{"id":271962,"date":"1989-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989"},"modified":"2015-09-09T17:16:54","modified_gmt":"2015-09-09T11:46:54","slug":"s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989","title":{"rendered":"S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 SCR (2) 204, 1989 SCC (2) 574<\/div>\n
Author: K Shetty<\/div>\n
Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS. RANGARAJAN ETC\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP. JAGJIVAN RAM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT30\/03\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 SCR  (2) 204\t  1989 SCC  (2) 574\n JT 1989 (2)\t70\t  1989 SCALE  (1)812\n\n\nACT:\nCinematograph Act<\/a>, 1952 (Cinematograph (Certificate) Rules,\n1983.\n    Sections  4<\/a>, 5<\/a>, 5A<\/a>, B, C and 8\/Guidelines  (1)--(3)\t and\nnotification dated January 21, 1987.\n    High  Court revoking 'U' certificate granted  by  Censor\nBoard-Validity\t of   High  Court  order--Duty\t of   Censor\nBoard--Obligatory  duty of state to protect freedom  of\t ex-\npression.\n    Constitution    of\t  India--Articles    19(1)(a)\t and\n19(2)--Freedom of speech and expression--Reasonable restric-\ntions  must  be justified on anvil  of necessity   and\t not\nquicks--Sand   of  convenience\t and  expediency--Obligatory\nduty of State to protect freedom of expression.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant,  S. Rangarajan is a\t film  producer.  He\nproduced  a Tamil film \"Ore Oru Gramathile\" and applied\t for\ncertificate  for  exhibition of the  film.  The\t examination\ncommittee upon seeing the film refused to grant the Certifi-\ncate  but  on  a reference being made to  the  2nd  Revising\nCommittee for review and recommendation, the Committee by  a\nmajority  of 5:4 recommended the grant of a 'U'\t certificate\nsubject to deletion of certain scenes.\n    On\t7.12.87 'U' certificate was granted which was  chal-\nlenged in the High Court by means of writ petitions. It\t was\ncontended before the High Court that the film is treated  in\nan irresponsible manner, the reservation policy of the Govt.\nhas  been  projected in a biased manner\t and  the  so-called\nappeal\tin the film that \"India is one\" is a  hollow  appeal\nwhich  touches\tcaste  sensitivity of  the  Brahmin  forward\ncaste.\tIt was also asserted that the film would create\t law\nand  order  problem in Tamil Nadu. The Writ  Petitions\twere\ndismissed  by  the Single Judge but upon  appeal  they\twere\nallowed\t and  the 'U' certificate issued to  the  appellant-\nproducer was revoked. These two appeals, one by the producer\nof  the film and the other by the Union of India  have\tbeen\nfiled by\n205\nspecial leave of challenging the decision of the High Court.\n    The principal contentions raised on behalf of the appel-\nlants  were:  (i) that the fundamental right of\t freedom  of\nfree  expression  guaranteed under the\tConstitution  covers\neven  the  medium of movies; that the opinion  on  the\tfilm\nought not to be rested on the isolated passages disregarding\nthe  main theme and its message; (ii) That the Court  should\nnot  concern itself with the correctness or legality of\t the\nviews  expressed in the film and the Court cannot limit\t the\nexpression on any general issue even if it is  controversial\nand  that the writings of the film must be considered  in  a\nfree  and  liberal  manner in the light of  the\t freedom  of\nexpression guaranteed under the Constitution. It was assert-\ned  that the theme of the film is that reservation could  be\non the basis of economic backwardness instead of caste.\n    Counsel  for  the  Respondents was\tcritical  about\t the\nmanner in which the reservation policy of the Govt. has been\ncondemned and the events and the characters portrayed in the\nfilm,  as they are depicted in a biased manner and  reaction\nto the film in Tamil Nadu is bound to be volatile and likely\nto create law and order problem. Allowing the appeals,\tthis\nCourt,\n    HELD: The motion pictures were originally considered  as\na  form of amusement to be allowed to titillate but  not  to\narouse.\t They were treated as mere entertainment and not  an\nart  or a means of expression. Movie motivates\tthought\t and\naction and assures a high degree of attention and retention.\nIt  makes its impact simultaneously arousing the visual\t and\naural  senses. The movie had unique capacity to disturb\t and\narouse feelings. It has as much potential for evil as it was\nfor  good. It has an equal potential to instil or  cultivate\nviolent or good behaviour. [211D-E; 212G; 213D]\n    Censorship\tby prior restraint is, therefore,  not\tonly\ndesirable but also necessary. [213E]\n    The\t Censors Board should exercise considerable  circum-\nspection on movies affecting the morality or decency of\t our\npeople\tand  cultural  heritage of the\tcountry.  The  moral\nvalues in particular, should not be allowed to be sacrificed\nin  the\t guise of social change\t or  cultural  assimilation.\n[216G-H]\n    The\t Censors should be responsive to social\t change\t and\nthey  must  go\twith the current climate.  The\tCensors\t may\ndisplay more sensitivity\n206\nto  movies which will have a markedly deleterious effect  to\nlower the moral standards of those who see it. [217C-D]\n    If the film is unobjectionable and cannot  constitution-\nally  be restricted under Article 19(2<\/a>), freedom of  expres-\nsion cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstra-\ntion  and  processions or threats of  violence.\t That  would\ntantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to\nblack mail and intimidation. It is the duty of the State  to\nprotect\t the  freedom of expression since it  is  a  liberty\nguaranteed  against  the State. The State cannot  plead\t its\ninability to handle the hostile audience problem. It is\t its\nobligatory  duty  to prevent it and protect the\t freedom  of\nexpression. [230C-D]\n    The\t Revising  Committees have approved  the  film.\t The\nmembers\t thereof  come\tfrom different walks  of  life\twith\nvariegated experiences. They represent the cross section  of\nthe community. They have judged the film in the light of the\nobjectives  of the Act and the guidelines provided  for\t the\npurpose. There is nothing wrong or contrary to the Constitu-\ntion in approving the film for public exhibition. [230E-F]\n    The\t framework of the Indian Constitution  differs\tfrom\nthe  First  Amendment  to  the\tU.S.  Constitution.  Article\n19(1)(a)<\/a> guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom  of\nspeech\tand expression. The freedom of the expression  means\nthe right to express one's opinion by words of mouth,  writ-\ning, printing, picture or in any other manner, it would thus\ninclude the freedom of communication and the right to propa-\ngate or publish opinion. The communication of ideas could be\nmade  through any medium, newspaper, magazine or movie.\t But\nthis right is subject to reasonable restrictions on  grounds\nset  out under Article 19(2).<\/a> Reasonable limitations can  be\nput  in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of  India,\nthe  security of the State, friendly relations with  foreign\nStates, public order, decency or morality or in relation  to\ncontempt  of court, defamation or incitement to an  offence.\n[212B-D]\n    In matters of certification of films, it is necessary to\ntake  prompt action by the respective authorities. The\tpro-\nducer who has invested a large capital should not be made to\nwait needlessly. He has a statutory right to have the valid-\nity of the film determined in accordance with law. It  would\nbe, therefore, proper and indeed appreciative if the film is\nreviewed  as  soon as it is submitted. It is not  proper  to\nform an opinion by dwelling upon stray sentences or isolated\npassages disregarding the main theme. [219E; 220B-C]\n207\n    Freedom  of expression is the rule and it  is  generally\ntaken for granted. Every one has a fundamental right to form\nhis own opinion on any issue of general concern. He can form\nand inform by any legitimate means. [223C]\n    Democracy  is Government by the people via open  discus-\nsion.  The democratic form of government itself demands\t its\ncitizens an active and intelligent participation is a  basic\nfeatures  and a rational process of democracy which  distin-\nguishes\t it from all other forms of govt. Public  discussion\non  issues  relating to administration had  positive  value.\n[223D-E]\n    Our commitment to freedom of expression demands that  it\ncannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allow-\ning  the freedom are pressing and the community interest  is\nendangered.  The  anticipated danger should not\t be  remote,\nconjectural  or\t far fetched. It should have  proximate\t and\ndirect nexus with the expression. The expression of  thought\nshould\tbe intrinsically dangerous to the public  interests.\nIn other words, the expression should be inseparably  locked\nup  with  the action contemplated like the equivalent  of  a\n\"spark in a power keg\". [226G-H]\n    It is difficult to understand how the expression in\t the\nfilm  with criticism of reservation policy or  praising\t the\ncolonial  rule\twill  affect the security of  the  State  or\nsovereignty and integrity of India. There is no utterance in\nthe  film threatening to overthrow the Govt. by unlawful  or\nunconstitutional means. There is no talk of secession either\nnor is there any suggestion for impairing the integration of\nthe  country.  The film seems to suggest that  the  existing\nmethod\tof  reservation\t on the basis of caste\tis  bad\t and\nreservation on the basis of economic backwardness is better.\nThe  film  also deprecates exploitation of people  on  caste\nconsiderations. [222G-H; 223A]\n    The\t fundamental  freedom  under Art.  19(1)(a)<\/a>  can  be\nreasonably  restricted\tonly for the purposes  mentioned  in\nArt.  19(2)<\/a>  and the restriction must be  justified  on\t the\nanvil of necessity and not the quicks and of convenience and\nexpediency. Open criticism of Government policies and opera-\ntions  is not a ground for restricting expression.  We\tmust\npractice tolerance to the views of others. Intolerance is as\nmuch dangerous to democracy as to the person himself. [230H;\n231A-B]\n    The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of\nthe High Court and dismissed the writ petitions. [231B-C]\n208\n    Mutual  Film Corporation v. Industrial  Commission,\t 235\nU.S. 230 (1915) referred to, Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495\nreferred  to, Schenek v. United States, 249 U.S.  47  (1919)\nreferred to, Santosh Singh v. Delhi Administration<\/a>, [1973] 3\nSCR 533 followed, K.A. Abbas v. Union of India<\/a>, [1971] 2 SCR\n446  referred  to, Ramesh v. Union of India<\/a>,  [1988]  1\t SCC\n668;  Bhagwat  Charan Shukla v. Provincial  Government,\t AIR\n1947  Nag 1 at 676, Rajkappoor v. Laxman, [1980] 2 SCR\t512,\nManeka Gandhi v. Union of India<\/a>, [1978] 2 SCR 621; Naraindas\nv. State of Madhya Pradesh<\/a>, [1974] 3 SCR 624; Sakal v. Union\nof  India<\/a>,  [1962] 3 SCR 842, Whitney v.  California,  [274]\nU.S.  357,  375-378, 1927; Manohar v. Govt. of\tBombay<\/a>,\t AIR\n1950  Bombay 210; Niharender Dutt Majumdar v.  Emperor<\/a>,\t AIR\n1942 FC 22 and Handyside v. United Kingdom, [1975I  EHRR\/737\nat p. 754 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1668 and
\n1669 of 1988.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  29.4.1988  of\t the
\nMadras High Court in W.R. Nos. 469 and 488 of 1988.
