Srishti School Of Art, Design & ... vs The Chairperson, Central Board Of ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 1358 Del

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         W.P. (C) 6806 of 2010

                                      Reserved on: February 17, 2011
                                      Decision on: March 9, 2011

SRISHTI SCHOOL OF ART, DESIGN &
TECHNOLOGY                                 ..... Petitioner
             Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja with
                        Mr. Mayur Suresh and
                        Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocates.

                         versus

THE CHAIRPERSON, CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM
CERTIFICATION & ANR.                     ..... Respondents
              Through: Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with
                       Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava,
                       Advocate.


        CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

        1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
             allowed to see the judgment?                     Yes
        2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes
        3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes

                                  JUDGMENT

09.03.2011

"The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests." [Justice Harlan in Cohen v.

California 403 U.S. 15 (1971)]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it" [Attributed to Voltaire in S.G.Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire (1907)]

1. The Petitioner, which has produced a documentary film „Had

Anhad‟ (Bounded-Boundless), challenges in this petition an order

dated 28th May 2010 passed by the Film Certification Appellate

Tribunal („FCAT‟) upholding three of the four excisions ordered by

the Central Board of Film Certification („CBFC‟) by its order dated

5th November 2009 while granting the film a "V/U" Certificate.

The facts in brief

2. The Petitioner states that it is a reputed educational institution

that produced „Had Anhad‟ as part of a series of four films around

the legacy and teachings of the 15th century poet-philosopher Kabir.

It is stated that work on the films started some time in 2003 and

concluded in 2009. The Petitioner explains that the films, conceived

by the documentary film maker Shabnam Virmani, were "part of a

larger project bringing together the experiences of a series of

journeys in search of Kabir in the contemporary." Further, "the

journeys inquire into and express the spiritual and socio-political

resonances of Kabir‟s poetry in the form of documentary films, folk

music videos, music CDs and poetry books."

3. The Petitioner applied for certification for all the four films. The

CBFC granted certificates of unrestricted exhibition to three of the

four films (other than Had Anhad). The CBFC proposed minor

changes in two films which the Petitioner accepted and complied

with. As regards Had Anhad the CBFC by an order dated 5th

November 2009 directed the Petitioner to carry out four excisions.

The Petitioner states that no oral hearing was given to it. After

receiving the said order the Petitioner wrote to the CBFC on 15th

February 2010 in reply to which the CBFC informed the Petitioner

on 22nd February 2010 that:

"due to absence of the applicant on the day of examination, the oral views of the committee/hearing were not given. Based on the examination committee‟s recommendations, the show cause notice in respect of three documentary films were communicated to you, wherein inadvertently it has been mentioned that the applicants were heard. However, if you are aggrieved of the decisions of the committee/s, it is open to you to prefer an appeal/application along

with prescribed fee u/r 24 of Rules before the undersigned to refer the films to Revising Committee. Further, you can also appeal before the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal situated at New Delhi u/s 5 C of the Act against the decision of Examination Committee/Revising Committee"

4. The Petitioner thereafter appealed to the FCAT which by its

impugned order dated 28th May 2010 upheld three of the four

excisions ordered by the CBFC.

The Film

5.1 The film has been viewed by the Court in the presence of

learned counsel for the parties as well as Ms. Virmani. It begins

with the film maker taking the viewers first to Ayodhya where she

strikes a conversation with a shopkeeper selling VCDs of the

demolition of the Babri Masjid that took place on 6 th December

1992. The camera briefly shows the said VCD being played on the

television set at the shop. Another person joins the conversation. At

this stage the film maker seeks to know from them whether the

bringing down was the masjid was a good thing. She asks why,

when according to Kabir Das, Ram resides in each body, does Ram

need "this temple?" She questions the purpose of keeping the

images of the destruction of the Babri Masjid alive when people are

losing their lives in riots and the country‟s progress is being

harmed.

5.2 The film maker next travels to Malwa in central India where in

village Lunyakhedi she meets Prahlad Tipanya who is a popular

singer of Kabir‟s poems. The film captures the magical rendering

by Prahlad Tipanya of Kabir‟s songs. It records the conversations

between Prahlad Tipanya and certain persons of the dalit

community on how Kabir‟s Ram is not limited to being the son of

King Dashrath, the husband of Sita or the killer of Ravana but who

is a light that permeates all and resides in each body.

5.3 The film next takes the viewer to Mukhtiyar Ali, a Mirasi singer

in Pugal village in western Rajasthan. As the film maker journeys

there she wonders what Ram she would meet there. The viewer

witnesses the conversations the film maker has with Mukhtiyar Ali,

his father Vasaye Khan and the soulful rendering of Kabir‟s songs

by Mukhtiyar Ali.

5.4 The viewers are next taken to Benares where the different

versions of Kabir‟s birth and life are narrated by Muslims

belonging to the weaver community and a train ticket collector

there. A third version is given by a Mahant of the Dharamdasi

Kabir Panth at Damakheda in Chhattisgarh. The film maker then

travels to Maghar in Uttar Pradesh where Kabir is believed to have

been buried and has a conversation with the caretaker of the mazaar

(grave) of Kabir.

5.5 Then the viewers are introduced to a theatre group in Indore

rehearsing a play on Kabir. This is followed by conversations with

the Director of the theatre, a folklorist and a writer activist, on who

Kabir was and what his poems and philosophy signified. The film

maker‟s angst appears as text in which she says that "Kabir seems

to push me to question the borders of my identity - where I draw

the line, where I build my walls." She travels to the Wagah border

(near Amritsar) that separates India and Pakistan and the camera

captures the change of guard ceremony. The film maker travels

back from the Wagah border in a local bus where she captures the

conversations between the passengers of the bus.

