See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271701097

The role of Central Board of Film Certification

(CBFC) with reference to Right to Freedom of
Speech and Expression in the Indian...
Article February 2015

CITATIONS

READS

1,016

1 author:
Vivek Dhupdale
Shivaji University, Kolhapur
30 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Vivek Dhupdale

Retrieved on: 20 November 2016

The role of Central Board of Film Certification

(CBFC) with reference to Right to Freedom of
Speech and Expression in the Indian Film Industry
Vivek Dhupdale

Freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all

democratic organizations, for without free political discussion no
public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the
processes of popular government, is possible.
- Justice Patanjali Shastri1
Introduction:
Indian film industry has been under fire recently due to ban imposed on
some films which created breach of peace and harmony in the society.2
There seems to be political interference in getting the films released either
without any cuts or with cuts as per the whims and fancies of some political
leaders by way of pressuring the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)
which is the only regulatory body put in place to censor the scenes which
they consider to be objectionable. Ms. Leela Samson, Chief of CBFC
recently resigned from her post as she alleged that there was a lot
interference and pressure from some political leaders in the autonomous
functioning of the board. This shows that the CBFC is not functioning
autonomously but has been a tool of exploitation from the political parties.
This has been proved from the fact that two films PK and MSG: The
Messenger of God took the beating from the censor board and the political
parties too. Ms. Samson was pressurized by some right-wing Hindu
religious organizations to ban the film PK, that takes swipes at self-styled
holy men and religious superstition. The film was exhibited across the
country without major cuts. This was followed by yet another controversial
film MSG: The Messenger of God which was called by the Sikh
organizations as blasphemous was allowed to be filmed by the Film
Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) in its quick decision after an appeal
was filed against the decision of the CBFC for banning the same. This led
the Chief of CBFC alongwith all the other officials of the board to resign
from their official positions. Now the question arises here is that whether the

Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra State, India.
Quoted from his landmark judgment Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594: AIR 1950 SC
124.
2
Films such as Fire (1996), Final Solution (2004), Hava Aney Dey (2004), Amu (2005), Water (2005),
Chand Bhuj Gaya (2005), The Da Vinci Code (2006), Aaja Nachle (2007), Babu Bajrangi (2007), Jodha
Akbar (2008), Deshdrohi (2008), Had Anhad (2009)Firaaq (2009), The Girl with the Dragan Tattoo
(2011), Kaum De Heere (2014), Vishwaroopam (2013), Madras Caf (2013), PK (2014) and MSG
Messenger of God (2014) and some TV serials such as Tamas were initially banned and some of them are
later on permitted to be released and exhibited or telecast with appropriate cuts and alterations, etc. to
avoid communal violence.
1

CBFC should be allowed to function as it is with autonomous powers

without political interference or its powers are to be restricted to mere a body
for rating the films produced in India as well as foreign films released in
India as per their contents and allow the films go uncut and hence protect the
rights of the producers, directors and writers to freedom of speech and
expression? The freedom of speech and expression of citizens of India is the
most basic fundamental freedom protected under the Indian Constitution of
India.3 This freedom allows the citizens to freely express their ideas and
thoughts through various mediums such as print, audio or audio-visuals, with
the help of pictures, signs, paintings, films, dramas, etc. However, this
freedom is not at all absolute in nature but has been qualified with some
reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of
India on what may be feely said, published or exhibited, especially in the
context of media and entertainment sector.4 The present article is an attempt
to study the role of CBFC and FCAT5 in protecting the freedom of speech
and expression at the same time ensuring that no religious sentiments are
hurt while allowing the films to be released and also to suggest some
remedial measures to rectify the situation.
The Freedom of Speech and Expression in India:
The Supreme Court (SC) of India has been from time to time questioning the
manner in which the right to freedom of speech and expression has been
misused by the citizens of India. The right to freedom of speech and
expression is not absolute but is being regulated by reasonable restrictions
imposed under Article 19(2)6 of the Constitution of India. But the
permissible restriction on this right must be imposed by a duly enacted
legislation and must not be unreasonable or arbitrary in nature. If any
restrictions are in excess, then they may defeat the very purpose of enacting
the said freedom under Article 19(1)(a). The SC has interpreted the meaning
of the term restriction in different ways in its various landmark judgments.
In A.K. Gopalans7 case Chief Justice Kania, Justice Patanjali Sastri and
3