\n    Soli  J.  Sorabjee, V.C. Mahajan,  C.A.  Sundaram,\tU.A.
\nRana,  M.  Mudgal,  Ms. Indu Malhotra, C.V.  Subba  Rao,  A.
\nMariar\tAutham,\t Aruna Matbur, N.N. Sharma,  Jose  Varghese,
\nBhagwan Das, R. Mohan, R.A. Perumal and A.V. Rangam for\t the
\nappearing parties.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. These appeals by leave are from
\nthe judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High  Court
\nrevoking  the ‘U-Certificate’ issued to a Tamil film  called
\n“Ore Oru Gramathile” (In one Village) for public exhibition.
\nCivil Appeal Nos. 1668 and 1669 of 1988 are by the  producer
\nof  the film and the Civil Appeal nos. 13667 and  133668  of
\n1988 are by the Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t story of “Ore Oru Gramathile” can be summarised  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
    “A\tBrahmin\t widower, Shankara Sastry,  has\t a  talented
\ndaughter Gayathri. He apprehends that she would not be\table
\nto get admission to college because she belongs to a Brahmin
\ncommunity. He seeks advice from his close friend Devashayam,
\na  Tehsildar. The Tehsildar who otherwise belongs to a\tvery
\npoor  family and whose father was working in a local  Church
\nresponds with gratitude. He divises a
\n209<\/span>
\nmethod\tto  help Gayathri because it  was  through  Sastry’s
\nfather\tthat  he got proper education and rose to  become  a
\nTahsildar. He prepares a false certificate showing  Gayathri
\nas  Karuppayee belonging to an Adi Dravida Community and  as
\nan  orphan. He issues the certificate under the\t reservation
\npolicy of the Government for the benefit of ‘backward commu-
\nnities’\t identified on caste consideration. On the basis  of
\nthe  false certificate, Karuppayee gets admitted to  college
\nand enters I.A.S. witness to this arrangement is the  broth-
\ner-in-law of Tahsildar called Anthony who later turns out to
\nbe a villain of the piece. ”\n<\/p>\n
    “Years  later, Karuppayee, who was working in  Delhi  is
\nsent to a rural village called Annavayil as a Special  Offi-
\ncer for flood relief operations. Her father, Shankara Sastry
\nhappens\t to  work in the same village as  Block\t Development
\nOfficer. However, both of them pretend not to recognise each
\nother. Karuppayee takes her work seriously and improves\t the
\nliving\tconditions of people to such an extent that  she  is
\nheld  by  them in high esteem. By a coincidence,  after\t the
\ndeath  of the Tahsildar, Anthony comes to live in  the\tsame
\nvillage\t and recognises Karuppayee. He\tstarts\tblackmailing
\nher  and threatens to reveal the fraudulent means  by  which
\nshe  got  the caste certificate. His attempt is\t to  extract
\nmoney from her frequently. One evening when he visits Karup-
\npayee’s house, he is confronted by Shankara Sastry who\tputs
\na  halt\t to his blackmailing. Later Anthony dies  of  sudden
\nheart attack but not before he informs the Government  about
\nthe facts relating to Karuppayee. Upon preliminary  enquiry,
\nthe  Government suspends both Karuppayee and her father\t and
\neventually they are put on trial in the Court. The people of
\nthe village resentful of the action taken against Karuppayee
\nrise as one man and demonstrate before the Court in a peace-
\nful manner for her release. They also send petitions to\t the
\nGovernment.”\n<\/p>\n
    “Karuppayee\t and her father admit in the Court the\tfact
\nof  their  having obtained the false caste  certificate\t but
\nthey  attribute it to circumstances resulting by  Government
\nreservation  policy on caste basis. They say that  they\t are
\nprepared  to undergo any punishment. They contend  hat\tsome
\npoliticians are exploiting the caste consideration and\tthat
\nwould  be  detrimental to national  integration.  They\talso
\nargue  that  the reservation policy should not be  based  on
\ncaste, but could be on economic backwardness. Just about the
\ntime  when  the judgment is to be pronounced the  Court\t re-
\nceives\tintimation  from  Government that in  the  light  of
\npetitions received from the public, the case against  Karup-
\npayee and her father stands withdrawn. Karuppayee goes\tback
\nto her Government job with jubilent people all round.”\n<\/p>\n
210<\/span><\/p>\n
    This is the theme of the picture presented. As usual, it
\ncontains some songs, dance and side attractions to make\t the
\nfilm more delectable.\n<\/p>\n
    On August 7, 1987, the producer applied for\t certificate
\nfor  exhibition\t of the film. The examining  committee\tupon
\nseeing\tthe film unanimously refused to\t grant\tcertificate.
\nThe appellant then sought for review by a Revising Committee
\nwhich consisted of nine members. This Committee reviewed the
\nfilm.  Eight members were in favour of grant of\t certificate
\nand one was opposed to it. The Chairman of the Censor  Board
\nhowever, referred the film to Second Revising Committee\t for
\nreview\tand  recommendation. This again\t consisted  of\tnine
\nmembers and by majority of 5:4 they recommended for issue of
\n‘U’  certificate subject to deletion of certain scenes.\t The
\n‘U’ certificate means for unrestricted public exhibition  as
\nagainst\t ‘A’  certificate  restricted to  adults  only.\t The
\nminority  expressed the view that the film is treated in  an
\nirresponsible manner. The reservation policy of the  Govern-
\nment is projected in a highly biased and distorted  fashion.
\nThey have also stated that the so called appeal in the\tfilm
\n“India\tis One” is a hollow-appeal, which in effect  touches
\ncaste  sensitivity of the Brahmin forward caste. One of\t the
\nmembers felt that the impact of the film will create law and
\norder  problem. Another member said that the film will\thurt
\nthe  feelings  and  sentiments of certain  sections  of\t the
\npublic.\t But the majority opined that the theme of the\tfilm
\nis  on the reservation policy of the  Government  suggesting
\nthat the reservation could be made on the basis of  economic
\nbackwardness.  Such  a\tview could be expressed\t in  a\tfree
\ncountry like India, and it did not violate any guideline.
\n    On December 7, 1987, ‘U’ certificate was granted for the
\nexhibition of the film which was challenged before the\tHigh
\nCourt  by  way of writ petitions. The  writ  petitions\twere
\ndismissed  by the Single judge, but the Division Bench\tupon
\nappeal\tallowed the writ petitions and revoked the  certifi-
\ncate. The Division Bench largely depended upon the  minority
\nview  of the Second Revising Committee and also the  opinion
\nof the Examining Committee. The producer of the film and the
\nGovernment of India by obtaining leave have appealed to this
\nCourt.\tThe film has since been given National Award by\t the
\nDirectorate of Film Festival of the Government of India.
