Opinion - Editorials   

Protecting freedom and artistic creativity

With the Supreme Court making it clear that there is no legal basis to bar the screening of The Da Vinci Code, States such as Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Nagaland, and Meghalaya, which had rushed to prohibit its screening, would be well advised to reverse course. While dismissing a petition seeking to ban the screening on the ground that it would hurt the religious sentiments of Christians, the Court pointed out that it was to be regarded as no more than a work of fiction and that the censor board had cleared its screening. Further, it had not been regarded as hurting religious sentiments and banned elsewhere, including in countries with predominantly Christian populations. If the film could pass the process of pre-censorship with its rigid guidelines, it could hardly be said to outrage religious sentiments, much less pose any danger to public order. The States that have invoked Section 13 the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to prohibit its exhibition on the ground that it was "likely to cause a breach of the peace" have clearly abused the extraordinary power conferred on them by the Act in an overzealous attempt to pander to religious sentiment. Seventeen years ago, in a landmark case S. Rangarajan v Jagjivan Ram involving the film Ore Oru Gramathile, the Supreme Court came down strongly on the side of freedom of expression and against the reflex banning of films at the slightest sign of protest from intolerant groups. "If the film is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation," the Court had then observed.

The way The Da Vinci Code has been handled by the Centre and the State governments has disturbing implications for freedom of expression and artistic creativity. The Union Information Ministry in an extraordinary move invited the protesting groups to view the film, and only after their nod went on to clear the film. The situation was saved when the Christian bodies, including the Catholic Bishops Conference of India, wisely did not insist on a ban. However, the very process that the film was put through would give a virtual veto to any protesting religious or social group that would displace the independent judgment of the censor board. Religious and social groups that ought to exhibit a greater degree of tolerance and learn to listen to different voices would only be emboldened to protest against any imagined slight or challenge to orthodoxy. The state in its attempt to appear even-handed among different religions and groups would then be turned into an equal opportunity enforcer of bans. To make matters worse, groups such as the Shiv Sena are wont to take the law into their own hands and prevent exhibition through direct action and violence, as was clear in the case of Fire. To give intolerant groups a greater voice within the formal process of film certification would dampen freedom and creative impulses that are already under pressure from rigid censorship rules.

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

Stories in this Section

Protecting freedom and artistic creativity
A public health challenge
On banning The Da Vinci Code
The art of choosing Governors
The U.N.'s moment of truth
Academics use technology to combat plagiarism
CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS
`No' to ban
Fuel price hike
Avoidable?
Saral not simple
President's powers

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