Censorship in India

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Part of a series on
Censorship by country
A censorship symbol
Countries
List
See also

Censorship in India has taken various forms throughout its history. Although de jure the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of expression,[1] de facto there are various restrictions on content, with an official view towards "maintaining communal and religious harmony", given the history of communal tension in the nation. According to the Information Technology Rules 2011, objectionable content includes anything that "threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order".[2]

In 2024, the annual Freedom in the World report by Freedom House gave India an overall score of 66 out of 100, corresponding to a status of "partially free", with a Civil Liberties rating of 33 out of 60 and a score of 2 out of 4 for the specific question "Are there free and independent media?".[3] The analysis specifically noted that this did not include conditions in Indian Kashmir, which was analysed separately and scored a much lower overall score of 26 out of 100 (status "not free"), with a Civil Liberties rating of 20 out of 60.[4] This represents a continued worsening of conditions over the recent years; in comparison, in 2017 India was given an overall score of 77 out of 100 (status "free"), and a score of 42 out of 60 for civil liberties.[5]

According to the World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), a global analysis published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), India's press freedom ranking has dropped from 140 out of 179 countries in 2019, to 161 out of 180 countries in 2023, classifying press freedom in India as being in a "serious" situation.[6][7]

Laws

Obscenity

Watching, listening or possessing

Customs
and entered as evidence of law-breaking and are punishable, which then undergoes detailed scrutiny.

National security

The

Official Secrets Act 1923 is used for the protection of official information, mainly related to national security.[11]

Censorship by medium

Press

The

Bombay edition of The Times of India in its obituary column carried an entry that reads, "D.E.M O'Cracy beloved husband of T.Ruth, father of L.I.Bertie, brother of Faith, Hope and Justica expired on 26 June".[13] It was removed at the end of emergency rule in March 1977.[14]

On 2 October 2016 (see:

2016 Kashmir unrest) the Srinagar-based Kashmiri newspaper, Kashmir Reader was asked to stop production by the Former Jammu and Kashmir government. The ban order, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Srinagar Farooq Ahmad Lone cited that the reason for this was that the newspaper contains "material and content which tends to incite acts of violence and disturb public peace and tranquility"[15] The ban came after weeks of unrest in the Kashmir valley, following the killing of the commander of a terrorist group Hizbul Mujahideen (designated a terrorist group by India, the European Union and the United States) Burhan Wani. Journalists have decried this as a clampdown on freedom of expression and democracy in Kashmir, as a part of the massive media censorship of the unrest undertaken by the central government. Working journalists protested the ban by marching to the Directorate of Information and Public Relations while the Kashmir Editors Guild (KEG) held an emergency meeting in Srinagar, thereafter asking the government to revoke the ban immediately, and asking for the intervention of the Press Council of India.[15] The move has been criticised by a variety of individuals, academic and civil groups in Kashmir and international rights groups, such as Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), Kashmir Economic Alliance (KEA), the Kashmir Center for Social and Development Studies (KCSDS) and Amnesty International, among others. Most of the major Kashmiri dailies have also rallied behind the KR, while claiming that the move represented a political vendetta against the newspaper for reporting events in the unrest as they happened on the ground. Hurriyat leaders, known to champion the cause of Kashmiri independence, also recorded their protests against the banning of the newspaper. Amnesty International released a statement saying that "the government has a duty to respect the freedom of the press, and the right of people to receive information,"[16] while criticising the government for shutting down a newspaper for opposing it. The journalists associated with the paper allege that, contrary to the claims of the J&K government, they had not been issued a notice or warning, and had been asked to stop production suddenly, which was only one manifestation of the wider media gag on Kashmir. Previously, the state government had banned newspapers for a few days in July, calling the move a "temporary measure to address an extraordinary situation",[15] only to deflect the blame onto the police upon facing a tremendous backlash, and thereafter asking the presses to resume publication. On 28 December 2016, the newspaper resumed publication after the government lifted the ban after nearly three months.[17]

Obscenity and defamation

In 1988, a "defamation bill" was introduced by Rajiv Gandhi, but it was later withdrawn due to strong opposition.[18] The Supreme Court while delivering the judgement in Sportsworld case in 2014 held that "A picture of a nude/semi-nude woman ... cannot per se be called obscene".[18]

Kashmir

India’s government requires that all maps in publications circulated in India reflect its claim to the entire region of Kashmir, which is disputed by Pakistan, and regardless of current lines of control.[19] Publications that do not conform are seized by the authorities and issues can end up being destroyed.

