Onslaughts on Free Speech in India by Means of Unwarranted Film Bans (Second Edition) by Karmanye Thadani, Subhajoyti Banerjee, et al - HTML preview

PLEASE NOTE: This is an HTML preview only and some elements such as links or page numbers may be incorrect.
Download the book in PDF, ePub, Kindle for a complete version.

The appellant, S. Rangarajan was a film producer. He produced a Tamil film Ore Oru Gramathile and applied for certificate for exhibition of the film. The examination committee upon seeing the film refused to grant the certificate but on a reference being made to the 2nd Revising Committee for review and recommendation, the Committee by a majority of 5:4 recommended the grant of a ‘U’ certificate subject to the deletion of certain scenes. On 07.12.1987, aU certificate was granted which was challenged in the High Court by means of writ petitions. It was contended before the High Court that the film is treated in an irresponsible manner, the reservation policy   of the Govt. has been projected in a biased manner and the so-called appeal in the film that India is one is a hollow appeal which touches the caste sensitivity of the Brahmin forward caste. It was also asserted that the film would create law-and-order problem in Tamil Nadu. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge but upon appeal they were allowed and the ‘U’ certificate issued to the appellant producer was revoked. These two appeals, one by the producer of the film and the other by the Union of India have been filed by special leave of challenging the decision of the High Court.

 

 

ii)         Contentions

 

The principal contentions raised on behalf of the appellants were that the fundamental right of freedom of free expression guaranteed under the Constitution  covers even the medium of movies; that the opinion on the film ought not to be rested on the isolated passages  disregarding the main theme and its message and that the Court should not concern itself with the correctness or legality of the views expressed in the film and the  Court cannot limit the expression on any general issue even if it is controversial and that the script of the film must be  considered in a free and liberal manner in the light of the  freedom of exp