5.6 The film maker then takes the viewer across the border to

Karachi in Pakistan where the first encounter is with Ghulam

Akram a member of a leading family of qawwals. The film captures

the stirring rendition of Kabir‟s songs by Farid Ayaz and his group.

One of these songs explains that there are six milestones in man‟s

journey the last three of which are Aulia, Peer and Faqir. One who

leaps across limits is an Aulia, one who leaps across the limitless is

a Peer and the one who leaps across the limit-limitless (Had

Anhad) is a Faqir. Over intense conversations Farid Ayaz explains

to the film maker and Prahlad Tipanya who has travelled with her,

that Kabir was above them all. The film maker‟s narrative as text

reads: "Amazing that I should run into them in Pakistan too...a

Ram and Kabir beyond borders." The film then captures the

rendition of Kabir‟s songs by Shafi Faqir also in Pakistan. It

records the insightful conversations with him on who Kabir was

and what his work means. The film ends with the return of the film

maker and her crew to India and the song of Kabir in the voice of

Farid Ayaz: "In search of love I set out from home, and I found the

beloved in my heart." Ayaz‟s narration of a fable about flies and

moths forms the fitting finale. Those who have figured out the truth

about life need no certificate that they have.

5.7 The film is indeed about the film maker‟s journeys across

central India and to Karachi in Pakistan in quest of the Ram that

Kabir talks of and what Kabir‟s creative work signifies. Throughout

the film there are montages of the rich central Indian landscape, its

sounds, its sights and colours forming the perfect backdrop to the

rendering of Kabir‟s songs in myriad voices of mystical beauty.

Regions, borders, languages, religions and nations melt away in

Kabir‟s universal message of love and compassion that is

compellingly portrayed. At the end of the film the viewer is, far

from being left feeling hateful or vengeful towards any religion or

community, impelled to introspect and contemplate on the

philosophical message of the futility of violence that forms the

running theme of Kabir‟s poems. This overall context which is

unmistakable when the film is viewed as a whole is important to

keep in mind when proceeding to examine the justification for the

three excisions ordered by the CBFC and concurred with by the

FCAT.

Broad principles governing censorship

6.1 In the several decisions handed down involving the censoring of

documentary and feature films, the Supreme Court has interpreted

the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 („CA‟), the

Guidelines under Section 5-B thereof in light of Articles 19 (1) (a)

and 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. One of the early cases on

film censorship decided by the Supreme Court was K.A. Abbas v.

Union of India AIR 1971 SC 481. The film in question was a

documentary titled „A Tale of Four Cities‟. The Court held that

"censorship of films including prior restraint is justified under our

Constitution" and proceeded to explain (AIR, p. 498):

"The task of the censor is extremely delicate and his duties cannot be the subject of an exhaustive set of commands established by prior ratiocination. But direction is necessary to him so that he does not sweep within the terms of the directions vast areas of thought, speech and expression of artistic quality and social purpose and interest. Our standards must be so framed that we are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least capable and the most depraved amongst us determines what the morally healthy cannot view or read. The standards that we set for our censors must make a substantial allowance in favour of freedom thus leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret life and society with some of its foibles along with what is good. We must not look upon such human relationships as banned in toto and forever from human thought and must give scope for talent to put them before society. The requirements of art and literature include within themselves a comprehensive view of social life and not only

in its ideal form and the line is to be drawn where the average man or moral man begins to feel embarrassed or disgusted at a naked portrayal of life without the redeeming touch of art or genius or social value. If the depraved begins to see in these things more than what an average person would, in much the same way, as it is wrongly said, a Frenchman sees a woman's legs in everything, it cannot be helped. In our scheme of things ideas having redeeming social or artistic value must also have importance and protection for their growth." (emphasis supplied)

6.2 Further, the Supreme Court in K.A. Abbas emphasised that the

mere portrayal of a social vice would not attract the censor‟s

scissors. It was held (AIR, p. 499):

"Therefore it is not the elements of rape, leprosy, sexual immorality which should attract the censor's scissors but how the theme is handled by the producer. It must, however, be remembered that the cinematograph is a powerful medium and its appeal is different. The horrors of war as depicted in the famous etchings of Goya do not horrify one so much as the same scenes rendered in colour and with sound and movement, would do."

6.3. In Ramesh v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 775 the challenge

was to the telecast of a film „Tamas‟ which depicted the violence,

killing and looting that took place during the partition of the

country. The Supreme Court agreed with the observations of Justice

Vivian Bose in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial

Government AIR 1947 Nag 1 that (AIR, p. 778):

"... the effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view."

6.4 It was further observed (AIR, p. 781):

"If some scenes of violence, some nuances of expression or some events in the film can stir up certain feelings in the spectator, an equally deep, strong, lasting and beneficial impression can be conveyed by scenes revealing the machinations of selfish interests, scenes depicting mutual respect and tolerance, scenes showing comradeship, help and kindness which transcend the barriers in religion."

6.5 It was held that "viewed in its entirety" the film was "capable of

creating a lasting impression of this message of peace and co-

existence and that people are not likely to be obsessed,

overwhelmed or carried away by the scenes of violence or

fanaticism shown in the film."

6.6 In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574, it was

explained (SCC, p. 599):

"Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people. The fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted only for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicksand of convenience or expediency. Open criticism of government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression. We must practice tolerance to the views of others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself."