See: Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution which says that, All citizens shall have right to freedom
of speech and expression.
4
Bhashin Lalit, 2010, Media World and the Law, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, at p.
17.
5
The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) is a statutory body, constituted vide Section 5D of the
Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952), under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government
of India. The Tribunal hears the appeals filed under Section 5C of the Act under which any applicant for a
Certificate in respect of a film who is aggrieved by an order of the Central Board of Film Certification
(CBFC), can file an Appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has its headquarters in New Delhi. The
Tribunal has a Secretary to look after its day to day affairs.
6
Article 19(2): Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause 19(1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or
prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on exercise of
the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the
State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to Contempt of
Court, defamation or incitement of an offence.
7
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88, AIR 1950 SC 27.

Justice Das explained the term restriction. According to Justice Das,

restriction implies that part of the fundamental right is restricted leaving
the other part in tact. Justice Patanjali viewed restriction as partial
prohibition of the freedom and Chief Justice Kania referred the term
restriction as partial control. Therefore, by way of imposition of
reasonable restrictions the law does not affect the right to freedom of speech
and expression but the manner in which it is exercised is restricted.
Film Censorship and rating in United States of America (USA) and
India - A Comparative Analysis:
During 1930 to 1968 there were a set of industry moral guidelines that were
being applied to most of the United States movies. These set of rules were
popularly known as the Hays Code named after Will H. Hays, then President
of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) from
1922 to 1945.8 The Production Code adopted by the MPPDA provided for
restrictions as to what content was permissible and what was not in films
produced for a public audience in the United States. The film industry
followed the code guidelines by the late 1950, but thereafter the code started
loosing its hold due to the advent of Television, influence from foreign films,
some bold directors and eventually in 1968, after several years of negligible
enforcement, it became outdated and was finally replaced by the Motion
Picture Association of America (MPAA) film rating system which is still
applicable to all the United States Motion pictures. This system consisted of
four ratings: G for general audience, M (later on became GP and now
it is known as PG Parental Guidance, then it is also changed to PG
13 in 1984)9 for mature content, R for restricted (under 17 not admitted
without an adult) and X10 for sexually explicit content.11 This shows that in
USA film censorship is concerned only with the film rating based on the
contents of the motion picture and the authorities nowhere deals with
excision or modification of the film contents as it is followed by our Censor
Board Authorities.
Most of the film personalities and producers and directors are now
questioning the very existence of the Censor Board. But a handful of them
8

Motion Picture Production Code. Retrieved from: http:// en. wikipedia. org/w iki/ Motion_ Picture_
Production _ Code.
9
In 1969, the Swedish film I Am Curious (Yellow), directed by Vilgot Sjman, was initially banned in the
U.S. for its frank depiction of sexuality; however, this was overturned by the Supreme Court. In 1970,
because of confusion over the meaning of "mature audiences", the M rating was changed to GP, and then in
1972 to the current PG, for "parental guidance suggested". In 1984, in response to public complaints
regarding the severity of horror elements in PG-rated titles such as Gremlins and Indiana Jones and the
Temple of Doom, the PG-13 rating was created as a middle tier between PG and R.
10
In 1990, the X rating was replaced by NC-17 (under 17 not admitted).
11
Supra Note 10.

say that the Censor Board must be allowed to function independently

without any political interference with some more powers so that it can
exercise control over the misuse of the freedom of speech and expressions
guarantied by the Constitution of India. The researcher would like to adopt
the latter view of looking at the role of Censor Board. The reason is that we
in India still have preserved our culture to some extent. There must be
control on the contents of a film because film is the only medium of
entertainment which has an immediate impact on children and the youth.
Experience has shown that some of the crimes in India are being committed
due to the inspiration that they get from the movies. Besides, today the
technology has reduced the modes of entertainment into a palm size smart
phone where due to video and internet piracy and illegal downloading of
even sometimes uncensored films which are uploaded on the internet are
being watched by the public especially todays young teenagers.
As far as India is concerned, there are various enactments enacted from the
inception of the provisions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India,
but the present research article will concentrate only on one enactment which
is The Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter called as the Act of 1952).
The main objective of this Act is to provide for the certification of
cinematograph films for exhibition in public and for regulating the same by
censoring the film before release. The Act of 1952 has empowered the
Central Government to establishment of a Board called as the Central Board
of Certification (CBFC).12 The main function of the Censor Board is to
certify films fit for public exhibition. The Censor Board may after
scrutinizing the film along with the advisory panels, may either certify with
UA if the it is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, or with A if it
is not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition for adults only or with S if
it is suitable for public exhibition restricted to any members of any
profession or a class of persons. The films so certified will be marked with
suitable grades as per their contents. The Censor Board may also direct the
filmmakers to carry out certain excisions or modifications in the film as it
thinks fit that it may amount to public breach of peace or it may result into
hurting religious sentiments of any particular community if the film is
released as it is. Finally, the Sensor Board also reserves right to even refuse
to certify the film for public exhibition if it contains any objectionable
contents that harm the public peace and harmony.13
International Law on Film Censorship and Indian Situation:
Legally speaking communication through film media is regarded as a form
of speech and expression in India. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
12
13

See: Section 3 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

Section 4 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

Human Rights (UDHR)14 and International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, 1966 (ICCPR)15 specifically provide for the protection and
promotion of the right to speech and expression. If also provides the
protection of this right in the form of art including films. But this right is not
an absolute right in any country; their Governments have been empowered to
put reasonable restrictions. Under the international legal regime the
restrictions over the right to free speech and expression needs to undergo
strict tests consisting of three parts; firstly, the restrictions must be provided
by the law, the aim of the exercise of them must be legitimate and they must
be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of the aim. The
aims of imposing these restrictions are for the protection of the rights and
reputations of others, the protection of national security and public order and
morals.16 Our Constitution of India also provides for the freedom of free
speech and expression under the Constitution of India alongwith certain
reasonable restrictions.17 In India films are one of the most important means
of entertainment. But every movie before it is released for public exhibition
has to undergo the process of legal censorship through the CBFC.18 The main
legislation relating to film censorship, grading and censorship is the Act of
1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 (hereafter called as
Rules).
The main object of the Act of 1952 is to provide for the certification of
cinematograph films for the exhibition and also for their regulations on
exhibition. The procedure of the Act of 1952 empowers the Central
Government to constitute and establish a Censor Board consisting of up to
25 members in order to sanctioning films that produced for public
exhibitions. After the thorough scrutiny, the Board has been empowered to
either sanction the film with suitable grading as restricted or unrestricted
public exhibition or instructs the filmmakers to carry out the necessary
14

Article 19 of UDHR: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
15
Article 19 of ICCPR: 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone
shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of
art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of
this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain
restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the
rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or
of public health or morals.
16
See Article 19(3) of ICCPR.
17
See Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
18
The power to make laws for sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition is vested with the
Parliament of India according to Entry 60 of the Union List of the Schedule VII under the Constitution of
India. However, the States can also make laws on cinemas under Entry 33 (ie., theatres and dramatic
performances; cinemas subject to the provisions of entry 60 of List I); of the Sate List but subject to the
provision of the central legislation.

modifications or even refuse to sanction the film for public viewing.

