Arguments Against

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
3) Whether the ban imposed by state of Ranji on entertainment

industry vide Notification No.42/2023 is constitutionally valid or not?
It is humbly submitted to the hon’able court that the ban imposed by
state of Ranji on entertainment industry vide Notification No.42/2023 is
constitutionally invalid.
3.1 That Gunculture and weapon are part of cultural heritage
Weapons have been a part of Ranjian culture for centuries. These find a
mention in popular songs going back to even the tales of Jagga Daaku,
Dulla Bhatti or Mirza-Sahiban. The use of guns and weapons is a part of
rich culture of State of Ranji
State of Ranji has always had a heroic tradition and Sikh history has
always glorified sacrifice and heroism. This is also said by a renowned
personality Satnam Sandhu, who runs the magazine Ranji Heritage, that
“From Ranjian vaars or heroic ballads to a love story like Mirza-Sahiban,
weapons have been an intrinsic part of Ranjian ethos. We celebrate
soormas, our folk heroes are Jeona Morh. What was earlier a teer-
kamaan or lance has been replaced by a gun.”
Dr Sucha Singh Gill, director-general of CRRID (the centre for research
in rural and industrial development), says in earlier times the weapons
were for self-defence. “It was during militancy that the gun became a
symbol of power. Even after normalisation, there was an increase in the
number of licences issued, particularly in the first decade of the new
millenium. It was during this time that one finds a number of songs on
weapons. They express the connect between the political and cultural
reality in Ranji. The two emerging realities of unemployment and drug
menace soon made guns a tool of assertion.”1
To understand Ranji’s fascination for weapons, one needs to go back a
few centuries when historical threats from marauders made it essential
to keep weapons for protection. The British patronage to Sikh
regiments led to guns becoming an essential part of Ranji’s culture. It
was, however, not until after 15 years of militancy that an interest in
guns and weapons was revived. This generation born after 1995 had
not seen the dark times of militancy. Gun on shoulder, riding a horse or
jeep soon became images of assertion for this generation, which had no
other folk hero or role model but a revolutionary like Bhagat Singh to
idolise.
Songs don’t influence society. They merely reflect the trends in society.
There is a demand for all kinds of music and banning such songs will not
help curb gangwars or gun culture. People don’t buy weapons after
watching songs but more out of concern for personal safety. Rather
than an embargo on entertainment industry and a ban on creativity,
the state needs to address the issue of multiple gun licences being
issued,
A 2018 study conducted by Macquarie University’s music lab in
Australia among fans of violent music and those who didn’t like that
music at all found there was no difference in the choices either group
made when shown violent images after listening to gruesome sound
tracks. “The conclusion was that music didn’t sway opinion or action,”
'Movies, Music a Mere Reflection of Society'
"It is this very angst and the anger and alienation that the government
has to get to the root of and help channelize this energy into something
1
/www.tribuneindia.com/news/features/shot-of-words-is-punjabs-ban-on-songs-extolling-gun-culture-logical-
452665
positive", said Harinder Happy, a PhD scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru
University (JNU).2
According to him, there are myths about gun culture in Ranji that he
would like to debunk. "Films, songs, movies reflect the society. It would
be wrong to say that songs are encouraging gun culture. It rather is a
reflection of how the society is. The society is not a homogenous one.
Not everyone has the means and access to a gun. You cannot therefore
say gun culture is rampant," he said.
'Forms of Weapon Have Changed'
Sikhism has been seen as a "weaponised religion". Weapons like the
sword are intrinsically linked to Sikhism, but they don't realize the
history and origins behind it, he adds. During the Khalsa movement in
the 17th-18th century, these weapons were used to fight against the
atrocities of the Mughal rule. They were used to fight oppression. From,
time to time, the type of weapon has changed and that has grown to
include a gun to some extent."
3.2 precensorship is unconstitutional
The Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Jha Productions & Anr V/s
Union of India & Ors [2011 (8) SCC 372] 3has held that once the film has
been certified by the Censor Board, it is the duty of the state
government to effectively maintain law and order once such film has
been publicly exhibited. Referring to Section 6(1) of the U.P. Cinemas
(Regulation), Act, 1955, the Supreme Court further held that
suspension can be ordered in respect of a thing which is operational
and not which is yet to be put into operation. The apex court had held
2
www.thequint.com
3
https://indiankanoon.org
that suspension of the film even before it was publicly exhibited in that
state was ultra vires Section 6 of the UP Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955
State cinema regulations have a similar provision which empowers
state governments to suspend exhibition of the film but only after it has
been publicly exhibited. Banning the film in the states despite CBFC
having cleared the film seems to be a desperate and mala fide attempt
to step into the role of the CBFC and is clearly ultra-vires the powers of
the state governments under their respective state cinema regulations.
3.3 VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1) (a)
Article 19 (1) (a) states that Protection of certain rights regarding
freedom of speech etc.
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) To freedom of speech and expression;
The Supreme Court has clearly laid down in a series of decisions that if
the film is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted
under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on
account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of
violence. That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and
surrender to black mail and intimidation. It is now the duty of the states
to protect the rights of the film makers and provide a safe environment
for the exhibition of the film. Cinema should not be held ransom to
vote bank politics and hooliganism.
In the case S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 19894
A film was issued a ‘U’ certificate by the Board until it was revoked by
the Madras High Court and also banned the public exhibition of that
movie amid the protests against it. The film dealt with a very sensitive
4
/blog.ipleaders.in
topic of reservation policy in Tamil Nadu. The movie was critically
acclaimed as it received the National Award by the Directorate of Film
Festival of the Government of India.
The matter was heard by the Supreme Court on an appeal where it was
observed that a movie cannot be restricted from the public exhibition
on the threat of demonstrations or protests by the general public.
These protests are beyond the reasonable restrictions placed under
Article 19(2) of the Constitution. A mere intimation of violence by the
public shall not be a restriction on freedom of speech and expression as
it is a duty of the state to protect these fundamental rights at any cost.
3.4 Violation of article 19 (1) ( g)
Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(g) To practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business
Here it is submitted that every citizen has right to practice any
profession, occupation, trade or business so if these movies and songs
are banned tremendous amount of people working in this industry will
be effected rendering them jobless and forcefully snatching their basic
necessities of life.
The fundamental right of the people to carry business under Art.
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of Akahand Bharat is also curtailed as the
impugned order even though passed with the authority of law is
mala-fide in nature and imposes unreasonable restriction on his
interest.10 this was quoted in the case Gopal Vinayak Godse vs UOI,
1971 CriLJ 324, ¶ 37, 38. 5
5
https://indiankanoon.org

Arguments Against

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arguments Against

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arguments Against

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

3) Whether the ban imposed by state of Ranji on entertainment

You might also like