6.7 In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof. Manubhai D.

Shah (1992) 3 SCC 637, the Supreme Court underscored that the

restrictions in Article 19 (2) on the freedom under Article 19 (1) (a)

had to be interpreted strictly and narrowly It was held (SCC, pp

664-665):

"But since permissible restrictions, albeit reasonable, are all the same restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), such restrictions are bound to be viewed as anathema, in that, they are in the nature of curbs or limitations on the exercise of the right and are, therefore, bound to be viewed with suspicion, thereby throwing a heavy burden on the authorities that seek to impose them.

The burden would, therefore, heavily lie on the authorities that seek to impose them to show that the restrictions are reasonable and permissible in law."

6.8 The broad principles enunciated in the above decisions provide

the backdrop against which the excisions directed by the CBFC and

affirmed by the FCAT require to be examined.

The first excision

7. In discussing each of the four excisions, it is important to keep in

view the entire film, which has been summarized above. Further the

sequences immediately preceding the portion sought to be excised

are required to be adverted to.

8. The film opens with the statement on the screen that Kabir was a

15th century mystic poet of north India who defied the boundaries

between Hindus and Muslims. Kabir had a Muslim name and

upbringing, but his poetry repeatedly invoked the widely revered

Hindu name of God - Ram. The question "Who is Kabir‟s Ram?"

appears on the screen, followed by the text:

"This film journeys through song and poem into the politics of religion, and finds a

myriad answers on both sides of the hostile border between India and Pakistan."

9. There are then plates that appear on the screen explaining the

backdrop of the film. The opening plate reads:

"For centuries, fundamentalist forces amongst Muslims and Hindus have stoked divisive religious politics between the two communities in the Indian sub-continent.

Ram is one of the most popular deities in Hindu religious traditions. He was the legendary king of Ayodhya in ancient India;

hero of the epic Ramayana. In recent Indian politics, Ram has been invoked by certain groups to consolidate Hindu identity and votes in divisive opposition to Muslims living in India and the neighbouring Islamic state of Pakistan.

It is in this backdrop that this film unfolds, in search of the "Ram" invoked in the poetry of Kabir, a popular mystic poet of 15th century north India."

10. One of the first excisions ordered by the CBFC was that the

words "Muslims living in India and the neighbouring Islamic state

of Pakistan" should be deleted as it violates Guidelines 2 (xii), 2

(xiii) and 2 (xvi) formulated by the Government of India in the

Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) by a Notification

dated 7th January 1978 under Section 5-B (2) CA. Guideline 2(xii)

requires the CBFC to ensure that "visuals or words contemptuous

of racial, religious or other groups are not presented". Guideline

2(xiii) requires the CBFC to ensure that "visuals or words which

promote communal, obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national

attitudes are not presented" and Guideline 2(xvi) requires it to

ensure that "friendly relations with foreign States are not strained."

11. By the impugned order dated 28th May 2010 the FCAT has

disagreed with the CBFC on the above excision and to that extent

allowed the Petitioner‟s appeal. The present petition is therefore

concerned with the other three excisions that have been upheld by

the FCAT.

The second excision

12. The film maker‟s narration appears hereafter on screen as text.

It reads:

"In 2003, I set out in search of Kabir.

Why Kabir? What made me want to search for a 15th century mystic poet today?

Maybe turning to Kabir was a turning away from Ram...

...that militant Ram used to stoke Hindu- Muslim hatred in India today.

But then, I found a Ram in Kabir too.

And their stories began to unfold through the fog of history and politics, intertwined."

13. The CBFC ordered the excision of the words "militant Ram"

on the ground that it violates Guideline 2(xii). The FCAT while

discussing this excision observed in para 17 of its order:

"17. It is common knowledge that the Christian, Islam and Hindi religion are very old. The question of a "militant Ram" stoking ill- will between Hindus and Muslims does not arise. Therefore, wherever including in the title card there is reference to "militant Ram" and such similar ideas/words, the words have to be deleted. It is also recommended by CBFC. Guideline 2(xii) is not applicable because it is factually incorrect. During Shri Ram‟s times there was no Islam and Shri Ram was a man of peace and was forced to battle with Ravana to save his wife. Lord Rama was not a man of war and returned to Ayodhya as soon as his

wife was freed. Serial No. 2 stands decided."

14. It has been urged by Mr. Jawahar Raja, learned counsel for the

Petitioner that in directing the second excision the CBFC, and the

FCAT which upheld it, failed to appreciate the context in which the

said words occur. It is urged that the film has to be viewed as a

whole in order to understand what the central theme of the film is.

Reliance has been placed on a large number of judgments which

will be discussed hereafter. Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned

counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, reiterated what has

been observed in the impugned order of the FCAT. As regards the

excision of the phrase "militant Ram" it was suggested that "the

same meaning can be conveyed by using the word „Ram‟ instead of

„militant Ram‟".

15. In the first place, the law is clear that words or visuals in a film

have to be viewed in the context of the whole film. They ought not

to be viewed in isolation. It appears that in coming to the

conclusion they did on the second excision, neither the CBFC nor

the FCAT kept this principle in view. Gopal Vinayak Godse v.

Union of India AIR 1971 Bom 56, a decision rendered by a Full

Bench of the Bombay High Court concerned the validity of the ban

on the Marathi novel „Gandhi-hatya Ani Mee‟ authored by the

petitioner which purportedly contained passages and words that

were allegedly distortions of history and promoted feelings of

communal hatred. The Bombay High Court struck down the ban.