According to the Act of 1952,19 the grounds for the restrictions against the
films for public exhibition must be in consonance with Article 19(2) of the
Constitution of India. It also empowers the Central Government to issue
necessary guidelines in this connection.20 The Act of 1952 also provides for
the Appellate Tribunals to hear appeals from the aggrieved parties against
the impugned orders from the CBFC.
The Act of 1952 also empowers the Central Government to call for the
records from the CBFC except the matter pending before the Appellate
Tribunal at any stage to issue the necessary orders as to dispose of the matter
and the Board must comply with such orders immediately.21 The Act also
empowers the Central Government or the Local Authority to ban the
exhibition of a film in any Union Territory or a State or any part of it where
it may likely to breach law and order and public peace. 22 Section 8 of the Act
of 1952 provides for the rule making power on the Central Government. The
rules provide the procedural details of CBFC, the Scrutiny Committee, the
Revising Committee, the Appellate Tribunal and other ancillary matters. A
special mention may be made to Rule 1123 that specifically imposes a duty
on the Censor Board to assess public reactions to the film before issuing the
Certificate for the public exhibition. This shows that the CBFC does not
enjoy any exclusive right to decide on the fate of any film that comes before
it for certification.
Film Censorship and Judicial Approach:
Cinematographic films are the most attractive means of exercising the
freedom of speech and expression. Films are sometimes required to be
banned as they do not comply with the reasonable restrictions imposed by
Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. This poses a question whether we
really enjoy our freedom of speech and expression in true letter and spirit?
The films have been banned due to various issues such as, obscenity, sex
violence, maintaining public order in the society, respecting religious beliefs
and sentiments and traditional values of a particular cultural group, or the
19

See Section 5-B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

The guidelines were revised in the year 1991. Retrieved from: file:///G:/My%20 Paper s%20a n d %
20Articles/Freedom%20of%20Speech%20and%20expression/Banning%20Films%20Or%20Article
%2019%281% 29%28A% 29%20-%20 Author% 20- 20Subhradipta %20Sarkar %20& %20Archana
%20Sarma. htm
21
See: Section 6(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
22
See: Section 13 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
23
Rule 11 of Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 which reads as With a view to determining the
principles to be observed in certifying films, the Board may take such steps as it thinks fit to assess public
reactions to films, and for that purpose, the Board may hold symposia or seminars of film critics, film
writers, community leaders and persons engaged in the film industry, or such other persons and also
undertake local or national surveys to study the impact of various kinds of films on the public mind.
20

film may involve in criticizing against the State on certain subjects under
various provisions. Sometimes, the issue of imposing ban on films may
create such a critical situation that the Court will have to interfere and solve
the problem of public law and order. In the mean time video and film pirates
take advantage of the situation and reproduce the illegal films by copying
them on a duplicate CDs and DVDs and make them available in the market
and on the internet at a cheaper cost so that due to the imposition of ban on
the movie has created a sense of curiosity in the minds of public so as to
know the reason or rather they want to see the scenes which have been in
issue. Therefore, besides statutory laws, the Indian Courts through its various
judgments have contributed immensely to build up the jurisprudence in this
respect. Some of those important judgments related to motion pictures, tele
films and TV serials. Some of the judgments dealing with film censorship
issues in India are discussed as under:
1)
In K.A. Abbas v. Union of India24, The Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality within the ambit of Aricle 19(2) of the
Constitution and added that films have to be treated separately
from other forms of art and expression because a motion picture
has the ability of stirring up the emotions more deeply than any
other product of art. At the same time it also cautioned that it
should be in the interest of society.
2)
In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram25, The Madras High Court
had revoked the U-Certificate issued to a Tamil film called as
Ore Oru Gramathile. This movie was challenged through an
appeal before the Supreme Court. The film was already awarded
with National Award. But the film was challenged on the ground
that it was based on reservation policy in jobs as such policy was
based on caste and was unfair to the Brahmins. It was argued that
economic background and not the caste should be the criterion.
The High Court held that the reaction to the Film in Tamil Nadu is
bound to be volatile. The Supreme Court on appeal overruled the
High Court decision and upheld the freedom of Speech and
Expresson.
2)
In Ramesh v. Union of India26, the TV serial Tamas27 (Darkness)
depicted the Hindu-Muslim and Sikh-Muslim tension before the
partition of India. An appeal was preferred against the judgment of
the Bombay High Court (which allowed the screening of the serial)
restrain the same as was violating Section 5 b of the Act of 1952. It
was alleged that the screening of the TV serial would amount to
24

A.I.R. 1971 SC 481.

