For this article:

19 Dec 2025·Source: The Indian Express
3 min
Polity & GovernanceSocial IssuesPolity & GovernanceEDITORIAL

Censorship in Cinema: A Threat to Freedom of Expression

Banning films stems from a desire to control narratives, not politics, undermining freedom of expression.

Censorship in Cinema: A Threat to Freedom of Expression

Photo by Markus Winkler

संपादकीय विश्लेषण

The author strongly champions artistic freedom and freedom of speech, particularly in cinema, arguing against any form of censorship driven by political or ideological motives, viewing it as an attempt to control narratives and suppress dissent.

मुख्य तर्क:

  1. The author posits that calls for banning films are not about protecting public sentiment but about controlling narratives and suppressing viewpoints that challenge established ideologies or political agendas.
  2. Films, like other art forms, reflect society's complexities, including its flaws and uncomfortable truths. Suppressing them prevents necessary introspection and dialogue.
  3. Banning films directly infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)), a cornerstone of democracy.
  4. While propaganda exists, genuine art aims to provoke thought and emotion, not necessarily to promote a specific political agenda. Judging art solely on its political alignment is a misinterpretation of its purpose.

निष्कर्ष

The author concludes that a mature democracy must protect artistic freedom, allowing diverse narratives to flourish, and that attempts to censor or ban films are ultimately an act of "losing control" over the public discourse.

नीतिगत निहितार्थ

The editorial advocates for policies that uphold freedom of artistic expression and resist calls for censorship, emphasizing the constitutional protection of free speech.

Here's the key point: The author argues against the trend of banning films or demanding censorship based on political or ideological objections, asserting that such actions stem from a desire to control narratives rather than genuine concern for public order. You'd expect a democracy to uphold artistic freedom, but surprisingly, artistic expression, especially in cinema, is frequently curtailed by groups claiming offense, often without legal basis. Censoring films is like trying to control a river by damming it; the flow of ideas will eventually find another path, but the ecosystem downstream suffers.

For a filmmaker, spending years crafting a story only to see it banned or heavily censored for challenging a powerful narrative is a direct silencing of their voice. This topic is highly relevant for UPSC GS-II (Polity, Fundamental Rights) and GS-I (Indian Society, Culture), as freedom of speech and censorship are recurring themes.

UPSC परीक्षा के दृष्टिकोण

1.

Constitutional provisions related to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2)).

2.

Statutory framework for film censorship: The Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the role of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

3.

Judicial pronouncements and landmark cases concerning film censorship and artistic freedom.

4.

The balance between fundamental rights, public order, morality, and cultural sensitivities.

5.

Impact of censorship on artistic creativity, cultural discourse, and the film industry.

6.

Role of state and non-state actors in regulating artistic expression.

दृश्य सामग्री

Evolution of Film Censorship & Freedom of Expression in India

This timeline highlights key legislative changes and landmark judicial pronouncements that have shaped the landscape of film censorship and freedom of expression in India, leading up to the current debates in December 2025.

The journey of film censorship in India reflects a constant tension between artistic freedom and societal concerns, often mediated by the judiciary. From colonial control to post-independence regulation, the framework has evolved, with recent changes like the 2023 Act and FCAT abolition significantly altering the landscape for filmmakers and free speech advocates.

  • 1950Constitution of India adopted, enshrining Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech & Expression) and Article 19(2) (Reasonable Restrictions).
  • 1952Cinematograph Act enacted, establishing the Central Board of Film Censors (later CBFC) for film certification.
  • 1971K.A. Abbas v. Union of India: Supreme Court upholds pre-censorship for films but emphasizes guidelines to balance artistic freedom with public order.
  • 1989S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram: SC rules that artistic expression can only be curtailed if it poses an 'imminent threat' to public order, not merely 'likely' to cause disturbance.
  • 2015Shreya Singhal v. Union of India: SC strikes down Section 66A of IT Act, reinforcing free speech principles and clarifying 'incitement' as a ground for restriction.
  • 2021Abolition of Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT): Appellate powers transferred to High Courts, raising concerns about accessibility and specialized expertise.
  • 2023Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 enacted: Introduces new age-based certification categories (UA 7+, UA 13+, UA 16+), penal provisions for piracy, and controversial power for Central Government to revise CBFC certificates.
  • 2024Ongoing legal challenges and public debates regarding the Central Government's power to revise CBFC certificates under the 2023 Act, citing potential for arbitrary censorship.
  • 2025Increased scrutiny on OTT platform content regulation under IT Rules 2021, with calls for stricter oversight amidst artistic freedom concerns.
और जानकारी

पृष्ठभूमि

The debate around censorship in cinema is deeply rooted in the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the reasonable restrictions that can be imposed on it (Article 19(2)). Historically, film censorship in India predates independence, with the Cinematograph Act, 1918. Post-independence, the Cinematograph Act, 1952, established the Central Board of Film Censors (now CBFC) to regulate films.

Over the decades, various Supreme Court judgments, notably K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1971), have shaped the legal framework, upholding pre-censorship for films while emphasizing that films enjoy the same constitutional protection as other art forms.

नवीनतम घटनाक्रम

In recent times, there has been a noticeable increase in demands for banning or censoring films, often by non-state actors and pressure groups, based on perceived political, religious, or cultural sensitivities. These demands frequently lead to legal battles, delays in release, and sometimes, state-level bans even after CBFC certification.

The summary highlights this trend as a desire to control narratives, undermining artistic freedom and democratic principles. The rise of digital platforms (OTT) also presents new challenges to traditional censorship models.

बहुविकल्पीय प्रश्न (MCQ)

1. Consider the following statements regarding film censorship in India: 1. The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is absolute and extends equally to all forms of artistic expression, including cinema. 2. The Cinematograph Act, 1952, provides for pre-censorship of films, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a reasonable restriction on freedom of expression. 3. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is empowered to certify films for public exhibition but lacks the authority to suggest cuts or modifications to a film. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

उत्तर देखें

सही उत्तर: B

Statement 1 is incorrect: Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). This applies to cinema as well. Statement 2 is correct: The Cinematograph Act, 1952, mandates pre-censorship of films. In K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1971), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of pre-censorship for films, distinguishing them from other forms of expression due to their unique impact. Statement 3 is incorrect: The CBFC, under the Cinematograph Act, has the power to suggest cuts, modifications, or even refuse certification if a film violates the guidelines.

2. In the context of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and its role in India, which of the following statements is NOT correct?

उत्तर देखें

सही उत्तर: B

Statement A is correct: The CBFC is indeed an autonomous body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Statement B is incorrect: The guidelines for film certification use broad terms like 'public order,' 'morality,' 'decency,' etc., which are often subjective and open to interpretation, leading to debates and challenges. There is no explicit, objective definition provided for these terms in the Act or guidelines. Statement C is correct: The FCAT was indeed the appellate body for CBFC decisions, but it was abolished in April 2021 through the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021. Appeals now lie directly with the High Courts. Statement D is correct: While films are certified by the CBFC, state governments have, on several occasions, exercised powers under various laws (e.g., CrPC Section 144 or state specific laws) to suspend the exhibition of films, often citing law and order concerns. Such actions are frequently challenged in higher courts.

GKSolverआज की खबरें