restrictions”
on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and
expression “in the interest of” the public.

8. As Prof Milton Friedman says
• “Freedom is not the natural state of mankind. It is a rare and
wonderful achievement. It will take an understanding of what
freedom is, of where the dangers to freedom come from. It will
take the courage to act on that understanding if we are not
only to preserve the freedoms that we have, but to realize the
full potential of a truly free society.”

9. • Read more on Youth Ki Awaaz at http://bit.ly/13Cj0YB

10. • Read more on Youth Ki Awaaz at http://bit.ly/13Cj0YB