\n    In these appeals, the fundamental point made by Mr. Soli
\nSorabjee,  learned  counsel for the producer  is  about\t the
\nfreedom of free expression guaranteed under our Constitution
\neven for the medium of
\n211<\/span>
\nmovies. The counsel argued that the opinion on the effect of
\nthe  film should not be rested on isolated  passages  disre-
\ngarding\t the main theme and its message. The Film should  be
\njudged in its entirety from the point of its overall  impact
\non  the public. The writings of the film must be  considered
\nin  a  free,  fair and liberal spirit in the  light  of\t the
\nfreedom of expression guaranteed under our Constitution. The
\ncounsel\t said that the Court is not concerned with the\tcor-
\nrectness or legality of the views expressed in the film\t and
\nthe  Court cannot limit the expression on any general  issue
\neven  if it is controversial. Mr. Mahajan for the  Union  of
\nIndia  supported  these submissions.  Mr.  Varghese  learned
\ncounsel for the contesting respondents did not dispute\tmost
\nof  the\t proposition advanced for the  appellants.  He\twas,
\nhowever, critical about the manner in which the\t reservation
\npolicy\tof the Government has been condemned and the  events
\nand characters shown in the film. He contended that they are
\ndepicted  in  a biased manner and reaction to  the  film  in
\nTamil Nadu is bound to be volatile.\n<\/p>\n
    Before examining these rival contentions, a few  general
\nobservations may be made as to the utility of movies and the
\nobject\tof the film Censors Board. The motion pictures\twere
\noriginally  considered as a form of amusement to be  allowed
\nto  titillate but not to arouse. They were treated  as\tmere
\nentertainment and not an art or a means of expression.\tThis
\ntheory\twas based on the concept that motion picture  was  a
\nbusiness “pure and simpe originated and conducted for  prof-
\nit, like other spectacles.” It was considered strictly as an
\n“amusement  industry”. It was so held in 1915 by the  unani-
\nmous  decision of the American Supreme Court in Mutual\tFilm
\nCorporation  v. Industrial Commission, 236 U.S. 230  (1915).
\nIt was not without significance since there were no  talking
\npictures  then. The talking pictures were first produced  in
\n1926,  eleven years after the Mutual decision  (Encyclopedia
\nBritinnica)  (1965 Vol. 15 p. 902). The later  decisions  of
\nthe  American  Supreme Court have  therefore  declared\tthat
\nexpression  by means of motion pictures is  included  within
\nthe free speech and free press guaranty of the First  Amend-
\nment. (See Burstyn v. Wilso, 343 U.S. 495). The First Amend-
\nment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “Congress shall make
\nno  law\t …  abridging the freedom of\tspeech,\t or  of\t the
\npress.” This Amendment is absolute in terms and it  contains
\nno  exception  for the exercise of the fight.  Heavy  burden
\nlies on the State to justify the interference. The  judicial
\ndecisions,  however, limited the scope of restriction  which
\nthe  State  could  impose in any  given\t circumstances.\t The
\ndanger\trule was born in Schenek v. United States, 249\tU.S.
\n47 (1919). Justice Holmes for a unanimous court, evolved the
\ntest of “clear and present danger”. He used the danger\ttest
\nto
\n212<\/span>
\ndetermine  where discussion ends and incitement\t or  attempt
\nbegins.\t The core of his position was that the First  Amend-
\nment protects only utterances that seeks acceptance via\t the
\ndemocratic  process of discussion and agreement. But  “Words
\nthat may have all the effect of force” calculated to achieve
\nits goal by circumventing the democratic process are  howev-
\ner, not so protected.\n<\/p>\n
    The framework of our Constitution differs from the First
\nAmendment to the U.S. Constitution. Article 19(1)(a)<\/a> of\t our
\nConstitution guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom
\nof  speech and expression. The freedom of  expression  means
\nthe right to express one’s opinion by words of mouth,  writ-
\ning, printing, picture or in any other manner. It would thus
\ninclude the freedom of communication and the right to propa-
\ngate or publish opinion. The communication of ideas could be
\nmade  through any medium, newspaper, magazine or movie.\t But
\nthis right is subject to reasonable restrictions on  grounds
\nset out under Article 13(2)<\/a> of the Constitution. The reason-
\nable  limitations can be put in the interest of\t sovereignty
\nand integrity of India, the security of the State,  friendly
\nrelations  with\t foreign  States, public  order,  deceny  or
\nmorality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation  or
\nincitement to an offence. The Framers deemed it essential to
\npermit\timposition of reasonable restrictions on the  larger
\ninterests  of  the community and country. They\tintended  to
\nstrike\ta proper balance between the liberty guaranteed\t and
\nthe  social  interest specified under  Article\t19(2).<\/a>\t(See
\nSantokh Singh v. Delhi Administration<\/a>, [1973] 3 SCR 533).
\n    This  is the difference between the First  Amendment  to
\nthe U.S. Constitution and Article 19(1)(a)<\/a> of our  Constitu-
\ntion.  The  decisions bearing on the  First  Amendment\tare,
\ntherefore, not useful to us except the broad principles\t and
\nthe purpose of the guaranty.\n<\/p>\n
    Movie  doubtless  enjoys  the  guaranty  under   Article
\n19(1)(a)<\/a> but there is one significant difference between the
\nmovie  and  other modes of communication. The  movie  cannot
\nfunction in a free market place like the newspaper, magazine
\nor  advertisement.  Movie motivates thought and\t action\t and
\nassures\t a high degree of attention and retention. It  makes
\nits  impact  simultaneously arousing the  visual  and  aural
\nsenses.\t The focusing of an intense light on a\tscreen\twith
\nthe  dramatizing of facts and opinion makes the\t ideas\tmore
\neffective.  The\t combination of act and\t speech,  sight\t and
\nsound  in semi-darkness of the theatre with  elimination  of
\nall  distracting ideas will have an impact in the  minds  of
\nspectators. In some cases, it will have a complete and im-\n<\/p>\n
213<\/span><\/p>\n
mediate influence on, and appeal for every one who sees\t it.
\nIn  view of the scientific improvements in  photography\t and
\nproduction the present movie is a powerful means of communi-
\ncation.\t It is said: “as an instrument of education  it\t has
\nunusual\t power to impart information, to influence  specific
\nattitudes  towards objects of social value, to\taffect\temo-
\ntions  either  in gross or in  microscopic  proportions,  to
\naffect\thealth in a minor degree through sleep\tdisturbance,
\nand  to affect profoundly the patterns of conduct  of  chil-
\ndren.”\t(See  Reader  in Public\t Opinion  and  Communication
\nSecond\tEdition by Bernard Betelson and Morris\tJanowitz  p.\n<\/p>\n
390). The authors of this Book have demonstrated (at 391  to\n<\/p>\n
401)  by scientific tests the potential of the\tmotion\tpic-
\ntures  in  formation of opinion by spectators  and  also  on
\ntheir attitudes. These tests have also shown that the effect
\nof  motion  pictures is cumulative. It is proved  that\teven
\nthough one movie relating to a social issue may not signifi-
\ncantly\taffect the attitude of an individual or group,\tcon-
\ntinual exposure to films of a similar character will produce
\na  change.  It can, therefore, be said that  the  movie\t has
\nunique\tcapacity to disturb and arouse feelings. It  has  as
\nmuch potential for evil as it has for good. It has an  equal
\npotential to instil or cultivate violent or good  behaviour.
\nWith  these qualities and since it caters for mass  audience
\nwho  are generally not selective about what they watch,\t the
\nmovie  cannot be equated with other modes of  communication.
\nIt cannot be allowed to function in a free market place just
\nas  does  the newspapers or magazines. Censorship  by  prior
\nrestraint is, therefore, not only desirable but also  neces-
\nsary.\n<\/p>\n
    Here  again\t we find the difference\t between  the  First
\nAmendment  to the U.S. Constitution and Article 19(1)(a)<\/a>  of
\nour  Constitution. The First Amendment does not\t permit\t any
\nprior  restraint,  since the guaranty of free speech  is  in
\nunqualified terms. This essential difference was  recognised
\nby  Douglas, J., with whom Black, J., concurred in  Kingsley
\nCorporation  v.\t Regents of the University of  New  York,  3
\nL.Ed.  1512  at 1522. In holding that censorship  by  “prior
\nrestraint” on movies was unconstitutional, the learned Judge
\nsaid:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “If we had a provision in our Consti-
\n\t      tution  for  “reasonable”\t regulation  of\t the
\n\t      press  such India has included in hers,  there
\n\t      would be room for argument that censorship  in
\n\t      the  interests of morality would be  permissi-
\n\t      ble.  Judges  sometimes try to read  the\tword
\n\t      “reasonable” into the First Amendment or\tmake
\n\t      the  rights  it grants subject  to  reasonable
\n\t      regulation  ….. But its language,  in  terms
\n\t      that  are\t absolute  is utterly  at  war\twith
\n\t      censorship.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      214<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Different questions may arise as to censorship
\n\t      of  some news when the nation is\tactually  at
\n\t      war. But any possible exceptions are extremely
\n\t      limited.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t Cinematograph\tAct<\/a> 1952 (“The Act<\/a>“)  which  permits
\ncensorship on movies is a comprehensive enactment. Section 3<\/a>
\nof  the Act provides for constitution of Board of Film\tCen-
\nsors.  Section 4<\/a> speaks of examination of films. A  film  is
\nexamined in the first instance by an Examining Committee. If
\nit  is\tnot approved, it is further reviewed by\t a  Revising
\nCommittee  under Section 5<\/a>. Section 5A<\/a> states that if  after
\nexamining  a  film or having it examined in  the  prescribed
\nmanner,\t the Board considers that the film is  suitable\t for
\nunrestricted public exhibition, such a certificate is  given
\nwhich is called ‘U’ certificate.\n<\/p>\n
    Section 5(a)<\/a> provides principles for guidance in  certi-
\nfying  films. It is significant to note that  Article  19(2)<\/a>
\nhas been practically read into Section 5(B)(1)<\/a>. Section 5(C)<\/a>
\nconfers\t right\tof  appeal to Tribunal\tagainst\t refusal  of
\ncertificate.  Under  Section 6<\/a>, the Central  Government\t has
\nrevisional power to call for the record of any proceeding in
\nrelation to any film at any stage, where it is not made\t the
\nsubject matter of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
\n    Under  Section 8<\/a> of the Act, the Rules called the  Cine-
\nmatograph (Certification) Rules 1983 have been framed. Under
\nSection\t 5(B)(2)<\/a> the Central Government has prescribed\tcer-
\ntain guidelines for the Censors Board. Guideline (1) relates
\nto the objectives of film censorship. The Board shall ensure
\nthat: (a) the medium of film remains responsible and  sensi-
\ntive  to the values and standards of society;  (b)  artistic
\nexpression  and creative freedom are not unduly\t curbed\t and\n<\/p>\n
(c) censorship is responsive to social change.
