Audio-Visual Arts and Right to Freedom of Speech (Padmavat Row)

 In every liberal democracy, the citizens are guaranteed certain civil liberties which give them a realm of private and independent action where the state cannot intrude. The Indian constitution also guarantees such civil liberties to the Indian citizens under Article 19.

Among the several such liberties, the freedom of speech occupies a preeminent position among all other civil liberties which our constitution zealously guards against state action.
Undoubtedly, freedom of speech is the bulwark of democratic government as this freedom is very essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process. Indeed freedom of speech is regarded as the first condition of liberty and nevertheless is truly regarded as the mother of all other liberties.

Significantly, the contours of the freedom of speech under our constitution are very far reaching to include a right to express one’s own views and opinions on any issue and by employing any medium for this purpose such as words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, films or movies etc.

In essence, the freedom of speech and expression touches upon all forms of media through which a citizen wants to speak or express himself and films or movies is indeed one such medium.
Time and again, the films as a medium of speech and expression invoke controversy either on account of censorship or facing protests and agitation against its release as we witnessed in the recent past in connection with Padmavati which caught media and everyone’s attention in the country. Let’s address both the issues surrounding films one by one.

Insofar as the censorship of films is concerned, the position is very clear in this regard that as against other forms of media through which a person is speaking or expressing himself, films can justifiably be pre censored. This does not amount to an unreasonable restriction on ones say, a film maker’s right of speech and expression. The Supreme Court clarified this position long back in K.A Abbas case (1971) upholding censorship of films on the ground that the films or motion pictures considering their very nature as a product of visual art, is capable of stirring up human emotions more deeply than any other form of art. Being so, films do carry a unique capacity of disturbing and arousing feelings so as to be a potential for evil or mischief in the society. A film thus cannot be allowed to function in a free market place just as the newspapers or magazines do. Having said so, the films must have to be treated separately from other forms of art and expression. In the instant case of Padmavati, the censor board did not find anything objectionable in the movie and thus certified it for release other than affecting a minor change in the name of the movie to Padmavat.

Now erupts another issue of banning a film in spite of its being cleared by the censor board on the part of some states considering violent protests and agitation unleashed by a particular community who find the content as objectionable as we all witnessed in the context of Padmavati row.

The question is: can a state or government order a ban on the exhibition of a film in their state in view of either anticipated or ongoing protests considering its unobjectionable nature and clearance by the censor board?

In this regard also, the stance of the Court is very clear as it observed — “What good is the protection of freedom of speech and expression if the state does not care to protect it? If the film is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted on the grounds mentioned under the right itself, freedom of speech cannot be restricted and suppressed on account of any threat of demonstration or violence. It is the duty of the state to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the state…”

Hence, to conclude, a threat of violence or actual violence does not empower the state to ban the exhibition of a particular film (as announced by some states in connection with Padmavati) or as may arise any time in the future provided the content of an alleged film fall within the parameters of restrictions laid down in Article 19 (2). If such a ban has been announced on the quicksand of political expediency or convenience, it will not carry the sanction of law, for then it would tantamount to negation of rule of law and surrender to blackmail and intimidation. Hence, the state cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem.

Indeed, freedom of speech and expression is legitimate and constitutionally protected right cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people.

By: Pritam Sharma