Speaking for the Court Chandrachud J (as he then was) underscored

the importance of considering the offending passages in the context

of the entire book. He observed (AIR, p. 82):

"We find ourselves wholly unable to take the view that the several passages on which the learned Advocate General relies are capable of promoting feelings of enmity and hatred between Hindus and Muslims in India. A passage here or a passage there, sentence here or a sentence there, a word similarly, may if strained and torn out of context supply inflammatory matter to a willing mind. But such a process is impermissible. We must read the book as a whole, we must not ignore the context of a passage and we must try and see what, reasonably, would be the reaction of the common reader. If the offending passages are considered in this light, the book shall have to be cleared of the charge levelled against it." (emphasis supplied)

16. The ratio of the said decision would in the view of this Court

equally apply to words and visuals in a film.

17. On the second excision, the FCAT‟s approach is intriguing. If

Guideline 2(xii) is not applicable as held by the FCAT then the

CBFC‟s conclusion that these words are "contemptuous of racial,

religious or other groups" obviously cannot be sustained. Secondly,

the FCAT was not called upon to decide the tenability of the

understanding of the film maker as regards the projection by certain

others of Ram to justify acts of violence. The observations in para

17 of the impugned order of the FCAT about who Lord Ram was

and what he did was unnecessary. One may agree or disagree with

the film maker‟s position but the issue is whether she has a right to

express her point of view irrespective of its „acceptability‟ to the

viewer or for that matter to the CBFC or the FCAT. To recall the

lines from the famous dissent of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in

United States v. Schwimmer 279 US 644 (1929) (at 655): "...if

there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively

calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought

- not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for

the thought that we hate." The constitutional framework of the

freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a)

of the Constitution provides democratic space to a citizen to put

forth a view which may be unacceptable to others but does not on

that score alone become vulnerable to excision by way of

censorship. Thirdly, the excision ordered makes little sense. If in

the sentence "May be turning to Kabir was a turning away from

Ram... that Militant Ram used to stoke Hindu-Muslim hatred in

India today" the phrase „militant Ram‟ is replaced by „Ram‟, the

sentence would read: "May be turning to Kabir was a turning away

from Ram... that Ram used to stoke Hindu-Muslim hatred in India

today". This not only mutilates the meaning of the sentence but

perhaps renders it more objectionable from the point of view of the

CBFC. In any event in the context of the entire sentence, and in the

backdrop of the film when viewed as a whole, the words „militant

Ram‟ do not represent the film maker‟s view of Ram. It is her

comment on how certain others have projected Ram to stoke

religious hatred. In fact, she makes it clear that she does not

subscribe to this viewpoint when she says soon thereafter: "But

then, I found a Ram in Kabir too". The conclusion that the phrase

which has been ordered to be excised violates Guideline 2(xii) is

legally untenable.

The third excision

18. The third excision directed is of the entire visuals relating to the

demolition of the Babri Masjid and the words beginning with

"Hamare Purvaj Ke Janm Bhumi..." up to "...thakathse milenge".

The above excision has been upheld by the FCAT by simply stating

as under in para 18 of the impugned order:

"18. The tribunal has no hesitation in upholding the deletion of the words and visuals relating to Babri Masjid demolition. The appellant would delete the entire chapter on Ayodhya since there is gross violation of guideline 2(xiii),

(xv), (xvii), indicated at serial no. 3 in the CBFC impugned order. The words and visuals promote communal and anti-national attitudes."

19. On the third excision the counter affidavit states as under:

"The visuals of demolition of Babri Masjid as such are not objectionable but were found to be objectionable in the context of the documentary wherein it purports to symbolize the pent-up anger of the Hindus against building „Babri- masjid‟ on the „Ram Janmabhoomi‟ and the said videos are being sold as mark of victory. The English translation of the dialogues between the film maker and On-looker is reproduced by the Petitioner from page no. 41

to 45 of the writ petition paperbook. In the conversation, the On-looker jubilantly explains about the manner in which the dome of the Masjid was brought down and the justification for the same and contempt towards the Muslim rulers by equating them to attackers, robbers etc., hence it was felt by the EC, that the conversation may hurt the sentiments of the section of the society and are provocative in nature with a potentiality of disturbing the public order and hence in violation of guideline no. 2[xiii], 2[xv] & 2[xvii] and hence the excisions were recommended." (emphasis in original)

20. In order to understand the above submissions, the sequence in

the film requires to be discussed. The film maker first travels to

Ayodhya and visits a shop selling VCDs and DVDs. Just before

this, there appears on screen the following plate of the translated

version of Kabir‟s poetry:

"This is the big fight, King Ram

Let anyone settle it who can.

Is Brahma bigger, or where he came from?

Is the Veda bigger, or where it was born from?

Is the mind bigger, or what it believes in?

Is Ram bigger or the knower of Ram?

Kabir turns around, it‟s hard to see.

Is the holy place bigger, or the devotee?"

21. The camera pans to the television in the shop which is shown

playing a VCD of the events immediately prior to the demolition of

the Babri Masjid. Interestingly, the viewer does not get to see the

actual demolition of the Babri Masjid. To that extent the order of

the CBFC as affirmed by the FCAT is factually incorrect. The film

maker enters into a conversation with the shop keeper and another

person by asking why anyone would buy such a VCD and the shop

keeper gives his version of the events of 6 th December 1992. One

of them states how he himself participated in the events leading to

the demolition. The conversation that follows reveals the point of

view of those seeking to justify what happened on 6th December

1992 in Ayodhya with the film maker presenting the counter point.