(1989) 2 SCC 574.
26
(1988) 1 SCC 668.
27
Tamas TV serial was based on a novel Tamas written by Bhisham Sahni (8 August 1915 11 July 2003)
who was a Hindi writer, playwright, and actor and won the Sahitya Akademi Award for this work in 1976.
25

3)

4)

5)

violation of public order and may therefore incite people to commit

offences. Supreme Court upheld the High Courts decision and
dismissed the petition and commented that the serial is a medium
giving an information to the public as to what was the incident is
all about and that they should take it as a lesson not to repeat such
things in future again. Eventually the film was issued a U
certificate and permitted to be released and telecast.
In Sree Raghavendra Films v. Government of Andhra Pradesh,28
the exhibition of the film Bombay in its Telugu version was
suspended in Andhra Pradesh under Section 8(1) of the A.P.
Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955, as it may cause hurting of
sentiment of some community, despite being certified by the
Censor Board for unrestricted exhibition. As court discovered that
the authorities that suspended the movie had not watched the
movie at all, hence therefore, the court quashed the suspension
order and allowed the movie to be exhibited.
The Da Vinci Code29 was a controversial movie released in 65
countries including India. The Christian communities in from
several states of India protested against the screening of the film,
alleging that it sent and anti-Christian message. After a lot of
deliberations, the Censor Board gave the film an A certificate and
cleared it, but forced the distributor, Sony Pictures, to incorporate a
15-second legal disclaimer both at the beginning as well as at the
end of the film stating that the movie was purely a tale of fiction.
Even then the protests continued by several Christian organizations
continued and the film was gradually banned by seven State
Governments30. Meanwhile a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India was also filed before Supreme Court seeking
a complete ban on the film as well as on the novel. However,
subsequently several High Courts quashed the ban in the states
upholding the right to freedom of speech and expression and
declared the acts of the States as irrational and unconstitutional.
Anti-nuclear documentary War and Peace:31 was supposed to
undergo twenty cuts before it was to be allowed to have certificate
for public exhibition. The aggrieved petitioner filed an appeal

28

1995 (2) A.L.D. 81.

The Hollywood creation, adapted from the bestselling 2003 novel The Da Vinci Code on Jesus Christ and
his relation with Mary Magdelene and Christianity, by Author Dan Brown sold worldwide in 44 languages:
2006 (4) CTC 193.
30
They are Nagaland, Goa, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Meghalaya. It was alleged
that the film violated Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The storyline was alleged to have offended the
sentiments of the Christian and Muslim Community.
31
A documentary created by a well-known Anand Patwardhan. The documentary focused on the danger of
nuclear war in India.
29

before the FCAT32. Subsequently, a U certificate was granted,

subject to two cuts and one addition. Again an appeal was
preferred by the aggrieved petitioner before the Mumbai High
Court. The High Court judges ordered the Censor Board to issue
U certificate without imposing any cuts or making additions to
the documentary. The High Court held that the two cuts and an
addition that was imposed on the documentary were in violation of
the freedom of speech and expression of the petitioner under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Some recent controversial films that are in news today:
a) PK and the controversy: Initially when PK was released it was a big
hit and also got a good response in the box-office and now it has been
considered as one of the highest earning film both in India and abroad.
But even after that the controversy erupted against it and some of the
religious groups started protesting the screening of the film and the
film makers as it is hurting the religious sentiments.
b) MSG (Messenger of God): The controversial film the Messenger of
God MSG is based on the Dera Saccha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram
Rahim Singh was written, produced and directed by the Dera Chief
himself and Jeetu Arora under the Hakikat Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
Banner with Singh in a lead role. The film was supposed to be
released on 16th January 2015 but was stuck with the censor board for
its clearance. The film underwent the Boards examination that raised
objections against the film alleging that it is showing the self-styled
guru projected himself as a godman.
The censor board refused to grant clearance certificate as according to
it the film was unsuitable for public exhibition. The producer of the
film preferred an appeal before the FCAT at Delhi. The matter was
fast tracked by the FCAT and the film has been cleared within 24
hours which normally takes 15 to 30 days as per the procedure. The
FCAT has directed the CBFC to issue the clearance certificate. The
film has been scheduled to be released with a mandatory disclaimer on
February 13, 2015 across the country targeting 3,000 to 4,000 screens.
This has resulted into the resignation by the CBFC chief Ms. Leela
Samson33 followed by mass resignations by the other board members.
32

See: Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

33

According to the statement given by Ms. Samson, the CBFC was under constant pressure from the
political parties as they interfere into the functioning of the Board. She has termed the FCAT clearance
as a mockery of CBFC and said she had taken the decision to quit because of "recent cases of
interference", "coercion and corruption of panel members and officers" of the censor board. Retrieved
from: http: //www. dnaindia. Com /india /report- msg- controversy another- cbfc- member- resignsdera-chief- finally- speaks- 2053124.