Film

Further information: Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and Controversies involving the CBFC

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the regulatory film body of India, orders directors to remove anything it deems offensive, including sex, nudity, violence or subjects considered politically subversive or taboo.[20] However, in the past couple decades, there has been a noticeable shift in the board's approach towards censorship. One of the key factors driving this change is the growing influence of Hollywood and Liberal Mindset of Young Indians, which has resulted in an increase in exposure to more liberal cultural values.[21] Additionally, globalization and modernization have played a significant role in shaping Indian society, leading to a greater acceptance of progressive attitudes towards social issues. As a result, the Indian Film Board has become more lenient with censorship guidelines, allowing filmmakers greater creative freedom to explore themes that were previously considered taboo.[22]


The Supreme Court of India has played a significant role in shaping the censorship board's approach to Westernization of Bollywood films. The court has shown a more liberal outlook towards creative expression in Indian cinema and has intervened in cases where the censorship board's decisions were deemed excessive or arbitrary.[23] This has led to a more nuanced approach towards issues of Westernization in Bollywood, with the court balancing the need to preserve Indian culture and values with the need to allow filmmakers to freely express themselves.

According to the Supreme Court of India:[24]

Film censorship becomes necessary because a film motivates thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention as compared to the printed word. The combination of act and speech, sight and sound in semi darkness of the theatre with elimination of all distracting ideas will have a strong impact on the minds of the viewers and can affect emotions. Therefore, it has as much potential for evil as it has for good and has an equal potential to instill or cultivate violent or bad behaviour. It cannot be equated with other modes of communication. Censorship by prior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but also necessary

In 2006, seven

Hollywood movie The Da Vinci Code (and also the book),[25] although the CBFC cleared the film for adult viewing throughout India.[26]
However, the respective high courts lifted the ban and the movie was shown in the two states.

In 2013, Kamal Haasan's Vishwaroopam was banned from the screening for a period of two weeks in Tamil Nadu.[18]

In 2014 the investigative documentary

LTTE was likewise denied certification.[29]

In 2015, the CBFC demanded four cuts (three visual and one audio) from the art-house Malayalam feature film

Chaayam Poosiya Veedu (The Painted House) directed by brothers Santosh Babusenan and Satish Babusenan because the film contained scenes where the female lead was shown in the nude. The directors refused to make any changes whatsoever to the film and hence the film was denied a certificate.[30][31][32][33][34]

In 2015 noted documentary film makers Jharana Jhaveri And Anurag Singh's Charlie and the Coca Cola Company: Quit India ran into trouble with the CBFC and the case is pending since. In the 20 pages the appellate sited 20 odd objections to the release of the documentary, thought did not suggest a single cut. The two-hour twenty minute documentary exposes the Cola companies of abusing ground water, land, livelihoods, rivers & the laws of the land. The documentary also hold actors & TV guilty and accountable having violated the ethical and moral boundaries for profit over sustainability.

Television

In February 2013, in the wake of controversy over suspension of exhibition of the film, Vishwaroopam, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting constituted a panel under the Chairmanship of Justice (Retd.) Mukul Mudgal to examine issues of film certification under the Cinematograph Act 1952. One of the terms of reference for the committee is to examine "the requirement of special categories of certification for the purposes of broadcasting on television channels and radio stations." But, the committee had not made any recommendations on this important matter.

The current classifications of films in India are as follows:

  • अ / U – unrestricted public exhibition;
  • अ/व / U/A – unrestricted public exhibition, but with a caution regarding parental guidance to those under 12 years of age;
  • व / A – public exhibition restricted to adults 18 years of age and older only;
  • S – public exhibition restricted to members of a profession or a class of persons (e.g. doctors etc.)—very rare.

Music

Catholic churches in the country took offense to the artwork of the album and a few song titles and launched a protest against it. The album was taken off shelves and the remaining catalogue was burnt by EMI Music India.[35]

Theatre

In 1978,

Mahābhārata. Its performance was partially banned for 17 years by conservative Hindu organizations and parties like Shiv Sena, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Hindu Mahasabha.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]

In 1999, Maharashtra government banned the Marathi play Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy or I, Nathuram Godse, Am Speaking.[43] The ban was challenged before the Bombay High Court, which rescinded it as exceeding government authority and illegal.

In 2004, Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues was banned in Chennai. The play, however, has played successfully in many other parts of the country since 2003. A Hindi version of the play has been performing since 2007.

Maps

In 1961, it was criminalised in India to question the territorial integrity of frontiers of India in a manner which is, or is likely to be, prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India.[44]

Books

Main article: Book censorship in India
See also: List of books banned in India
  • Several books of the Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasrin have been banned in West Bengal due to Alleged Separatism Promotion.
  • 1989, The import[45] of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses was banned in India for its purported attacks on Islam.[46] India Lifted the Ban in May 2011.
  • 1990, Understanding Islam through Hadis by Ram Swarup was banned.[47] In 1990 the Hindi translation of the book was banned, and in March 1991 the English original became banned as well.[48]
  • Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India by American scholar James Laine was banned in 2004 by Centre Left,Indian National Congress due to Promotion of Indic Values and Hindutva.[49]
  • Laine's translation of the 300-year-old poem Sivabharata, entitled The Epic of Shivaji, was banned in January 2006.[50] The ban followed an attack by Sambhaji Brigade activists on the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune. The subsequent governments have not revoked the ban.[51]
  • In
    headdress in a style similar to that made familiar through the popular posters of Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth guru of the Sikhs. In another Baba Bhaniara is shown riding a horse in the manner of Guru Gobind Singh. The ban was lifted in November 2008.[53]
  • The Polyester Prince,[54] a biography of the Indian businessman Dhirubhai Ambani was banned due to Left Wing Petitions.[55]
  • Importing the book The True Furqan (al-Furqan al-Haqq) by Al Saffee and Al Mahdee into India has been prohibited since September 2005.[56]
  • R.V. Bhasin's Islam - A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims was banned in Maharashtra in 2007 during the tenure of Vilasrao Deshmukh (ex Chief Minister, Maharashtra) on grounds that it promotes communal disharmony between Hindus and Muslims.[57][58][59]

Internet

Main article: Internet censorship in India

Freedom House's Freedom on the Net 2015 report gives India a Freedom on the Net Status of "Partly Free" with a rating of 40 (scale from 0 to 100, lower is better). Its Obstacles to Access was rated 12 (0-25 scale), Limits on Content was rated 10 (0-35 scale) and Violations of User Rights was rated 18 (0-40 scale).[60] India was ranked 29th out of the 65 countries included in the 2015 report.[61]

The Freedom on the Net 2012 report says:[62]

  • India's overall Internet Freedom Status is "Partly Free", unchanged from 2009.
  • India has a score of 39 on a scale from 0 (most free) to 100 (least free), which places India 20 out of the 47 countries worldwide that were included in the 2012 report. India ranked 14 out of 37 countries in the 2011 report.
  • India ranks third out of the eleven countries in Asia included in the 2012 report.
  • Prior to 2008, censorship of Internet content by the Indian government was relatively rare and sporadic.
  • Following the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which killed 171 people, the Indian Parliament passed amendments to the Information Technology Act (ITA) that expanded the government's censorship and monitoring capabilities.
  • While there is no sustained government policy or strategy to block access to Internet content on a large scale, measures for removing certain content from the web, sometimes for fear they could incite violence, have become more common.
  • Pressure on private companies to remove information that is perceived to endanger public order or national security has increased since late 2009, with the implementation of the amended ITA. Companies are required to have designated employees to receive government blocking requests, and assigns up to seven years' imprisonment private service providers—including ISPs, search engines, and cybercafes—that do not comply with the government's blocking requests.
  • Internet users have sporadically faced prosecution for online postings, and private companies hosting the content are obliged by law to hand over user information to the authorities.
  • In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that bloggers and moderators can face libel suits and even criminal prosecution for comments posted on their websites.
  • Prior judicial approval for communications interception is not required and both central and state governments have the power to issue directives on interception, monitoring, and decryption. All licensed ISPs are obliged by law to sign an agreement that allows Indian government authorities to access user data.

