CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF KA ABBAS VS UNION OF INDIA AIR 1970 SC BY – PRAGYA MISHRA
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF KA ABBAS VS
UNION OF INDIA AIR 1970 SC
AUTHORED BY
– PRAGYA MISHRA[1]
ABSTRACT
Right to
express one's own view through words, arts, literature, films, etc. has been
safeguarded under article 19 (1)(a)[2]
of the constitution.
In the KA
ABBAS VS UNION OF INDIA [3]the
director made a documentary film “A Tale of Four cities” in which some scenes
of red-light area of Bombay were shown.
The court
imposed prior censorship on the ground of reasonable restriction under article
19(2)[4]
and section 5A and section 5B of the act[5]
The author
wants to point out that why censorship not imposed on OTT platform where one
can easily access anything, and most of the content on OTT platform were
abusive language, violence as well as scenes which a prudent man cannot feel
comfortable while watching with family.
KEYWORDS: Freedom, Speech and Expression , Censorship, OTT , Reasonable
Restriction
INTRODUCTION
Freedom of Speech
and Expression means the right to express one’s own convictions and opinions
freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode.
Freedom of
speech and expression is indispensable in a democracy. In Romesh Thapper v
state of Madras [6]
,Patanjali Sastri, J rightly observed
‘Freedom of
speech and of the Press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisation,
for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the
proper functioning of the process of popular Government, is possible’
1.
Article 19(1)(a) talks about that all citizens shall
have the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is not
absolute, it is subjected to reasonable restriction on following ground. These
are -
·
Security of state
·
Friendly relations with Foreign states
·
Public order
·
Decency and morality
·
Content of court
·
Defamation
·
Incitement to offence
·
Integrity and Sovereignty of India
FACTS OF
CASE:
K.A. Abbas made a documentary film called “A
Tale of Four cities” which attempted to portray the contrast between
the life of rich and poor in four principal cities of the country. The film
included certain shots of red light district in Bombay.
The Censor
Board of Film certificate refused to grant ‘u’cerificate as it found some scenes
offensive.
ISSUES:
·
Whether Pre – Censorship offend Freedom of speech and
expression .
·
Even the legitimate restraint must be exercised within
definite principles and there should be no scope of arbitrariness.
HELD:
1. Censorship of Films including Prior –
restraint held justifiable.
2.
It
almost universally recognised that motion pictures must be considered different
from other forms of art and expression.
3. The motion picture is able to stir up
emotions more deeply than any other product of art. It directly impact the
children and adolescents .
So , Basically Film was considered
different from other forms of art and expression as it is able to ‘stir
up Emotions more deeply than any other product of art’
LAWS
RELATED TO CENSORSHIP:
There is
Cinematrograph act 1952 made for examining and grantifying certificate for
Public Exhibition.
Section 3[7] –
BOARD OF FILM CENSORS
There is a Board of Film
certification which shall consist of chairman and not less than 12 and not more
than 25 other members for the purpose of Sanctioning films for Public
Exhibition.
Section .5A[8] -
Certification of films
The Board if found that film is
suitable for unrestricted public exhibition (U)or suitable for public
exhibition restricted to adult may grant (U) or (A) certificate respectively.
Section 5B[9] –
Principles for guidance in certifying Films
(1) A film shall not be certified for
public exhibition if competent authority find that the film or any part of it
is against interest of Sovereignty and Integrity of India, Security of state,
Friendly relation with foreign states, Public order, Decency or morality or
involves Defamation or Contempt of court or is likely to incite commission of
any offence.
(2) A central Government may issue
directions for guiding competent authority in granting certificates.
Landmark
Judgements Related to Censorship -
·
In a case[10]
, The censor board harass the film maker in order to get “ U”certificate which
is gross violation of article 19(1)(a)
·
BANDIT QUEEN CASE[11] -In This
film The phoolan Devi life story was portrayed. Also , rape
scenes were questioned along with image of Gujjar community harmed with some
particular scenes in movie.
Held- The supreme court
granted ‘A’ Certificate to Film
and held that film cannot be strictly resistricted only on ground of obscenity,
nudity as it also tries to portray reality of life story of Phoolan Devi.
WHY
CENSORSHIP NOT IMPOSED UPON OTT PLATFORMS
OTT (over the top) which streams the audio
and visual content via internet. During covid –times, OTT Platforms emerge
largely. The craze for Netflix, Amazon –prime series increased massively among
youths.
However, one thing to be noted is
that there is no regulatory body to govern OTT platform. And one can easily access any series
by just popping- up.
Most of content over OTT Platforms
contains abusive language, violence etc.
Thus, Film can easily get
censorshipped or we can say prior censorship but OTT platforms are available
easily without any regulatory bodies.
Conclusion
There is a need of censorship over
OTT Platforms so that vulnerable sections will be safeguarded, moral and social
standards will be maintainable.
References
Acts
·
Constitution
of India, 1950
·
Cinematrograph
act, 1952
Book
·
Dr.
J.N.PANDEY, Constitutional law of india (Cental Law Agency 55th
edition 2018)
·
Dr.
Bhagyashree A. Deshpande, Indian Constitutional Law The New Challenges (Central
Law Publications 1st edition 2021)