In the meantime the film has also been banned by the Punjab and
Harayana Governments from the screening. Recently, a petition
seeking directions to ban the screening of the MSG movie in the
States of Punjab and Haryana was filed before the Punjab and Haryana
High Court by Mohali based Sikh body Kalgidhar Sewak Jatha. The
body argued that the screening of the movie, MSG would be a serious
threat to the law and order situation and peace of the States of Punjab
and Haryana. It is further alleged that the self-style head of Sirsa based
Dera Saccha Sauda (DSS), Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had tried to
project himself as messenger of God in the movie while he is an
accused several heinous crimes including rape, murder and castration
of his followers. The cases are being still investigated by the CBI
officers.
Findings Conclusion and Suggestions:
After going through the legislative provisions and the judicial decisions, it
can be construed that though citizens of India ie., directors and producers
and the viewer of the films enjoy the freedom to free speech and expression
and it is also agreed that imposing unreasonable restrictions on the filming
may amount arbitrary action by the state or the Board. However, at the same
time it has to be kept in mind that people of India also enjoy religious
freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of India.34 Even the preamble of the
Constitution provides for the liberty of though, expression, belief, faith and
worship, equality of status and of opportunity and to promote among the
citizen fraternity assuring the unity and integrity of the nation.35 Religion is a
very sensitive issue in any part of the world and if any person by whatever
means offends these religious beliefs, then it may amount violation of the
34

Article 25. Freedom of Conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. (1)
Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally
entitled to freedom of conscience and right freely to profess, practice and propagate
Article 26. Freedom to manage religious affairs. Subject to public order, morality and health, every
religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right (a) to establish and maintain institutions
for religious and charitable purpose; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and
acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law.
Article 27. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion No person shall be
compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for
the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denominations.
Article 28. Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational
institution. (1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained
out of State funds
35
Preamble provides for WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into
a [SOVEREIGN SOCIALISTT SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC] and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic, and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the [unity and integrity of the Nation];
IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do
HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

10

fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Recently an

attempt has been made by some of the writers and producers of films from
India and abroad against the so called bad practices or blind beliefs of
majority of religions in India and abroad by means of some controversial
films and books.
As we have experienced in the past and even recently, such kind of attempt
to exceeding the freedom of speech and expression beyond the restrictions,
may take a very ugly turn that can disturb and may weaken the strong
bonding of unity and integrity in diversity of religion, culture and traditions.
We have also seen some of the films such as Amar, Akbar Anthony, starring
Amitabh Bachchan, Vinod Mehra and Rishi Kapoor, etc. where all the
religions have been given equal respects. An attempt should be made by the
film industry not to go beyond the restrictions put on them while exercising
their freedom speech and expression as it is already stated earlier films are
one of the most effective means of entertainment. By exercising selfrestraint there will be peace in the society and the precious time and money
of the Courts and the Government respectively will be saved and may be
utilized in some important welfare matters for the betterment of the society.
Even the judiciary while deciding the cases relating to religions should
balance its decision so as to avoid conflict in the society. The CBFC must be
given autonomous powers to function independently without political
interference. Similarly, the provisions of the Act of 1952 that allows an
opportunity to invite public response in case of controversial films must be
utilized by the CBFC compulsorily so as to avoid conflicts in the future.
Finally, in the alternative the CBFC may be restricted to the work of rating
the films instead of censoring them (as it is followed in the U.S.A. and other
countries) as per the contents of the film and let the public decide the fate of
the film and exercise their own discretion while watching the film.

11