\n    Guideline  (2)  requires the Board to ensure  that:\t (i)
\nanti-social  activities\t such as violence not  glorified  or
\njustified;  (ii)  the modus operandi of\t criminal  or  other
\nvisuals\t or  words likely to incite the\t commission  of\t any
\noffence\t are  not  depicted; (iii)  pointless  or  avoidable
\nscenes\tof violence, cruelty and horror are not shown;\t(iv)
\nhuman sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity
\nand  depravity; (vi) the sovereignty and integrity of  India
\nis  not called in question; (vii) the security of the  State
\nis not jeopardised or endangered; (viii) friendly  relations
\nwith foreign states are not strained; and (ix) Public  Order
\nis not endangered.\n<\/p>\n
Guideline  (3)\talso requires the Board to ensure  that\t the
\nfilm: (i)
\n215<\/span>
\nis  judged  in its entirety from the point of  view  of\t its
\noverall impact and; (ii) is examined in the light of contem-
\nporary\tstandards of the country and the people to whom\t the
\nfilm relates.\n<\/p>\n
    It will be thus seen that censorship is permitted mainly
\non  social  interest specified under Article  19(2)<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution  with  emphasis on maintenance  of\t values\t and
\nstandards  of  society. Therefore, the censorship  by  prior
\nrestraint must necessarily be reasonable that could be saved
\nby the well accepted principles of judicial review.
\n    In\tK.A.  Abbas v. Union of India<\/a>, [1971] 2\t SCR  446  a
\nConstitution Bench of this court considered important  ques-
\ntions  relating to pre-censorship of cinematograph films  in
\nrelation  to the fundamental right of freedom of speech\t and
\nexpression.  K.A. Abbas, a noted Indian journalist and\tfilm
\nproducer produced a short documentary film called “A tale of
\nFour  Cities”. In that film he sought to contrast  the\tself
\nindulgent  life of the rich in Metropolitan cities with\t the
\nsqualor\t and destitution of labouring masses who  helped  to
\nconstruct  the imposing buildings and complexes utilised  by
\nthe  rich.  The film also goes on to explore  the  theme  of
\nexploitation of women by men, dealing in particular  prosti-
\ntution. Abbas applied to the Board of Film Censors for a ‘U’
\ncertificate, permitting unrestricted exhibition of the film.
\nHe  was informed by the regional officer that the  Examining
\nCommittee  had provisionally concluded that the film  should
\nbe restricted to adults. The Revising Committee concurred in
\nthis  result, whereupon Abbas, after exchanging\t correspond-
\nence with the Board, appealed to the Central Government. The
\nGovernment  decided to grant ‘U’ certificate  provided\tthat
\nthe  scenes in the red light district were deleted from\t the
\nfilm.  Abbas  challenged the action of the Board  mainly  on
\nfour issues out of which two did not survive when the Solic-
\nitor  General  stated before the Court that  the  Government
\nwould set on foot legislation to effectuate the policies  at
\nthe  earliest possible date. The two issues  which  survived
\nthereupon  were:  (a) that pre-censorship itself  cannot  be
\ntolerated  under the freedom of speech and  expression;\t (b)
\nthat even if it were a legitimate restraint on the  freedom,
\nit must be exercised on very definite principles which leave
\nno room for arbitrary action.\n<\/p>\n
    With  regard to the power of pre-censorship,  Hidayatul-
\nlah, C.J., observed (at 473-74):\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t “The task of the censor is extreme-
\n\t      ly  delicate  ….. The standards that we\t set
\n\t      out for our censors must make a
\n\t      216<\/span>
\n\t      substantial  allowance  in favour\t of  freedom
\n\t      thus  leaving a vast area for creative art  to
\n\t      interpret\t life and society with some  of\t its
\n\t      foibles  along with what is good. We must\t not
\n\t      look  upon such human relationships as  banned
\n\t      in  toto and for ever from human\tthought\t and
\n\t      must give scope for talent to put them  before
\n\t      society.\tThe requirements of art and  litera-
\n\t      ture  include within themselves  a  comprehen-
\n\t      sive, view of social life and not only in\t its
\n\t      ideal  form and the line is to be drawn  where
\n\t      the  average  man\t moral man  begins  to\tfeel
\n\t      embarassed  or disgusted at a naked  portrayal
\n\t      of life without the redeeming touch of art  or
\n\t      genius of social value. If the depraved begins
\n\t      to  see  in  these things more  than  what  an
\n\t      average person would, in much the same way  as
\n\t      it is wrongly said, a Frenchman sees a woman’s
\n\t      legs  in everything, it cannot be\t helped.  In
\n\t      our  scheme of things ideas  having  redeeming
\n\t      social or artistic value must also have impor-
\n\t      tance and protection for their growth.”
\n\t\t  Recently,  Sabyasachi\t Mukharji,  J.,\t  in
\n\t      Ramesh  v.  Union of India<\/a>, [1988] 1  SCC\t 868
\n\t      which  is popularly called “TAMAS”  case\tlaid
\n\t      down the standard of judging the effect of the
\n\t      words  or\t expression used in the\t movie.\t The
\n\t      learned  Judge  quoting with approval  of\t the
\n\t      observation  of  Vivian Bose, J., as  he\tthen
\n\t      was,  in the Nagpur High Court in the case  of
\n\t      Bhagwati\tCharun Shukla v. Provincial  Govern-
\n\t      ment, AIR 1947 Nag 1 (at 676):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t“That  the effect of the words\tmust
\n\t      be  judged from the standards  of\t reasonable,
\n\t      strong  minded, firm and courageous  men,\t and
\n\t      not those of weak and vacillating. This in our
\n\t      opinion is the correct approach in judging the
\n\t      effect of exhibition of a film or of reading a
\n\t      Book. It is the standard of ordinary  reasona-
\n\t      ble  man or as they say in English  law,\t“the
\n\t      man on the top of a Clampham omnibus. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    We affirm and reiterate this principle. The standard  to
\nbe  applied  by\t the Board or courts for  judging  the\tfilm
\nshould\tbe that of an ordinary man of common sense and\tpru-
\ndence and not .that of an out of the ordinary or hypersensi-
\ntive man. We, however, wish to add a word more. The  Censors
\nBoard should exercise considerable circumspection on  movies
\naffecting the morality or decency of our people and cultural
\nheritage  of  the country. The moral values  in\t particular,
\nshould\tnot  be\t allowed to be sacrificed in  the  guise  of
\nsocial change or cultural assimi-\n<\/p>\n
217<\/span><\/p>\n
lation. Our country has had the distinction of giving  birth
\nto a galaxy of great sages and thinkers. The great  thinkers
\nand sages through their life and conduct provided principles
\nfor  people to follow the path of fight conduct. There\thave
\nbeen  continuous efforts at rediscovery and  reiteration  of
\nthose  principles. Adi-guru Shankaracharya,  Ramanujacharya,
\nMadhwacharya,  Chaitanya  Maha\tPrabhu,\t Swami\tRam  Krishan
\nParamhansa,  Guru Nanak Sant Kabir and Mahatma Gandhi,\thave
\nall  enlightened our path. If one prefers to go yet  further
\nback, he will find “TIRUKKURAL” the ethical code from Tiruv-
\nalluvar\t teaching  which is “a general\thuman  morality\t and
\nwisdom.”  Besides, we have the concept of  “Dharam”  (right-
\neousness  in every respect) a unique contribution of  Indian
\ncivilization to humanity of the world. These are the bedrock
\nof  our civilization and should not be allowed to be  shaken
\nby  unethical standards. We do not, however, mean  that\t the
\nCensors should have an orthodox or conservative outlook. Far
\nfrom  it, they must be responsive to social change and\tthey
\nmust  go with the current climate. All we wish to  state  is
\nthat  the  Censors may display more  sensitivity  to  movies
\nwhich  will have a markedly deleterious effect to lower\t the
\nmoral  standards of those who see it. Krishna Iyer,  J.,  in
\nRajkapoor  v. Laxman<\/a>, [1980] 2 SCR 512 in  words  meaningful
\nexpressed similar thought. The learned Judge said (at 5 17):\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“The ultimate censorious power\tover
\n\t      the  Censors  belongs  to the  people  and  by
\n\t      indifference,  laxity  or\t abetment,  pictures
\n\t      which  pollute  public  morals  are  liberally
\n\t      certified,  the legislation, meant by  Parlia-
\n\t      ment  to protect people’s good morals, may  be
\n\t      sabotaged by statutory enemies within.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    With  these prefactory remarks, let us now turn  to\t the
\nreasons which weighed with the High Court to revoke the\t ‘U’
\ncertificate and rule out the film altogether. The High Court
\nhas found fault with the Constitution of the First  Revising
\nCommittee.  It\thas  held that the  Revising  Committee\t was
\nconstituted  hurriedly\tand its\t constitution  by  “delegate
\nBoard Member” was illegal and without authority of law.\t The
\nCommittee  also\t showed unusual favour to  the\tproducer  by
\nreviewing the film with hot haste. In the absence of a First
\nRevising  Committee having come into existence as  known  to
\nlaw; the High Court said that the constitution of the Second
\nRevising Committee was invalid and inoperative.