India is classified as engaged in "selective" Internet filtering in the conflict/security and Internet tools areas and as showing "no evidence" of filtering in the political and social areas by the OpenNet Initiative in May 2007.[63] ONI states that:

As a stable democracy with strong protections for press freedom, India’s experiments with Internet filtering have been brought into the fold of public discourse. The selective censorship of Web sites and blogs since 2003, made even more disjointed by the non-uniform responses of Internet service providers (ISPs), has inspired a clamour of opposition. Clearly government regulation and implementation of filtering are still evolving. … Amidst widespread speculation in the media and blogosphere about the state of filtering in India, the sites actually blocked indicate that while the filtering system in place yields inconsistent results, it nevertheless continues to be aligned with and driven by government efforts. Government attempts at filtering have not been entirely effective, as blocked content has quickly migrated to other Web sites and users have found ways to circumvent filtering. The government has also been criticised for a poor understanding of the technical feasibility of censorship and for haphazardly choosing which Web sites to block. The amended IT Act, absolving intermediaries from being responsible for third-party created content, could signal stronger government monitoring in the future.[63]

A "Transparency Report" from Google indicates that the Government of India initiated 67 content removal requests between July and December 2010.[64]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Article 19 in The Constitution Of India 1949". indiankanoon.org. Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 15 September 2023.
  2. ^ "Uncle dictates, cyber boys dispose - Sibal to work on norms for social sites". The Telegraph. Calcutta, India. 7 December 2011. Archived from the original on 22 March 2016. Retrieved 26 March 2012.
  3. ^ "India: Freedom in the World 2024 Country Report". Freedom House. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  4. ^ "Indian Kashmir: Freedom in the World 2024 Country Report". Freedom House. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  5. ^ "India: Freedom in the World 2017 Country Report". Freedom House. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  6. ^ "India | RSF". rsf.org. 26 February 2024. Retrieved 14 March 2024.
  7. ^ "Index 2023 – Global score". Reporters Without Borders. Archived from the original on 10 May 2023. Retrieved 3 May 2023.
  8. ISBN 978-81-7534-999-5
    .
  9. TNN. Archived from the original
    on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 21 May 2010.
  10. OCLC 19812282
    . "Assuming that late night programme telecast would be restricted to adults, Doordarshan started showing adult films in recent past on TV."
  11. ^ "The Official Secrets Act, 1923 Archived 25 May 2006 at the Wayback Machine", IndiaLawInfo.com. Retrieved 4 June 2006
  12. ^ "India | RSF". rsf.org. 21 June 2023. Retrieved 22 August 2023.
  13. ISBN 0-19-564888-9
    .
  14. ^ Sorabjee, Soli J. (1977). The Emergency, Censorship, and the Press in India, 1975-77. Central News Agency.
  15. ^ a b c "Valley journalists protest against ban on Kashmir Reader". 4 October 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
  16. ^ "Kashmir newspaper ban criticised". BBC News. 5 October 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
  17. ^ "Kashmir Reader: Newspaper printing again after ban lifted". BBC News. 28 December 2016. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  18. ^ a b c A.S. Panneerselvan (17 February 2014). "Process as punishment". The Hindu. Retrieved 18 February 2014.
  19. ^ Sanjoy Majumder (24 May 2011). "Economist accuses India of censorship over Kashmir map". BBC News.
  20. ^ "India's film censor wants to legalise porn". 27 June 2002. Retrieved 2 May 2023.
  21. S2CID 147507799
    .
  22. ISSN 1092-1311
    .
  23. ^ "Censorship of Films". legalserviceindia.com. Retrieved 2 May 2023.
  24. ^ "Background". Central Board of Film Certification. Archived from the original on 26 August 2010. Retrieved 9 January 2012.
  25. ^ "India extends Da Vinci Code ban", BBC News, 3 June 2006. Retrieved 3 June 2006.
  26. ^ "India censors clear Da Vinci Code", BBC News, 18 May 2006. Retrieved 29 May 2006.
  27. ^ "'No Fire Zone' documentary banned in India". Tamil Guardian. 21 February 2014. Retrieved 6 July 2021.
  28. ^ "No censor certificate for Tamil film on Lankan TV journalist". Gautaman Bhaskaran. Hindustan Times. 26 May 2015. Retrieved 6 July 2021.
  29. ^ "Tamil film 'Neelam' on Sri Lankan civil war denied certification". The New Indian Express. 28 October 2017. Retrieved 6 July 2021.
  30. ^ Praveen, S.R. (31 August 2015). "Directors out against CBFC directives". The Hindu. No. Thiruvananthapuram. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
