In the busy corridors of the Bombay High Court, a battle between artistic freedom and regulatory oversight unfolded with gripping strength. The legal dispute was sparked by the film “Inn Galiyon Mein” directed by Vinod Kumar, as the filmmakers challenged the Central Board of Film Certification [CBFC], which caused the legal storm.
The controversy arose when the CBFC suggested several modifications, with insertions and deletions in the Film. According to the board, these modifications were necessary to maintain the courtesy of public viewing.
Unwilling to back down, Vinod Kumar challenged the board’s directives in the court, arguing that they were unduly restrictive. The core of the dispute lay in a particular scene that depicted the trampling of a flag. Advocate Vinit Jain, representing the CBFC, contended that such visuals should not be permitted as “a flag of any nature ought not to be treated in such an insulting manner.” Advocate Upadhyaya, representing the filmmakers countered explaining that the flag in concern neither represented a national symbol nor any political party rendering the objection absolutely baseless and further contended that the flag shown in the film belonged to a fictional party.
The flag scene in the film did not depict any violation of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which prohibits disrespect, defacement, burning, or any intentional insult to the national flag. Mr. Upadhyaya contended that the legal provisions governing the flag were not applicable in this case.
The objection did not end there. The board further took issue with a dialogue “Goli maro salon ko” alleging that it alluded to the neighbouring country and could incite unrest by escalating tensions between the two nations and may fuel negative sentiments among citizens leading to social unrest or protests. Furthermore, the board insisted on removal of the word “Desh” from the dialogue “Yeh desh aisa hi chalega.” To this, filmmakers opposed the demands of the board and the ruling was delivered by Justice Manish Pitale that made a footprint on both the legal and artistic sector. He ruled in favor of the filmmakers, saying that the board was “stretching its own guidelines a bit too much.” This ruling stood as a reminder to everyone that the voice of art, when aligned with constitutional paragon, must not be arbitrarily muted. The court in its ruling delivered several specific objections raised by the board, affirming its commitment to protecting cinematic expression which are as follows:
A. Trampling of the Flag Scene: The court rejected the board’s argument, ruling that simply trampling the flag which does not represent any sovereign nation or political party does not inherently qualify as an offensive act.
B. The Dialogue “Goli Maro Salon Ko”: CBFC also sought to delete the dialogue “Goli Maro Salon Ko” from the film. The court found no issue with it, noting that the film portrays those using language as ultimately defeated by rational characters. Further, the court added that in the context of the film and the scenes leading up to the dialogue, nothing objectionable was found.
C. The utterance of the word “Desh”: The board’s demand to delete the word “Desh” was also rejected by the court as there were no reasonable grounds for this objection and did not pose any threat to the nation’s sentiment.
However, some modifications suggested by the CBFC were voluntarily agreed and further accepted by the filmmakers. The filmmakers are directed to revise the film after which the CBFC would issue a UA-12 certificate. A statutory film certification organisation within the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of the Government of India is governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952. However this power is constrained by the Constitution of India particularly in Article 19 (1) (a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression to every individual. The state often exercises its controls through censorship and bans even if movies are protected by free expression. But the hassle is striking a balance between social interests and artistic freedom, ensuring that Article 19 (1) (a) is not curtailed arbitrarily.
The ruling demonstrates the judiciaries instance that the board’s censorship powers should be exercised judiciously. The Bombay High Court highlighted that CBFC’s role is to certify films and not unduly interfere with artistic freedom. In line with earlier Supreme Court decisions, the decision in “Inn Galiyon Mein” is a resounding support of filmmakers’ artistic rights. The Supreme Court recognized the need for cinema censorship in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970), but warned against its abuse by suppressing artistic expression. The Court’s historic finding in “Inn Galiyon Mein” upholds the right to free speech and expression in the film industry. By rejecting the board’s arbitrary censorship, the court marked that the authorities must operate within the boundaries of the constitution. This case is not just a success for one film but a commanding rule in evolving the landscape of speech and expression in Indian cinemas. This strikes a balance where regulatory oversight exists but does not conceal the artistic expression.
Authors: Saurojit Barua & Mehak Jikadra