This article has been written by Ms. Indrakshi Chaku, an upcoming law student

Introduction

Censorship is defined as the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are deemed to be offensive. In India censorship is directly and indirectly governed by various acts like Cable televisions act, cinematography act, 1952, Indian penal code, Code of criminal procedure etc. However, there is no comprehensive legal framework determining the nature of offence caused by information produced in the form of words, images, ideas etc. This obscures the line between necessary censorship and arbitrary censorship. This article explores the evolution and scope of censorship in India. Additionally, it also sheds light on the need for such censorship and the theories postulated by the opponents and the proponents of the same.

History of censorship in India

Censorship in India can be traced back to the advent of British Rule. In 1799 Lord Wellesley enacted the censorship of press act in the anticipation of India’s invasion by the French. The act required every newspaper to print the names of the printer, editor and proprietor. Before printing any material, it was to be submitted to the secretary of Censorship. The laws regarding censorship of media were further strengthened when the national movement gained momentum, in order to curb nationalism. Post independence some of the laws enacted during the British era were kept and others like cinematography act,1918 were replaced. 

• the sedition law, section 124 of the IPC still stands intact. It forbids any signs, visual representations, or phrases, whether written or spoken, that may “bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law”.
• Similarly, criminal defamation specified in Section 499 of IPC, 1860 is another law governing freedom of expression in India. It forbids any person from defaming any other person thus ensuring the wise use of freedom of expression guaranteed in the Indian Constitution.

In 1978, the press council of India act  came into being during the time of emergency. It sought to preserve the press’s freedom and maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India. The most recent development in the field of censorship laws includes the enactment of Information technology act,2000 which governs the censorship of online content.

Criticism

Article 19 of the Indian constitution provides the right to freedom of speech and expression. Although not mentioned explicitly, the right to freedom of press is encompassed within the section 1 of article 19 as held by the Supreme court in the case of Romesh Thapar Vs State of Madras, 1950. Opponents of censorship mandates argue that the censorship undermines this very right.  India ranks 142 out of 180 on the press freedom Index. This is mainly due to government hostility towards journalists and artists that question the government through press or other forms of media. In India, the legislation pertaining to defamation and sedition law is used to intimidate and threaten journalists, which ultimately prevents them from doing their job. In June 2021 The First Information Report (FIR) filed by an inspector at the Loni Border Police Station in Ghaziabad accused The Wire, Washington Post columnist Rana Ayyub, freelance journalist Saba Naqvi and co-founder of fact-checking website Alt News, Mohammed Zubair, of provoking communal sentiment by tweeting a video showing an elderly Muslim-man being beaten up by a group of men. Social media platform Twitter and three politicians from the opposition Congress Party were also mentioned in the FIR. This is one of many incidents which goes on to embody the fears of opponents of censorship mandates. The censorship mandates also tend to influence the culture of a country. Section 95 of CrPc empowers the government of India to forfeit any publication it deems to be violating the national security or integrity. However, no specific definition of the nature of such “violation” is provided anywhere and thus such ambiguity completely leaves the fate of publications in the hands of the government. A very similar crisis is faced by the entertainment industry. B.V Keshar, India’s longest serving broadcasting minister, mandated a series of legislations in 1952 with the motive of curbing the promotion of “westernized” music in Indian films, to protect India’s culture from obscenity. in The Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting versus the Cricket Association of Bengal, 1995, The apex court held that the first facet of the broadcasting freedom is freedom from state or governmental control, in particular from the censorship by the government. Yet, the broadcasting continues to be subjected to arbitrary censorship by the government. In Anand Patwardhan V. Centre Board of film Certification, 2003 , the Censor Board examined a film and ordered the filmmaker to carry out two cuts and one addition for the movie to be eligible for a ‘U’ certificate. The petition was filed on the directions of the Censor Board, where it was observed that the cuts ordered were an act of abuse of power by the Censor Board to harass the filmmaker which was in violation of the right to speech and expression through cinematograph under Article 19(1) a. Evidently, Censorship is widely used by the government to further its own political and social agendas. In order to prevent such abuse of power, it is necessary that the government becomes more transparent in its use of censorship mandates and is required to justify the grounds for the same.

Support

Proponents of the Censorship mandates argue that such restrictions are necessary to keep a country morally stable and to prevent the spread of false information. The section 2 of article 19 allows the government to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in order to protect Public Order. In the landmark case of K.A. Abbas  v. Union of India Chief Justice Hidayatullah, Justice Shelat, Mitter, Vidyialingam and Ray held that the censorship of films, including the pre censorship is constitutionally valid as it is a reasonable restriction within the ambit of article 19 (2). The court defines “reasonable” as something that is proximate, not remote, not arbitrary or fanciful, in the case of Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP and Virendra v. State of Punjab. Without these reasonable restrictions, the media and entertainment industry runs the risk of descending into a state of chaos and anarchy. With the advent of internet, information is accessible more efficiently and effectively than before, which makes it all the more important to check its factual accuracy and truthfulness. The dissemination of false information and fake news can disrupt the public order and cause frenzy. The fake news circulated through social media websites about the covid-19 vaccines caused fear among the public. People turned away from getting vaccinated. Some even broke out into mass protests. Such frenzy can very easily take place, where censorship is not diligently exercised.

Conclusion

Censorship, when used judiciously and not arbitrarily, can be an incredible tool to protect national security and integrity and the fundamental rights of the citizens. However, over the years, the government has used censorship to accomplish its own selfish motives. Be it the criminalization of a civil wrong like defamation or the misuse of sedition of law, the legislature has time and time again abused its power by threatening journalists, issuing arbitrary legislations and by imposing unreasonable restrictions on media. Despite having access to a very clear definition of “reasonable restrictions”, the imposing of arbitrary restrictions just goes on to show the willingness of government to violate of constitutionally guaranteed rights. If we are to be a true democracy, the real time affect of censorship mandates needs to be carefully scrutinized. Furthermore, India needs to readjust the scope of these mandates in such a manner that they comply with the censorship standards set and accepted by the international community. 

Reference