This at best could lead to those viewing the conversation into

wondering whether the view projected by the persons selling the

VCDs represents the view of the dominant section of society. It is

important to know how some of the residents of Ayodhya reacted to

the incident and the manner in which they recount from their

memory as to what happened.

22. Guideline 2(xiii) requires the CBFC to ensure that the film does

not present "visuals or words which promote communal,

obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national attitudes". Guideline

2(xv) requires it to ensure that "the security of the State is not

jeopardized or endangered" and Guideline 2(xvii) requires the

CBFC to ensure that "public order is not endangered." The burden

of showing that the visuals and words presented in the film

"promote" communal or anti-national attitudes is definitely on the

state. The visuals and words presented in the film cannot be viewed

in isolation. They have to be viewed as part of the whole film.

When so viewed they have to be shown to "promote" communal or

anti-national attitudes. Likewise, the burden on the state to show

that the film as a whole "jeopardises the security of the State" or

that it "endangers" public order is indeed a heavy one. Mere

apprehension of danger to law and order is hardly sufficient.

Neither the CBFC nor the FCAT have in their impugned orders

cared to explain why they conclude that Guidelines 2 (xiii), 2 (xv)

and 2 (xvii) have been violated.

23. The freedom of the citizen‟s speech and expression under

Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution may not be absolute, but the

restrictions thereon under Article 19 (2) have to be narrowly

construed. As explained in Life Insurance Corporation of India v.

Prof. Manubhai D. Shah (supra) the burden is on the state to show

that the benefit from restricting the freedom is far greater than the

perceived harm resulting from the speech or depiction. The State

has to ensure that the restrictions do not rule out legitimate speech

and that the benefit to the protected interest outweighs the harm to

the freedom of expression. Justice Harlan in Cohen v. California

(supra) pertinently asked: "Surely the State has no right to cleanse

public debate to the point where it is grammatically palatable to the

most squeamish among us?"

24.1 The broad principle that the film has to be viewed as a whole

before adjudging whether a particular scene or visual offends any

of the Guidelines has been reiterated in a large number of decisions

of the Supreme Court, some of which have been referred to earlier.

They have been followed by the High Courts in adjudging the

validity of censorship directions concerning documentary films.

Some of these decisions will be discussed hereafter.

24.2 Documentary film maker Anand Patwardhan approached the

Bombay High Court against the decision of the Prasar Bharti Board

not to screen his documentary film 'Father, son and Holy War'.

The Bombay High Court allowed his writ petition against which

the Doordarshan appealed to the Supreme Court. In Director

General, Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand

Patwardhan AIR 2006 SC 3346, the Supreme Court confirmed the

decision of the Bombay High Court and observed that the film no

doubt dealt with the communal violence but the attempt of the film

maker was to portray the miseries of innocent victims of communal

riots. It was observed (AIR, pp 3350-3351):

"the message of the filmmaker cannot be gathered by viewing only certain portions of the film in isolation but one has to view it as a whole. There are scenes of violence, social injustice but the film by no stretch of imagination can be said to subscribe to the same. They are meant to convey that such social evils are evil. There cannot be any apprehension that it is likely to affect public order or it is likely to incite commission of an offence."

24.3 It was further observed (AIR, p. 3353):

"the correct approach to be taken here is to look at the documentary film as a whole and not in bits, as any message that is purported to be conveyed by way of a film cannot be

conveyed just by watching certain bits of the film. In the present situation the documentary film is seeking to portray certain evils prevalent in our society and is not seeking to cater to the prurient interests in any person. Therefore, we have no hesitation in saying that this documentary film if judged in its entirety has a theme and message to convey and the view taken by the appellants that the film is not suitable for telecast is erroneous."

25. When Had Anhad is viewed as a whole, the sequences (visuals

and words) concerning the conversations in Ayodhya in the

backdrop of the television screen showing the VCD on the Babri

Masjid demolition do not in any manner violate any of the three

guidelines - 2 (xiii), 2 (xv) and 2 (xvii). A deconstruction of those

sequences shows how the film operates at different levels of speech

and expression of the protagonists, the film maker and the viewer.

At the first level, the film (and the film maker) captures the points

of view of those speaking in front of the camera. At another level

the film maker enters into a conversation with the speaker and the

viewer gets to watch this interplay. At yet another level the film

maker communicates to the viewer her reaction to the conversation.

Then we have the viewer who is reacting to all of the above and

dialoguing or discussing albeit silently with the protagonists and the

film maker by agreeing or disagreeing with one or the other or

partly with one and partly with the other. Involved here then are

different facets of speech and expression. The right to speak, to

disseminate, to argue, to debate, to witness, to react, to ignore, to

engage in dialogue, to discuss, to agree, to disagree, to form and

hold opinions. These different facets are integral to the freedom of

speech and expression in Article 19 (1) (a). A non-fiction film

provides the democratic space that permits the viewer, without

having to suspend disbelief, to receive ideas, to be provoked and to

participate in a discussion. This right of the viewer to think

autonomously while reacting to the speaker or the film maker, and

to make informed choices, without being controlled by the State,

also constitutes an integral part of the freedom of speech and

expression. This aspect has been brought out in some of the

decisions of the Israel Supreme Court which will be now discussed.

