Opinion - Editorials   

Joining the wrong side

Meek capitulation before a small section demanding a ban? Or an overzealous attempt to pander to religious sentiment? Either way, the Tamil Nadu Government's decision to suspend the screening of The Da Vinci Code bodes ill for freedom of expression. Local authorities all over the State have been directed to invoke Section 13 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, under which a film can be prevented from being publicly exhibited if it is "likely to cause a breach of the peace." How can a few representations against the screening of the film and a presumption that its exhibition might hurt the sentiments of the Christian community constitute a basis for preventing its screening? After all, the Central Government cleared the film — after some dithering — without cuts; and influential bodies such as the Catholic Bishops Conference of India wisely decided not to press for a ban on the film. Subsequently, the Code has been exhibited in packed and peaceful cinema houses in various parts of the country. The issue is not merely whether this film — a suspense thriller based on a fictionalised yarn about the life of Jesus Christ — is likely to affect public order in Tamil Nadu. It is, more importantly, how a government must respond when it senses the prospect of trouble. Rather than appease the intolerant and take the expedient way out by banning a film or book or work of art, governments are constitutionally and democratically obligated to stand up for the fundamental right to freedom of expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The principle that cinema needs to be treated differently from other forms of art and expression is recognised in India. The Supreme Court has held that `pre-censorship' of films is justified considering their capacity to stir up emotions more deeply (K.A. Abbas v. Union of India). However, this does not imply that freedom of expression shall be guaranteed only as long as it is not threatened. Can the state ban a film or a book because it may provoke a hostile reaction? Or fail to offer protection against threats of violence? No, ruled the Supreme Court after examining the matter in depth in the landmark Ore Oru Gramathile case. Overturning a Madras High Court verdict that stayed the screening of the award-winning film, which was interpreted as making a plea for reservations on the basis of not only caste but also poverty, on the grounds that "reactions were bound to be volatile," the apex court held that surrendering to "blackmail and intimidation" was "tantamount to negation of the rule of law." And further: "The state cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and protect freedom of expression" (Rangarajan v. P. Jagajivan Ram and Ors, 1989). By suspending the exhibition of The Da Vinci Code, Tamil Nadu has taken a place beside Nagaland and Punjab on the wrong side of the freedom of expression versus intolerance issue. And Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya have just announced their decision to join this company.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

About time, a ban on LTTE
Joining the wrong side
Countering social discrimination
The 2008 White House race is wide open
Corrections and clarifications
Have we become a nation of moaners?
Mumbai's season of conflicts
The U.S. and the strategy for freedom
President was right
A wake-up call
Unfair decision

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu