1989 (3) TMI 395 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of revoking the 'U-Certificate' issued to the film "Ore Oru Gramathile".
2. Freedom of expression u/s Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
3. Validity of the constitution of the Revising Committees.
4. Allegations of bias and potential law and order issues due to the film's content.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Legality of Revoking the 'U-Certificate':
The Supreme Court addressed the appeals against the Madras High Court's decision to revoke the 'U-Certificate' issued to the Tamil film "Ore Oru Gramathile". The High Court had relied on the minority view of the Second Revising Committee and the Examining Committee, which found the film biased and potentially inflammatory. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the film's theme on the reservation policy could be expressed in a free country like India and did not violate any guidelines.

2. Freedom of Expression u/s Article 19(1)(a):
The Court reiterated that movies enjoy the guarantee of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) but acknowledged the need for censorship due to the powerful impact of films. The judgment underscored that the right to express opinions includes the right to criticize government policies and advocate for changes, as long as it does not threaten the security of the state or public order.

3. Validity of the Constitution of the Revising Committees:
The High Court had questioned the legality of the First Revising Committee's constitution, claiming it was done hurriedly and without proper authority. The Supreme Court found this conclusion unjustified, stating that the committee was legally constituted under the powers delegated by the Central Government. The prompt review of the film by the committee was deemed appropriate and necessary.

4. Allegations of Bias and Potential Law and Order Issues:
The High Court had found certain scenes and dialogues in the film objectionable, claiming they could incite caste-based violence and disrupt public order. The Supreme Court, however, viewed the film and found that the controversial scenes were not intended to convey a "poisonous message" against the interests of depressed classes. The Court emphasized that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed due to threats of violence or demonstrations, and it is the duty of the State to protect this freedom against such threats.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, reversed the judgment of the High Court, and upheld the 'U-Certificate' for the film. The Court stressed the importance of protecting freedom of expression and criticized the State's inability to handle potential hostile reactions, reaffirming that open criticism of government policies is not a valid ground for restricting expression. The writ petitions were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.