26. In Israel Film Studios Ltd. v. Gerry (1962) Isr SC 15 2407 (at

2416), the Israel Supreme Court was examining the justification of

censoring a portion of a short film showing an eviction from the

Somail suburb of Tel Aviv. The reason for disallowing the said

portion, inter alia, was that it did not present the problem in its

entirety. The Supreme Court of Israel reversed the decision of the

censors. Speaking for the Court Justice Landau pointed out: "A

sovereign arrogating for itself the power to determine what the

citizen should know will ultimately determine what the citizen

should think; nothing constitutes a greater contradiction of true

democracy, which is not „directed from above‟". This thought is

echoed in an essay titled "Sense and Censoribility" (at

http://www.altlawforum.org/law-an-media/publications/sense-and-

censoribility visited on 25th February 2011) by legal scholar

Lawrence Liang. He points out that the law as interpreted by the

Supreme Court "teaches you how you should see the film and a

legal theory of spectatorship... it creates a world of reception

theory, which plays an important pedagogic role, which is not just

about prohibiting a particular view, but also about cultivating a

particular view." Recognising the need to acknowledge the rights

of both the "citizen viewer" and the "speaking subject" he says:

"the task of censorship is to teach the viewer to become a citizen through particular spectatorial practices, and the imagined gaze of the citizen-viewer determines the specific content of censorship laws."

27. Had Anhad brings to the fore many of the facets of the freedom

of speech and expression. At times the camera is a bystander and

lets us view an exchange between two protagonists. At other times

the film maker herself engages in conversation and elicits the point

of view of the speaker or voices her own opinion on the issue. The

film maker at other times steps back and lets the viewer draw her

own conclusions. This is precisely the democratic space that is

required to be provided so that the less articulate viewer or the one

who has already formed an opinion or has no opinion or has an

opposite point of view are all able to appreciate the point of view of

the "other" as is essential to all healthy democratic practices. As

long as the film provides space for dialogue and discussion of a

contentious issue, the „policing‟ out of a point of view or a visual

merely because it is disagreeable to some cannot be justified.

28. The scenes and visuals that constitute the third excision are in

one sense a recalling of the memory of an historical event. The

recall may be imperfect. It may contradict the collective memory of

that historical event. It may revive tensions over the events being

recalled. Yet, that by itself does not invite censorial intervention to

obliterate the scenes of recall. In Laor v. Film and Plays

Censorship Board (1987) Isr SC 41 (1) 421 the censor Board

refused to permit the staging of a play `Ephraim Returns to the

Army‟ which described events in the occupied territories under

Israeli military rule on the ground that it presented a distorted and

false image of the military administration. It feared an outburst of

"negative feelings against the State" and "severe offense to the

feelings of the Jewish public by the implied and explicit

comparison between the Israeli regime and the Nazi occupation."

Justice Barak speaking for the Court that negatived the ban held: "It

is none of the Board‟s business whether the play reflects reality, or

distorts it." He went on to observe:

"Indeed, the passage in the play may offend the feelings of the Jewish public, and is certainly liable to offend the feelings of those with personal experience of the Holocaust. I myself was a child during the Holocaust, and I crossed fences and borders guarded by the German Army smuggling objects on my body. The parallel between the German soldier arresting a child and the Israeli soldier arresting an Arab youngster breaks my heart. Nonetheless, we live in a democratic state, in which this heartbreak is the very heart of democracy."

29. Later in Bakri v. Film Censorship Board (2003) Isr SC 58 (1)

249, this aspect was revisited. The documentary film which was

censored - „Jenin, Jenin‟ - presented the Palestinian narrative of the

battle in the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002 during the

„Operation Defensive Wall.‟ The film maker at the outset declared

that he had made no attempt to present the Israeli position. The

censor Board banned the film since it was "distorted" and was

"offensive to public‟s feelings". The Israel Supreme Court

reversed the Board. Justice Procaccia speaking for the Court

observed "the messages of the film Jenin, Jenin, as described

above, are indeed offensive to wide sections of the public in Israel"

and still the film could not be banned because "although the injury

is deep and real, it does not reach the high threshold required to

rescind freedom of speech . . . . the offense is not radically shocking

to the point of posing a concrete threat to the public order, in a way

that might justify restricting freedom of expression and creativity."

Commenting on this decision, legal scholar Daphne Barak-Erez

points out that the Court should perhaps acknowledge the offense to

feelings caused by such films but still refuse to uphold the censor

Board‟s decision "because of the enormous danger of turning the

state into the custodian of truth." (Barak-Erez, Daphne (2007) „The

Law of Historical Films: In the Aftermath of Jenin, Jenin‟,

Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, Vol. 16, 495-

522. The English translation of the passages of the above judgments

of the Supreme Court of Israel, which in the original are in Hebrew,

are hers.)

30.1 Reverting to Had Anhad, the third excision as directed by the

CBFC is on account of the film endangering security of the state

and public order. Similar reasons adduced by the CBFC to order

cuts in other documentary films have met with judicial disapproval.

The feature film „Chand Bujh Gaya' which depicted the travails of

the life of a young couple - a Hindu boy and a Muslim girl - whose

friendship and lives are torn asunder in riots in the State of Gujarat

formed the subject matter of F.A. Picture International v. CBFC

AIR 2005 Bom 145. The CBFC refused to certify the film for

exhibition and the FCAT confirmed the order. What weighed with

the CBFC and FCAT was that the film depicted gruesome

communal violence, which, they felt would foment communal

disharmony. The CBFC further held that "the Gujarat violence is a

live issue and a scar on national sensitivity. Exhibition of the film

will certainly aggravate the situation."