\n    We\tdo  not think that the High Court was  justified  in
\nreaching  this\tconclusion. Under the  rules,  the  Regional
\nOfficer shall appoint an
\n218<\/span>
\nExamining  Committee  to examine the film. The\treports\t and
\nrecords\t relating thereto shall be treated as  confidential.
\nThe  Rule  22 inter alia, states that  after  screening\t the
\nfilm, the Examining Officer shall within three working\tdays
\nsend the recommendations of all the members of the Examining
\nCommittee to the Chairman. Rule 24(1) provides for constitu-
\ntion  of a Revising Committee. It states that on receipt  of
\nthe record referred to in rule 22, the Chairman may, of\t his
\nown  motion  or on the request of the applicant,  refer\t the
\nmovie  to  a Revising Committee. In the\t instant  case,\t the
\nChairman did not constitute the first Revising Committee but
\na  member  of  the Board did. The question  is\twhether\t the
\nmember of the Board was competent to constitute the Revising
\nCommittee.  Our attention was drawn to the Government  order
\ndated January 21, 1987 made under sec. 7(B) of the Cinemato-
\ngraph Act. The order reads;\n<\/p>\n
\t      “No. 803\/1\/86-F(C)
\n\t\t\t     Government of India
\n\t      Ministry of Human Resource Development
\n\t      Department of Culture.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      New Delhi, the 21st January, 1987
\n\t      ORDER
\n\t\t       In  exercise of the powers  conferred
\n\t      by Sec. 7B of the Cinamatograph Act, 1952\t (37
\n\t      of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the\tsaid
\n\t      Act),  the Central Government  hereby  directs
\n\t      that  any\t power,\t authority  or\tjurisdiction
\n\t      exercisable  by the Board of film,  Certifica-
\n\t      tion (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in
\n\t      relation to matters specified in sec. 4,\tsub-
\n\t      sees. (3) and (4) of sec. 5, sec. 5-A and sec.
\n\t      7C  of the said Act shall also be\t exercisable
\n\t      subject  to the condition given below  by\t the
\n\t      following members of the Board at the Regional
\n\t      Office indicated against each, with  immediate
\n\t      effect and until further orders:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   1.  Shri Samik Banerjee\t  Calcutta\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   2.  Ms. Maithreyi Ramadhurai\t  Madras\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   3.  Dr. B.K. Chandrashekar\t  Bangalore
\n\t\t     XXX XXXX XXX XXXX”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This order clearly states that the power of the Board  shall
\nalso  be exercisable by the specified members  within  their
\nregional office. For
\n219<\/span>
\nMadras region Ms. Maithrayi Ramadhurai has been\t constituted
\nto . exercise such powers.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tcannot be contended that the Central Government\t has
\nno power to delegate the powers or to issue the said  order.
\nSec.  7(B) empowers the Central Government to issue  general
\nor  special  order directing that any  power,  authority  or
\njurisdiction exercisable by the Board under the Act shall be
\nexercisable also by the Chairman or any other member of\t the
\nBoard.\tThe section further provides that anything  done  or
\naction\ttaken by the Chairman or other member  specified  in
\nthe order shall be deemed to be a thing done or action taken
\nby  the Board. From the provisions of sec. 7B read with\t the
\nGovernment  order dated January 21, 1987, it  becomes  clear
\nthat the constitution of the First Revising Committee by the
\nmember\tat the Madras Regional Office is not  vulnerable  to
\nany  attack. It is legally justified and  unassailable.\t The
\nconclusion  to\tthe contrary reached by the  High  Court  is
\napparently unwarranted.\n<\/p>\n
    We\talso do not find any justification for the  observa-
\ntion of the   High Court that there was unusual favour shown
\nto the producer by the First Revising Committee in reviewing
\nthe  film. It is true that the film was reviewed within\t 2-3
\nhours  of the presentation of the application. But there  is
\nno  reason  to attribute motives either to  members  of\t the
\nCommittee or to the producer. In matters of certification of
\nfilms, it is necessary to take prompt action by the  respec-
\ntive  authorities.  The producer who has  invested  a  large
\ncapital\t should\t not be made to wait needlessly.  He  has  a
\nstatutory right to have the validity of ,the film determined
\nin  accordance with law. It would be, therefore, proper\t and
\nindeed appreciative if the film is reviewed as soon as it is
\nsubmitted.\n<\/p>\n
    There are two other side issues which may be disposed of
\nat  this stage. The scene with song No. 2 in reel No. 3\t and
\nthe  comments by the heroine of looking at the photo of\t Dr.
\nAmbedkar, have come under serious criticism. It is said that
\nthe  song  has the effect of spreading ‘Kulachar’  which  is
\n‘Poisonous message’ to the depressed classes not to  educate
\ntheir  children.  The complaint, if true,  is  serious.\t We,
\ntherefore, gave our anxious consideration to the  grievance.
\nWe,  as\t did the High Court, viewed the movie.\tThe  cobbler
\nsings the song in question with his grandson who is eager to
\ngo to school. The song contains references to Kamaraj,\tAnna
\nand  MGR  who without even college  education  became  Chief
\nMinisters.  The\t cobbler asks the grandson:  “What  are\t you
\ngoing to achieve by education? and don’t forsake the profes-
\nsion you know and you can educate yourself as a cobbler.”\n<\/p>\n
220<\/span><\/p>\n
While  these  and other exchanges are going on\tbetween\t the
\ncobbler and grandson, the heroine comes and insists that the
\nboy should go to school. She promises to contribute Rs.50 as
\nan  incentive  to the cobbler every month and also  to\tmake
\ngood his income deprived of by the boy’s earning. They agree
\nto  her suggestion with “Vanakkam, Vanakkam”. The song\tthus
\nends  with a happy note and the cobbler agrees to  send\t his
\ngrandson to school. It is true as pointed out by counsel for
\nthe  respondents that one or two references in the song\t are
\nnot  palatable,\t but we should not read too much  into\tthat
\nwriting.  It  is not proper to form an opinion\tby  dwelling
\nupon stray sentences or isolated passages disgregarding\t the
\nmain theme. What is significant to note is that the  cobbler
\nultimately does not insist that his grandson should continue
\nthe  family pursuits. He accepts the suggestion made by\t the
\nheroine.  It is, therefore, wrong to conclude that the\tsong
\nwas intended to convey poisonous message against the  inter-
\nests of depressed classes.\n<\/p>\n
    The criticism on the alleged comments on Dr. Ambedkar is
\nequally\t unsustainable. The confusion perhaps is due to\t the
\npronounced accent of an English word in the course of  Tamil
\nconversation.  The matter arises in this way:  Sastry  shows
\nthe  photograph\t of  Dr. Ambedkar to  heroine  and  enquires
\nwhether\t she  likes  it. Then she  makes  certain  comments.
\nAccording  to  the  High Court, she  states,  “Dr.  Ambedkar
\nworked\tfor the poor. Not for ‘par’.” It is said that  ‘par’
\nin  Tamil means equality and if she says ‘not for the  par’,
\nit means that Dr. Ambedkar did not work for equality. If she
\nstates\tlike that, it is certainly objectionable since\tDr..
\nAmbedkar did everything to have an egalitarian society.\t But
\nwhile viewing the film, we could not hear any such word used
\nby  the heroine. On the other hand, we distinctly noted\t her
\nsaying, “Dr. Ambedkar worked for the poor, Not for  power..”
\nThis being the remark there is no basis for the criticism of
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t last complaint and really the nub of the  case\t for
\nthe  respondent is about the reel No. 14 covering the  court
\nscene where Karuppayee and Sastry are prosecuted for offence
\nof  obtaining  a false caste certificate. The  reel  No.  14
\ncontains  almost a dialogue between the\t prosecution  lawyer
\nand Karuppayee. She criticises the reservation policy of the
\nGovernment.  She states that during the British regime,\t the
\npeople\tenjoyed educational freedom, and  job  opportunities
\nwhich  were based on merit criteria and not vote caste in  a
\nparticular constituency. Then the prosecution lawyer puts  a
\nquestion  “why\tdo you regret this Madam?  Was\tnot  ‘Bharat
\nMatha’\tunder shackles then?” She replies: “You\t are  right.
\nThen “Bharat Matha” was in chains
\n221<\/span>
\n(Vilangu,  is  the Tamil word used for shackles\t which\talso
\nmeans animals). Now “Bharat Matha” is under animals’ hands.”
