K a abbas vs the union of india
The petitioner made a documentary film portraying contrasts between rich and poor in four Indian cities. It included shots of a red light district in Bombay. The film board granted an 'A' certificate restricting exhibition to adults instead of the sought 'U' certificate. On appeal, the government granted a 'U' certificate if cuts were made. The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of film censorship provisions. The government then granted an unconditional 'U' certificate. The petitioner amended the petition to challenge pre-censorship and the vagueness of censorship provisions and principles. The Court allowed the amendment, noting filmmakers need clear censorship guidance. It was argued that pre-censorship violates free speech and censorship must be exercised on definite principles
K a abbas vs the union of india
- 1. K A Abbas vs The Union Of India The petitioner made a documentary film called "A Tale of Four Cities" which attempted to portray the contrast between the life of the rich and the poor in the four principal cities of the- country. The film included certain shots of the red light district in Bombay. Although the petitioner applied to the Board of Film Censors for a `U' Certificate for unrestricted exhibition of the film, he was granted a certificate only for exhibition restricted to adults. On an appeal made to it by the petitioner, the Central Government issued a direction on July 3, 1969 that a `u' Certificate may be granted provided certain specified cuts were made in the film. The petitioner thereafter field the present petition seeking a declaration that the provisions of Part 11 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, together with the rules prescribed by the Central Government on February 6, 1960 in the exercise of its powers under s. 5-B of the Act were un- constitutional and void; he further prayed that the direction dated July 3, 1969 should be quashed. The petitioner claimed that his fundamental tight of free speech and expression was denied by the order of the Central Government and that he was entitled to a 'U' Certificate for the film as of right. At the hearing of the petition the Central Government indicated it had ,decided to grant a 'U' Certificate to the petitioner's film without the cuts previously ordered. The petitioner then applied for amendment of the petition so as toenable him to challenge pre-censorship as offensive to freedom of speechand expression and alternatively the provisions of the Act and the Rules,orders and directions under the Act as vague, arbitrary and indefinite. The Court allowed the amendment holding the petitioner was right in contending that a person who invests capital in promoting or producing a film must have clear guidance in advance in the matter of censorship of films even if the law of pre-censorship be not violative of the fundamental right. It was contended inter alia on behalf of the petitioner (a) that pre-censorship itself violated the right to freedom of speech and expression; and (b) that even if it were a legitimate restraint on the freedom, it must be exercised on very definite principles which leave no room for arbitrary action. Censorship of films including prior restraint is justified under the Constitution. classification of films into two categories of 'U' films and 'A' films is a reasonable classification. (Iii)Section 5-B authorises the Central Government to issue such directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to grant certificates under the Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition. it cannot be said that this Section has not indicated any guidance to the Central
- 2. Government. The first sub-section states the principles and read with the second clause of the nineteenth article it is quite clearly indicated that the topics of films or their content should not offend certain matters