30.2 The Bombay High Court reversed both the decisions of the

CBFC and FCAT. It observed that dissent was the quintessence of

democracy and that "those who question unquestioned assumptions

contribute to the alteration of social norms. Democracy is founded

upon respect for their courage. Any attempt by the State to clamp

down on the free expression of opinion must hence be frowned

upon." It was then observed that "(f)ilms which deal with

controversial issues necessarily have to portray what is

controversial. A film which is set in the backdrop of communal

violence cannot be expected to eschew a portrayal of violence."

30.3 As regard depiction of violence in Gujarat, it was observed as

under (AIR, pp 149-150):

"To say that the violence which took place in the State of Gujarat is a "live issue" and a "scar on national sensitivity" can furnish absolutely no ground for preventing the exhibition of the film. No democracy can countenance a lid of suppression on events in society. The violence which took place in the State of Gujarat has been the subject-matter of extensive debate in the press and the media and it is impermissible to conjecture that a film dealing with the issue would aggravate the situation. On the contrary, stability in society can only be promoted by introspection into social reality, however grim it be. Ours, we believe, is a mature democracy. The view of the censor does no credit to the

maturity of a democratic society by making an assumption that people would be led to disharmony by a free and open display of a cinematographic theme."

31. The documentary film 'Aakrosh' focussed on the communal

riots which took place in Gujarat in 2002. The CBFC declined to

grant a certification of exhibition to the film. The FCAT held that

the film depicted a "one sided version of one particular community

and if it is shown to masses, not only a selective crowd but anyone

and everyone, is bound to provoke communal feeling and desire to

revenge." The FCAT observed that the film endangered restoration

of peace and tranquility. Setting aside the order of the CBFC and

the FCAT the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in

Ramesh Pimple v. CBFC 2004 (5) Bom CR 214 observed:

"But we are unable to share the views of the tribunal that the riots are now history, and therefore, be forgotten by public to avoid repetition of such cruel acts. It is when the hour of conflict is over it may be necessary to understand and analyze the reason for strife. We should not forget that the present state of things is the consequence of the past; and it is natural to inquire as to the sources of the good we enjoy or for the evils we suffer."

32. In CBFC v. Yadavalaya Films 2007 (1) CTC 1, the FCAT had

granted an "A" certificate to the film „Kutra Pathirikai‟ subject to

certain cuts and deletions which the producer accepted. The film

concerned the assassination of the former Prime Minister Shri Rajiv

Gandhi and the subsequent events including the investigation and

the fate of the assassins and some of the abettors and conspirators.

However, the CBFC challenged the order of the FCAT. The Single

Judge of the Madras High Court opined that the film should be

granted an "A" certificate subject to certain cuts and deletions. The

CBFC then appealed against the said judgment. While dismissing

the appeal, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that

each and every piece of evidence depicted in the film "is a matter

of public record and public knowledge." It was held that

"Artists, film makers and play writers are affirmatively entitled to

allude to incidents which have taken place and to present a version

of those incidents which according to them represents a balanced

portrayal of social reality. The choice is entirely of the film maker."

33. The conclusion that Had Anhad endangers public order is not

based on any material available to the CBFC or the FCAT. In this

context the decision in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (supra)

is apposite. Rejecting a similar argument in the said case, the

Supreme Court observed as under (SCC, p. 595):

"Our commitment of freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered. The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or far- fetched. It should have proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest. In other words, the expression should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like equivalent of a "spark in a powder keg"."

34. The FCAT‟s concurrence with the CBFC‟s decision on the third

excision is predicated on its conclusion that the visuals of the Babri

Masjid demolition and the conversations around it constitute a

"gross violation" of Guidelines 2 (xiii), 2 (xv) and 2 (xvii). The

FCAT held that "the words and visuals promote communal,

obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national attitudes". The above

conclusions are in the view of this Court not legally tenable when

the film is viewed as a whole and examined in light of the law as

explained by the courts in the decisions discussed. It is necessary in

this context to recall the observations of the Supreme Court in

Bobby Art International v. Ompal Singh (1996) 4 SCC 1 that "a

film that illustrates the consequence of social evils necessarily must

show that social evil, the guidelines must be interpreted in that

light. No film that extols the social evil or encourages it is

permissible, but a film that carries the message that the social evil is

evil cannot be made impermissible on the ground that it depicts the

social evil." The film when viewed as a whole disapproves of the

bigoted views of some of the protagonists. To enable the viewer to

form her own opinion it is necessary to present conflicting points of

view on an issue. Had Anhad makes this dialogue and opinion

formation possible.

35. Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the

decision as to what is permissible to be shown is best left to the

CBFC and the FCAT. He relied on the following observations in

Bobby Art International (supra) (SCC, p. 16):

"The drawing of the line is best left to the sensibilities of the expert Tribunal, the Tribunal is multi-member body. It is comprised of persons who gauge public reactions to film and, except in case of stark breach of guidelines, should be permitted to go about its task."

36. In the present case, neither the CBFC nor the FCAT has

undertaken the task of "drawing of the line". Both have

recommended complete deletion of all the visuals and words

pertaining to the portion of the film where there is discussion of the

Babri Masjid demolition. The demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6th

December 1992 has been the subject matter of extensive discussion

and debate in the public domain over the past eighteen years. There

has been litigation in the courts both preceding and consequent

upon the incident. The footage of the incident shown on television

in the shop in Ayodhya as captured in the film Had Anhad has been

viewed by millions of people all over the country several times over

for several years. The CBFC and FCAT appear to have lost sight of

the context of the film Had Anhad as a whole. They have viewed in

isolation the scenes involving the conversations around the incident

of 6th December 1992. No reasonable viewer watching the film as a

whole would be provoked into harbouring either a communal or

anti-national attitude. Had Anhad makes a strong statement against

bigotry and on the futility of violent disagreements over religion. It

cannot be said to be violating guidelines 2(xiii), 2(xv) or 2(xvii) as

held by the CBFC and the FCAT.