\nOn a further question from the prosecutor she explains\tthat
\nher reference to ‘animals’ hands is only to those who incite
\ncaste,\tlanguage  and communal\tfanaticism,  thus  confusing
\npeople and making it their profession. She also states\tthat
\nit is the Government and its laws that have made her and her
\nfather to tell a lie. The presiding Judge interrupts with  a
\nquestion: “What is wrong in the Government approach? Can you
\nelaborate?”  She  replies:  “That it is wrong  not  to\tgive
\ncredence to her merit and evaluate the same on the basis  of
\nher  caste  and\t such  evaluation would put  a\tbar  on\t the
\nprogress.” She goes on to explain “Your laws are the  barri-
\ners Sir. You have made propaganda in nook and corner stating
\n“Be  an Indian, Be an Indian”. And if I proudly say I am  an
\nIndian\t then  the  Government\tdivides\t saying\t  ‘no,\t no,
\nno,   ….. You are a Brahmin, you are Christian, you are  a
\nMuslim. It is the Government that divides.” Then she puts  a
\nquestion to herself: “What is the meaning of “Be an Indian?”
\nShe explains that it must be without caste, creed and commu-
\nnal considerations, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, the country
\nmust  be  one.\tShe then blames the  Government\t with  these
\nwords: “The Government in dealing with all has no one  face.
\nTake  any application form they want to know your caste\t and
\nreligion.  When all are Indians where is the  necessity\t for
\nthis  question.\t You have divided the  people  according  to
\ncaste.\tThen if you reel off on “National integration”\twill
\nnot the public laugh.”\n<\/p>\n
    As\tto the reservation policy to those who are  backward
\nshe  says: “On Gods name, I have no objection  in  providing
\nall concessions to those who are backward. The list of those
\nbelonging to forward sections and backward sections could be
\nprepared on the basis of economic considerations. And  those
\nbelow  a specified limit of income be included in the  back-
\nward list.”\n<\/p>\n
    How\t did  the High Court look at it? On  the  remark  of
\nheroine\t as  to the situations that existed  during  British
\nadministration, the High Court observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is  preposterous and offensive  to  claim
\n\t      that education was independent when India\t was
\n\t      under  British rule and that, after  independ-
\n\t      ence it is not there.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The High Court also said:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “That  any  denigration of Rule of  law  would
\n\t      never
\n\t      222<\/span>
\n\t      bring  orderly society. To preach that it\t is-
\n\t      only law that prompted them to utter falsehood
\n\t      and in its absence they would not have done it
\n\t      is a wrong way presenting a view point.”
\n\t\t  As to the allegations that ‘Bharat  Matha’
\n\t      is  now in the hands of politicians,  who\t are
\n\t      instigating  the masses on the basis of  caste
\n\t      and language, etc., the High Court remarked:
\n\t\t       “If  this sort of decrying India\t for
\n\t      being an independent nation is to be projected
\n\t      in  films repeatedly, then in course of  time,
\n\t      citizens will loose faith in the integrity and
\n\t      sovereignty of India. With this sort of glori-
\n\t      fication\tmade, how could it be  claimed\tthat
\n\t      the film stands for national integration. That
\n\t      was  why one Member rightly said that it is  a
\n\t      hollow-claim. Hence Guideline 2(vi) and  (vii)
\n\t      are contravened.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      On  the  total impact of the  film,  the\tHigh
\n\t      Court observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       “That  certain peculiar factors\twill
\n\t      have  to\tbe  taken into\taccount\t because  of
\n\t      guidelines  3(i)\tand 3(ii). This film  is  in
\n\t      Tamil. It deals with reservations now extended
\n\t      to  large sections of people on  a  particular
\n\t      basis,  and who have suffered  for  Centuries,
\n\t      and  at  a time when they\t have  not  attained
\n\t      equality and when their valuable rights  which
\n\t      are secured under the Constitution is attempt-
\n\t      ed  to be taken away, they get agitated.\tThis
\n\t      film  taken in Tamil for Tamil  population  on
\n\t      being  screened in Tamil Nadu, will  certainly
\n\t      be  viewed in the background of what had\thap-
\n\t      pened in Tamil Nadu during the preceding\tfour
\n\t      decades,\tand  the reactions are bound  to  be
\n\t      volatile.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    We\tfind it difficult to appreciate the observations  of
\nthe High Court. We fail to understand how the expression  in
\nthe  film with criticism of reservation policy\tor  praising
\nthe  colonial rule will affect the security of the State  of
\nsovereignty and integrity of India. There is no utterance in
\nthe film threatening to overthrow the Government by unlawful
\nor  unconstitutional means. There is no talk  for  secession
\neither. Nor there is any suggestion for impairing the  inte-
\ngration\t of the country. All that the film seems to  suggest
\nis  that the existing method of reservation on the basis  of
\ncaste is bad and reservation on the basis of economic  back-
\nwardness is better. The film also deprecates exploita-\n<\/p>\n
223<\/span><\/p>\n
tion  of people on caste considerations. This is  the  range
\nand rigor of the film.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t High  Court, however, was of  opinion\tthat  public
\nreaction  to the film, which seeks to change the  system  of
\nreservation is bound to be volatile. The HIgh Court has also
\nstated\tthat  people  of Tamil Nadu who\t have  suffered\t for
\ncenturies  will not allow themselves to be deprived  of\t the
\nbenefits extended to them on a particular basis. It seems to
\nus  that the reasoning of the High Court runs a foul of\t the
\ndemocratic principles to which we have pledged ourselves  in
\nthe  Constitution.  In democracy it is\tnot  necessary\tthat
\nevery  one should sing the same song. Freedom of  expression
\nis the rule and it is generally taken for granted. Every one
\nhas a fundamental right to form his own opinion on any issue
\nof general concern. He can form and inform by any legitimate
\nmeans.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t democracy  is a Government by the people  via\topen
\ndiscussion. The democratic form of government itself demands
\nits citizens an active and intelligent participation in\t the
\naffairs of the community. The public discussion with  people
\nparticipation  is a basic feature and a rational process  of
\ndemocracy  which  distinguishes it from all other  forms  of
\ngovernment.  The  democracy  can neither  work\tnor  prosper
\nunless people go out to share their views. The truth is that
\npublic\tdiscussion on issues relating to administration\t has
\npositive value. What Falter Lippmann said in another context
\nis relevant here:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “When  men  act on the principle\tof  intelli-
\n\t      gence,  they go out to find the  facts   …..
\n\t      When they ignore it, they go inside themselves
\n\t      and  find\t out what is there.  They  elaborate
\n\t      their  prejudice instead of  increasing  their
\n\t      knowledge.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India<\/a>, [1978]
\n\t      2 SCR 621 Bhagwati J., observed at 696:
\n\t\t       “Democracy  is based  essentially  on
\n\t      free  debate and open discussion, for that  is
\n\t      the only corrective of Government action in  a
\n\t      democratic set up. If democracy means  govern-
\n\t      ment of the people by the people. it is  obvi-
\n\t      ous  that\t every citizen must be\tentitled  to
\n\t      participate  in the democratic process and  in
\n\t      order to enable him to intelligently  exercise
\n\t      his right of making a choice, free and general
\n\t      discussion  of  public matters  is  absolutely
\n\t      essential.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      224<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t    The learned judge in Naraindas v.  State
\n\t      of  Madhya  Pradesh<\/a>,[1974]  3  SCR  624  while
\n\t      dealing with the power of the State to  select
\n\t      text books for obligatory use by students said
\n\t      at 650:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       “It  is our firm belief, nay, a\tcon-
\n\t      viction  which  constitutes one of  the  basic
\n\t      values  of  a  free society to  which  we\t are
\n\t      wedded under our Constitution, that there must
\n\t      be  freedom not only for the thought  that  we
\n\t      cherish,\tbut  also for the  thought  that  we
\n\t      hate. As pointed out by Mr. Justice Holmes  in
\n\t      Abramson v. United States, 250 U.S. 616:\t“The
\n\t      ultimate\tgood  desired is better\t reached  by
\n\t      free trade in ideas–the best test of truth is
\n\t      the power of the thought to get itself accept-
\n\t      ed  in the competition of the  market.”  There
\n\t      must  be freedom of thought and the mind\tmust
\n\t      be  ready to receive new ideas, to  critically
\n\t      analyse  and examine them and to accept  those
\n\t      which are found to stand the test of  scrutiny
\n\t      and to reject the rest.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  In  Sakal v. Union of India<\/a>, [1962] 3\t SCR
\n\t      842 at 866, Mudholkar, J. said:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       “This Court must be ever vigilent  in
\n\t      guarding perhaps the most precious of all\t the
\n\t      freedoms\tguaranteed by our Constitution.\t The
\n\t      reason  for  this is obvious. The\t freedom  of
\n\t      speech  and expression of opinion is of  para-
\n\t      mount importance under a democratic  Constitu-
\n\t      tion  which envisages changes in the  composi-
\n\t      tion of legislatures and governments and\tmust
\n\t      be preserved.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Movie is the legitimate and the most important medium in
\nwhich issues of general concern can be treated. The producer
\nmay  project his own messages which the others may  not\t ap-
\nprove  of.  But he has a right to “think out”  and  put\t the
\ncounter\t appeals  to reason. It is a part  of  a  democratic
\ngive-and-take  to  which no one could  complain.  The  State
\ncannot prevent open discussion and open expression, however,
\nhateful\t to its policies. As Professor Fraund puts it:\t“The
\nState  may not punish open talk, however, hateful,  not\t for
\nhypocritical reason that Hyde Parks are a safety-valve,\t but
\nbecause\t a bit of sense may be salvaged from the  odious  by
\nminds  striving to be rational, and this precious  bit\twill
\nenter  into the amalgam which we forge.” (Paul A.  Freund-On
\nUnderstanding the Supreme Court 26 (1950).
