LLOYD LAW

COLLEGE
INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION

LAW AND MEDIA

K.A Abbas v. Union Of India And Another

Vasoo Garg
SEMESTER 3RD

SECTION ‘E’

B.A.LL.B
Introduction
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India is perhaps the first case where the question relating to the
censorship of films arises. In this case, the Supreme Court considered important question
relating to pre-censorship of cinematograph films in relation to the fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The
petitioner in this case challenged the decision of the Board of Film Censors in refusing a ‘U’
certificate for him film “A Tale of Four Cities”. While the case was pending in the Supreme
Court, the Central Government to grant the ‘U’ certificate provided certain cuts were made in
the film.

Facts
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
The following two issues were before the court for consideration:
 That pre-censorship itself cannot be tolerated under the freedom of speech and
expression; and
 That even if it were a legitimate restraint on the freedom, it must be exercised on very
definite principles which leave no room for arbitrary action.

Case analysis
Chief Justice Hidayatullah delivered the Court’s opinion, on behalf of justices Shelat, Mitter,
Vidyialingam and Ray.
The Court did not accept the distinction between prior censorship and censorship in general
and considered both to be governed by the standards of reasonable restrictions within Article
19(2) of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution recognized that freedom of speech and
expression was not an unrestricted right and therefore, reasonable restrictions could be
imposed. The absence of the word ‘reasonable’ in the Cinematograph Act was considered
inconclusive in this regard. Prior censorship was permitted under the Constitution for public
order or tranquility. The Court referred to the guardianship role of the Courts as the legal
protector of citizens in preserving public interest.
With respect to the issue of insufficient guidelines in the Act and the arbitrary exercise of
powers under the Act, the Court found that the guidelines given under the Act read with
Article 19(2) of the Constitution were sufficiently clear. However, it recommended that the
guidelines draw a distinction between artistic expression and non-artistic expression in
assessing obscenity. This alone was however considered insufficient to strike down the
provisions of the Act.
Decision Of The Supreme Court
It was held that censorship of art must be made for the interest of social and moral justice. It
was said that censorship did not offend right to speech and expression and task of censor
being extremely careful could not be subjected to an exhaustive set of commands and prior
ratiocination. The decision was based on constitutional interpretation of article 19(2) of the
Indian constitution. It was held that pre censorship was justified and constitutionally valid as
it was covered under the ambit of article 19(2) and, therefore, it did not violate the provision
of freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a). Also the classification and
certification of films into the categories of ‘U’ and ‘A’ films was justified and reasonable.
The court, therefore, held that censorship of the films, classification in different ways like age
group and suitability for unrestricted exhibition with or without excisions was regarded as a
valid practice in public interest, morality, etc. This practice did not offend the freedom of
speech and expression.

Related Case Laws

In the case of Rangarajan v. P.Jagivan Ram[1], The Supreme Court of India zealously
protected the freedom of expression and overturned the decision of Madras High Court which
revoked a U certificate awarded to the film Ore Oru Gramathile on the ground that
government policy reservation system as portrayed in the film may cause widespread law and
order problem in Tamil Nadu. When the matter went as an appeal to the Supreme Court, the
apex court demolished the state argument and stated that “The State must protect the freedom
of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The State cannot plead its
inability to handle the hostile audience problem”.[2]

In another case of Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon[3], the petitioner filed a
petition asking the court to quash the certificate of the exhibition for the screening of the film
‘Bandit Queen’ and also to restrain its exhibition within India and pleaded that this film
depicts the life story of Phoolan Devi and the way the rape scenes are depicted in this film it
is a slur to womanhood in India and also contended that depiction of Gujjar community
promoted moral depravity to a particular community. It was held by the apex court that the
decision of Tribunal in granting of ‘A’ certificate to the film is valid and stated that “The film
must be judged in its entirety from the point of overall impact. Where the theme of the film is
to condemn degradation, violence, and rape on women, scenes of nudity and rape and use of
expletives to advance the message intended by the film by arousing a sense of revulsion
against the perpetrators and pity for the victim is permissible”.[4]

In Shree Raghavendra Films v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[5], the exhibition of the film
‘Bombay’ in its Telugu version was suspended in the exercise of powers under section 8(1)
of the A.P Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955 despite being certified by the Censor Board for the
unrestricted exhibition. The suspension was imposed because the film may hurt sentiments of
certain communities however, the court discovered that the authorities who imposed those
suspensions did not even watch the film and thus the court quashed this arbitrary suspension.

Conclusion
By reading the case with respect to today’s scenario, it can be concluded that films are one of
the mediums of portraying a mirror image of the society. The concept of pre-censorship had
been introduced just to make sure that the content which goes in front of the audience does
not inflict any kind of hatred, fear, anxiety or is not a portrayal of nudity out of context. The
Central Bureau of Film Certification (CBFC) should make sure that they don’t use censorship
as a tool to deprive the general public from knowing the truth and real facts. Censorship must
be used as a very narrow spectrum so that a lot of space is left for the creativity and ideas to
flourish in the films. Right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right
guaranteed to every citizen of this country and thus the filmmakers must also have the
freedom to express their art also in a manner that may not be liked or supported by the
government or some radicals and staunch minds who refuse to accept the change in the ways
of society. It has been rightly said by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud that Indian democracy gives
the right to free speech which is not conditional to the views which may be palatable to
mainstream thought and dissent is the quintessence of the democracy . Thus, CBFC should
try that a situation does not arise where the courts have to step in as a saviour of freedom.
Mainly if a film is seen as a whole and not only considering a particular scene, one can make
out the context in which that scene has been put in. So to it can be concluded with a line that
the way beauty of literature lies in the ability of its writer to criticise crotchet around similarly
a filmmaker must be given the audacity to criticise the malpractices he witnesses in the
society through his films.
References
[1] (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574.

[2] Ibid.

[3] (1996) 4 SCC 1.

[4] Ibid.

[5] 1995 (2) ALD 81