  31. ^ "Film denied certificate for depicting nudity". The Times of India. No. Kochi. Times News Network. 25 August 2015. Archived from the original on 6 October 2015. Retrieved 25 August 2015.
  32. ^ "Infringement on Artistic Expression Flayed". No. Thiruvananthapuram. The New Indian Express. ENS. 25 August 2015. Archived from the original on 6 October 2015. Retrieved 25 August 2015.
  33. ^ "Producers of film refuse censor cuts". Deccan Chronicle. No. Thiruvananthapuram. 25 August 2015.
  34. ^ Ayyappan, R (26 August 2015). "Exposed: Censors' Obsolete Norms". Deccan Chronicle. No. Thiruvananthapuram. DC.
  35. ^ "'Offensive' album pulled in India". BBC.co.uk. BBC. 11 October 2006. Retrieved 8 November 2011.
  36. ^ Tripathi, Salil (28 February 2015). "When Kiran Nagarkar said the unsayable". livemint.com. HT Media. livemint. Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  37. ^ "Award-winning author Kiran Nagarkar dies". Mumbai Mirror. No. 2. The Times Group. Mumbai Mirror. Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  38. News18
    . Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  39. Indian Express Group. The Indian Express
    . Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  40. ^ Joshi, Poorva (17 March 2016). "Mumbai is indifferent to the rest of the country: author Kiran Nagarkar". hindustantimes.com. No. 2. HT Media. Hindustan Times. Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  41. The Telegraph
    . Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  42. ISBN 9788174369918
    . Retrieved 6 September 2019. In 1977-78, the [Shiv Sena] party, along with the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, extra-legally banned Bedtime Story, a play written by Kiran Nagarkar.
  43. ^ "Gandhi play banned". BBC News. 18 July 1998. Retrieved 28 April 2010.
  44. ^ The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961 Archived 15 November 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Vakilno1.com
  45. ^ Manoj Mitta (25 January 2012). "Reading 'Satanic Verses' legal". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 29 April 2013. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  46. ^ "Rushdie 'hurt' by India ban ", BBC News, 10 October 1998. Retrieved 29 May 2006.
  47. ^ "Publish and be banned", The Telegraph (Calcutta), 18 July 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  48. ^ "Top 10 Books those Banned in India" Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Hindustan Today. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  49. ^ "The Laine Controversy and the Study of Hinduism", Christian Lee Novetzki, International Journal of Hindu Studies (World Heritage Press), Volume 8, Issue 1-3 (2004), pages 183-201, ISSN 1022-4556, DOI 10.1007/s11407-004-0008-9. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  50. ^ "Hypocrisy in the guise of freedom of expression", M. Zajam, TwoCircles, 28 May 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  51. ^ "History epic on Shivaji banned in India" Archived 29 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine, Basharat Peer, Dawn, 22 January 2006. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  52. ^ "Caste and Religion in Punjab". Economic and Political Weekly. 26 May 2007. Retrieved 5 October 2008. (subscription required)
  53. ^ A godman and a political storm", Praveen Swami, Frontline (published by The Hindu), Volume 18, Issue 22 (October/November 2001). Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  54. ISBN 1-86448-468-3
    .
  55. ^ "Ban the Ban: The republic of India bans books with a depressing frequency", Rramachandra Guha, The Telegraph (Calcutta), 30 July 2011. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  56. ^ "Notification No. 78 /2005-Customs (N.T.)" Archived 24 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Anupam Prakash, Under Secretary to the Government of India, 7 September 2005. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  57. ^ "Book on Islam banned, author's house raided in Mumbai", Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, 7 April 2007. Retrieved on 9 May 2010.
  58. ^ Criminal Application No.1421 of 2007 Archived 30 April 2013 at the Wayback Machine. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay. 6 January 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  59. ^ Islam, a concept of political world invasion by Muslims, R.V. Bhasin, National Publications (Mumbai), 166 pages, 2003. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
  60. ^ "India". freedomhouse.org. Archived from the original on 12 March 2019. Retrieved 9 April 2016.
  61. ^ "Table of Country Scores". freedomhouse.org.
  62. ^ "India Country Report", Freedom on the Net 2012, Freedom House. Retrieved 25 September 2012
  63. ^ a b "ONI Country Profile: India", OpenNet Initiative, 9 May 2007
  64. ^ India asked Google to block content critical of government The Hindu - 29 June 2011
Further reading

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_India&oldid=1214789248"