\n“When  men  differ in opinion, both sides ought\t equally  to
\nhave
\n225<\/span>
\nthe  advantage\tof  being heard by  the\t public.”  (Benjamin
\nFranklin).  If\tone  is allowed to say that  policy  of\t the
\ngovernment  is good, another is with equal freedom  entitled
\nto  say\t that it is bad. If one is allowed  to\tsupport\t the
\ngovernmental  scheme, the other could as well say,  that  he
\nwill  not support it. The different views are allowed to  be
\nexpressed  by proponents and opponents not because they\t are
\ncorrect,  or  valid  but because there is  freedom  in\tthis
\ncountry for expressing even differing views on any issue.
\n    Alexander  Meiklejohn  perhaps  the\t foremost   American
\nphilosopher  of\t freedom of expression, in his\twise  little
\nstudy neatly explains:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “When  men govern themselves,  it  is
\n\t      they–and no one else–who must pass  judgment
\n\t      upon  unwisdom and unfairness and danger.\t And
\n\t      that  means  that\t unwise ideas  must  have  a
\n\t      hearing  as well as wise ones, unfair as\twell
\n\t      as fair, dangerous as well as safe, an  Ameri-
\n\t      can as well  …… American  …..  If  then,
\n\t      on  any  occasion in the United States  it  is
\n\t      allowable, in that situation, to say that\t the
\n\t      Constitution is a good document it is  equally
\n\t      allowable, in that situation, to say that\t the
\n\t      Constitution  is a bad document. If  a  public
\n\t      building may be used in which to say, in\ttime
\n\t      of  war, that the war is justified,  then\t the
\n\t      same building may be used in which to say that
\n\t      it is not justified. If it be publicly  argued
\n\t      that  conscription for armed service is  moral
\n\t      and  necessary,  it may likewise\tbe  publicly
\n\t      argued that it is immoral and unnecessary.  If
\n\t      it may be said that American political  insti-
\n\t      tutions  are superior to those of\t England  or
\n\t      Russia  or German, it may with equal  freedom,
\n\t      be  said\tthat those of England or  Russia  or
\n\t      Germany are superiors to ours. These conflict-
\n\t      ing views may be expressed, must be expressed,
\n\t      not  because they are valid, but because\tthey
\n\t      are  relevant  …..  To be afraid  of  ideas,
\n\t      any idea, is to be unfit for self government.”
\n\t      (Political  Freedom (1960) at 27). He  argued,
\n\t      if  we may say so correctly, that the  guaran-
\n\t      tees of freedom of speech and of the press are
\n\t      measures adopted by the people as the ultimate
\n\t      rulers  in  order to retain control  over\t the
\n\t      Government,   the\t people’s  legislative\t and
\n\t      executive agents.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  Brandies,  J., in Whitney  v.\t California,
\n\t      274  US 357,375-8 (1927)\tpropounded  probably
\n\t      the most attractive free speech theory:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      226<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t       ”  …..\t that the greatest menace to
\n\t      freedom  is an inert people; that public\tdis-
\n\t      cussion  is  a  political\t duty;\t …..It  is
\n\t      hazardous\t to  discourage\t thought,  hope\t and
\n\t      imagination;  that the path of safety lies  in
\n\t      the  opportunity\tto discuss  freely  supposed
\n\t      grievances and proposed remedies; and that the
\n\t      fitting  remedy  for  evil  counsels  is\tgood
\n\t      ones.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  What\tArchibald  Cox said in\this  article
\n\t      though  on “First Amendment” is equally  rele-
\n\t      vant here:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       “Some propositions seem true or false
\n\t      beyond  rational debate. Some false and  harm-
\n\t      ful,  political  and religious  doctrine\tgain
\n\t      wide public acceptance. Adolf Hitler’s  brutal
\n\t      theory of a ‘master race’ is sufficient  exam-
\n\t      ple.  We tolerate such foolish  and  sometimes
\n\t      dangerous\t appeals not because they may  prove
\n\t      true but because freedom of speech is indivis-
\n\t      ible.  The  liberty cannot be denied  to\tsome
\n\t      ideas  and  saved for others.  The  reason  is
\n\t      plain enough: no man, no committee, and surely
\n\t      no  government,  has the infinite\t wisdom\t and
\n\t      disinterestedness\t accurately and\t unselfishly
\n\t      to separate what is true from what is  debata-
\n\t      ble,  and both from what is false. To  license
\n\t      one to impose his truth upon dessenters is  to
\n\t      give the same licence to all others who  have,
\n\t      but fear to lose, power. The judgment that the
\n\t      risks of suppression are greater than the harm
\n\t      done  by\tbad ideas rests upon  faith  in\t the
\n\t      ultimate\tgood sense and decency of free\tpeo-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ple.”   (Society\t Vol.\t24  p.\t 8   No.   1<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      November\/December 1986).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t problem of defining the area of freedom of  expres-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
sion  when  it appears to conflict with the  various  social
\ninterests  enumerated  under Article 19(2)<\/a>  may\t briefly  be
\ntouched upon here. There does indeed have to be a compromise
\nbetween\t the  interest of freedom of expression\t and  social
\ninterests. But we cannot simply balance the two interests as
\nif  they are of equal weight. Our commitment to\t freedom  of
\nexpression  demands that it cannot be suppressed unless\t the
\nsituations created by allowing the freedom are pressing\t and
\nthe community interest is endangered. The anticipated danger
\nshould not be remote, conjectural or far fetched. It  should
\nhave  proximate\t and direct nexus with the  expression.\t The
\nexpression  of thought should be intrinsically dangerous  to
\nthe  public interest. In other words, the expression  should
\nbe  inseparably locked up with the action contemplated\tlike
\nthe equivalent of a “spark in a powder keg”.\n<\/p>\n
227<\/span><\/p>\n
    Our\t remarkable faith in the freedom of speech  and\t ex-
\npression  could be seen even from decisions earlier  to\t our
\nConstitution. In Kamal Krishna v. Emperor<\/a>, AIR 1935 Cal 636,
\nthe  Calcutta High Court considered the effects of a  speech
\nadvocating  a  change of Government. There the\taccused\t was
\nconvicted  under  sec.\t124(A) of Penal Code<\/a>  for  making  a
\nspeech\trecommending ‘Bolshevik’ form of Government  to\t re-
\nplace  the  then existing form of  Government  in  Calcutta.
\nWhile  setting aside the conviction and acquitting  the\t ac-
\ncused,\tLord  Williams, J., who delivered the  judgment\t ob-
\nserved (at 637):\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“All  that the speakers did  was  to
\n\t      encourage\t the youngmen, whom he was  address-
\n\t      ing,  to join the Bengal Youth League  and  to
\n\t      carry  on\t a  propaganda for  the\t purpose  of
\n\t      inducing as large a number of people in  India
\n\t      as  possible to become supporters of the\tidea
\n\t      of  communism  as represented by\tthe  present
\n\t      Bolshevik\t system\t in  Russia.  It  is  really
\n\t      absurb  to  say  that speeches  of  this\tkind
\n\t      amount  to  sedition. If such were  the  case,
\n\t      then  every argument against the present\tform
\n\t      of Government and in favour of some other form
\n\t      of  Government  might be allowed\tto  lead  to
\n\t      hatred  of  the Government, and  it  might  be
\n\t      suggested that such ideas brought the  Govern-
\n\t      ment into contempt. To suggest some other form
\n\t      of Government is not necessarily to bring\t the
\n\t      present Government into hatred or contempt.”
\n\t\t  To  the same effect is the observation  by
\n\t      the Bombay High Court in Manohar v. Government
\n\t      of Bombay<\/a>, AIR 1950 BOM 210. There the  writer
\n\t      of an article in a newspaper was convicted for
\n\t      an offence under the Press (Emergency  Powers)
\n\t      Act,  1931,  for incitement to  violence.\t The
\n\t      writer had suggested the people to follow\t the
\n\t      example  of  China by  rising  against  Anglo-
\n\t      American Imperialism and their agents. He\t had
\n\t      also suggested his readers to pursue the\tpath
\n\t      of  violence,  as the Chinese people  did,  in
\n\t      order  that Anglo-American Imperialism  should
\n\t      be  driven out of this country.  Chagla  C.J.,
\n\t      while quashing the conviction said (at 2 13):
\n\t\t\t“It  is true that the  article\tdoes
\n\t      state  that the working class and the  coiling
\n\t      masses can get hold of power through the\tpath
\n\t      of revolution alone. But the expression  ‘rev-
\n\t      olution’\tis used here, as is clear  from\t the
\n\t      context, in contradistinction to reformism  or
\n\t      gradual evolution. The revolution preached  is
\n\t      not necessarily a violent revolution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      228<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      XXX XXX  XXX XXX
\n\t      As  the writer has not stated in this  article
\n\t      that  the toiling masses should take  up\tarms
\n\t      and fight for their rights and thus achieve  a
\n\t      revolution  we refuse to read this  expression
\n\t      as inciting the masses to violent methods.”
\n\t\t  In Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. Emperor<\/a>, AIR
\n\t      1942  FC\t23, the Federal Court  examined\t the
\n\t      effects  of  a  vulgar  and  abusive  outburst
\n\t      against the Government made by the accused for
\n\t      which  he was convicted under Rule 34  of\t the
\n\t      Defence  of  India Rules. Gwyer,\tC.J.,  while
\n\t      acquitting  the person commented\tmore  boldly
\n\t      (at 27):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t“There\tis  an English\tsaying\tthat
\n\t      hard  words break no bones; and the wisdom  of
\n\t      the  common law has long refused to regard  an
\n\t      actionable  any words which,  though  strictly
\n\t      and liberally defamatory, would be regarded by
\n\t      all reasonable men as no more than mere vulgar
\n\t      abuse.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
\n\t      The speech now before us is full of them.\t But
\n\t      we cannot regard the speech, taken as a  whole
\n\t      as  inciting those who heard it,\teven  though
\n\t      they  cried  “shame shame”  at  intervals,  to
\n\t      attempt  by violence or by public disorder  to
\n\t      subvert  the  Government for  the\t time  being
\n\t      established  by law in Bengal or elsewhere  in
\n\t      India. That the appellant expressed his  opin-
\n\t      ion  about that system of Government is
\n\t      true,  but he was entitled to do so,; and\t his
\n\t      reference\t to  it were, we might\talmost\tsay,
\n\t      both common place and in common form, and\t un-
\n\t      likely  to  cause any Government\tin  India  a
\n\t      moments uneasyness. His more violent  outburst
\n\t      were  directed  against the then\tMinistry  in
\n\t      Bengal  and against the Governor in Bengal  in
\n\t      his political capacity but we do not feel able
\n\t      to say that his speech whatever may be thought
\n\t      of the form in which it was expressed, exceed-
\n\t      ed the legal limits of comment or criticism.”
\n\t\t  Even\tthe  European  Court’s\tapproach  in
\n\t      protecting  the freedom of expression  is\t not
\n\t      different\t although  they have  the  extensive
\n\t      list  of circumstances for limiting the  free-
\n\t      dom. Article 10<\/a> of the European Convention  of
\n\t      Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom provides:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      229<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “(1)  Every  one has the right to\t freedom  of
\n\t      expression.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)  The exercise of these freedoms, since  it
\n\t      carries  with it duties and  responsibilities,
\n\t      may  be  subject to such\tformalities,  condi-
\n\t      tions,  restrictions or penalties as are\tpre-
\n\t      scribed  by law and are necessary in  a  demo-
\n\t      cratic  society in the interests\tof  national
\n\t      security,\t territorial  integrity\t or   public
\n\t      safety,  for the prevention of health or\tmor-
\n\t      als,  for the protection of the reputation  or
\n\t      rights  of others, for preventing the  disclo-
\n\t      sure of information received in confidence, or
\n\t      for maintaining the authority and impartiality
\n\t      of the judiciary.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      It appears that the second paragraph of  Arti-
\n\t      cle 10 virtually removes the right purportedly
\n\t      guaranteed  by the first\tparagraph.  However,
\n\t      the  European  Court in  Handyside  v.  United
\n\t      Kingdom, [1976] EHRR\/737 observed at 754;
\n\t\t\t“The  court’s supervisory  functions
\n\t      oblige  it to pay the utmost attention to\t the
\n\t      principles characterising a ‘democratic socie-
\n\t      ty’. Freedom of expression constitutes one  of
\n\t      the  essential foundations of such a  society,
\n\t      one  of the basic conditions for its  progress
\n\t      and for the development of every man.  Subject
\n\t      to Article 10(2<\/a>), it is applicable not only to
\n\t      ‘information’  or ‘ideas’ that are  favourably
\n\t      received\tor regarded as inoffensive or  as  a
\n\t      matter of indifference, but also to those that
\n\t      offend  shock  or\t disturb the  State  or\t any
\n\t      sector of the population. Such are the demands
\n\t      of that pluralism, tolerance and\tbroadminded-
\n\t      ness  without  which there is  no\t ‘democratic
\n\t      society’.\t This means, amongst  other  things,
\n\t      that every ‘formality’, ‘condition’, ‘restric-
\n\t      tion’ or ‘penalty’ imposed in this sphere must
\n\t      be  proportionate to the legitimate  aim\tpur-
\n\t      sued.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    This takes us to the validity of the plea put forward by
\nthe Tamil Nadu Government. In the affidavit filed on  behalf
\nof  the State Government, it is alleged that some  organisa-
\ntions like the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Castes\/Scheduled  Tribes
\nPeople’s  Protection Committee, Dr. Ambedkar People’s  Move-
\nment, the Republican Party of India have been agitating that
\nthe  film  should  be banned as it hurt\t the  sentiments  of
\npeople belonging to Scheduled Caste\/Scheduled Tribes. It  is
\nstated that the General Secretary of the Republican Party of
\nIndia has warned that his party would not hesitate to damage
\nthe cinema
\n230<\/span>
\ntheatres  which screen the film. Some demonstration made  by
\npeople in front of “The Hindu” office on March 16, 1988\t and
\ntheir arrest and release on bail are also referred to. It is
\nfurther\t alleged  that\tthere were some\t group\tmeetings  by
\nRepublican .Party members and Dr. Ambedkar People’s Movement
\nwith their demand for banning the film. With these averments
\nit  was contended for the State that the exhibition  of\t the
\nfilm. will create very serious law and order problem in\t the
\nState.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tare  amused yet troubled by the stand taken  by\t the
\nState Government with regard to the film which has  received
\nthe  National Award. We want to put the anguished  question,
\nwhat good is the protection of freedom of expression if\t the
\nState  does  not  take care to protect it? If  the  film  is
\nunobjectionable\t and cannot constitutionally  be  restricted
\nunder  Article 19(2<\/a>), freedom of expression cannot  be\tsup-
\npressed\t on account of threat of demonstration\tand  proces-
\nsions  or  threats  of violence. That  would  tentamount  to
\nnegation  of the rule of law and a surrender to\t black\tmail
\nand intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the
\nfreedom\t of  expression\t since it is  a\t liberty  guaranteed
\nagainst\t the State. The State cannot plead its inability  to
\nhandle\tthe hostile audience problem. It is  its  obligatory
\nduty to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression.
\n    In this case, two Revesing Committees have approved\t the
\nfilm. The members thereof come from different walks of\tlife
\nwith  variegated experiences. They represent the cross\tsec-
\ntion  of  the community. They have judged the  film  in\t the
\nlight  of the objectives of the Act and the guidelines\tpro-
\nvided  for the purpose. We do not think that there  is\tany-
\nthing wrong or contrary to the Constitution in approving the
\nfilm  for public exhibition. The producer or as a matter  of
\nfact  any other person has a right to draw attention of\t the
\nGovernment  and people that the existing method of  reserva-
\ntion  in education institutions overlooks merits. He  has  a
\nright  to state that reservation could be made on the  basis
\nof  economic backwardness to the benefit of all sections  of
\ncommunity.  Whether this view is right or wrong\t is  another
\nmatter altogether and at any rate we are not concerned\twith
\nits  correctness  or usefulness to the people. We  are\tonly
\nconcerned whether such a view could be advocated in a  film.
\nTo  say\t that one should not be permitted to  advocate\tthat
\nview goes against the first principle of our democracy.
\n    We\tend here as we began on this topic. Freedom  of\t ex-
\npression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected,
\ncannot be held to ransom, by an intolerant group of  people.
\nThe fundamental freedom
\n231<\/span>
\nunder Article 19(1)(a)<\/a> can be reasonably restricted only for
\nthe purposes mentioned in Articles 19(2) and the restriction
\nmust  be  justified on the anvil of necessity  and  not\t the
\nquicks\tand of convenience or expediency. Open criticism  of
\nGovernment  policies  and  operations is not  a\t ground\t for
\nrestricting  expression. We must practice tolerance  to\t the
\nviews of others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to  democ-
\nracy as to the person himself.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  result,  we allow these  appeals,\treverse\t the
\njudgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions of
\nthe respondents. In the circumstances of the case,  however,
\nwe make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Y.L.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n232<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 SCR (2) 204, 1989 SCC (2) 574 Author: K Shetty Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J) PETITIONER: S. RANGARAJAN ETC Vs. RESPONDENT: P. JAGJIVAN RAM DATE OF JUDGMENT30\/03\/1989 BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-271962","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-09T11:46:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"55 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-09T11:46:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989\"},\"wordCount\":9337,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989\",\"name\":\"S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-09T11:46:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-09T11:46:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"55 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989","datePublished":"1989-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-09T11:46:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989"},"wordCount":9337,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989","name":"S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-09T11:46:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangarajan-etc-vs-p-jagjivan-ram-on-30-march-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271962","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=271962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271962\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271962"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271962"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}