The Fourth excision

37. As regards the fourth excision, both the CBFC and the FCAT

have again not kept in view the film as a whole and have picked up

one line in a conversation between the persons returning from

Wagah Border after witnessing the change of guards there. The

words taken out of context have been held to be "contemptuous of

the Muslim community." The film depicts the prejudiced bigoted

views harboured by some against a religious community, but the

film does not subscribe to those views. It provokes the viewer into

thinking and reacting differently. The film maker wonders how

Kabir would have reacted if he was riding in the same bus.

38. Considering that there have been numerous instances in the past

where similar excisions directed by the CBFC have been

disapproved by the courts, it is surprising that the CBFC and the

FCAT have persisted with the view that the above words spoken by

one of the passengers in the bus returning from Wagah should be

excised. One of the four Members of the FCAT went to the other

extreme by giving a dissent note that the film should be granted an

"S" certificate subject to the excisions recommended in the order of

the FCAT since, in his view, the film "contains contemptuous

words and promotes anti-national attitude." This approach is

unsupportable by the legal precedents which require recounting

only for that purpose.

39. The discussion should ideally begin with the words of Justice

Harlan in Cohen v. California (supra) where he observed that "we

cannot indulge in the facile assumption that one can forbid

particular words without also running a substantial risk of

suppressing ideas in the process." In Anand Patwardhan v. Union

of India AIR 1997 Bom 25, the refusal by Doordarshan to telecast

the Petitioner‟s film „In Memory of Friends‟ was under challenge.

The film was about the violence and terrorism in Punjab and about

a group of Sikhs and Hindus, who at great personal risk were

engaged in an attempt to recover the tolerance and communal

harmony that once existed in Punjab. Doordarshan defended its

decision to refuse permission for the telecast of the film on the

ground that "the editorial commentaries also cast aspersions in the

existence of God and, if such a documentary is shown to the

members of the public, it would definitely hurt the feelings of some

of them." In the documentary film the filmmaker interviewed

certain separatist groups. It was contended that "some of the replies

of the supporters of Khalistan are full of sparks that can ignite big

fire" and that if the documentary is shown to the people "it would

create communal hatred and may even lead to a further violence."

After discussing the law on the subject, it was concluded by the

Bombay High Court as under (AIR, p. 32):

"One may not agree with the view of the film maker. But in a democracy it is not necessary that everyone should sing the same song. Freedom of expression is the rule and it is generally taken for granted. The film maker may project his own message which the other may not approve of it. But he has a right to „think out‟ and put the counter appeals to reason. It is a part of a democratic give-and-take to which one could not complain. The State cannot prevent open discussion and open expression, however, hateful to its policies. Everyone has a fundamental right to form his own opinion on any issue or general concern. He can form and inform by any legitimate means."

40. The same film maker Anand Patwardhan approached the

Bombay High Court for direction to the Doordarshan to telecast his

documentary film „Ram-Ke-Naam‟ which was granted a "U"

certificate by the Censor Board. This was a film attempting to deal

with the fissiparous and sectarian tendencies and to give out a

message for promoting integrative forces. The Doordarshan‟s

explanation of its decision to refuse permission for the telecast was

that "result of telecasting the petitioner's film on T.V. would be that

there is likelihood that members of both the communities will rise

in passion and anger against each other and take to acts which

would lead to communal violence and riots ." An objection was

taken to certain scenes in the film where a karsevak in an interview

"justifies even the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram

Godse." Again reiterating that the film had to be judged in its

entirety, the High Court of Bombay in Anand Patwardhan v.

Union of India 1997 (3) Bom CR 438 opined that "A powerful

plea for communal amity and co-existence is structurally

incorporated in the film. Throughout the film those who are

intolerant and those who spread hatred in the name of God are

condemned. This is meant to create in the audience a response of

disgust directed against the perpetrators of communal hatred. The

film unmistakably condemns hate-mongering communalists but it

painstakingly underlines the fact that they do not represent all

Hindus." Rejecting the point of view that the film provokes

commission of offence, it was held that "viewed from the healthy

and common sense point of view it is more likely that it will

prevent incitement to such offences in future by extremists and

fundamentalists."

41. Anand Patwardhan questioned an order of the FCAT which

directed to cuts and one addition to the documentary film 'War and

Peace' (Jang aur Aman). The first was with regard to a

demonstration scene showing demonstration at Hutatma Chowk,

Mumbai where demonstrators were shouting slogans "Hindu Bomb

Hi Hi and Muslim Bomb Hi Hi." The FCAT directed that the

slogans be deleted. The film showed a speech of a dalit leader Bhai

Sangare who questioned why the bomb had been exploded on the

day of Buddha Jayanti. He asked ""Why did'nt you do your blasts

on Rama‟s birthday? It's your culture. All your gods are fully

armed. Rama has an arrow, Shankar has a trident, Vishnu has a

chopper. All have weapons. So when it's the birthday of armed

ones, do your bomb blast. Our Buddha is unarmed." The CBFC

directed deletion of the words "It is your culture" in the above

speech. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Anand

Patwardhan v. CBFC 2003 (5) Bom CR 58 held that the Petitioner

was trying to canvas the cause of peace, and in that context it was

pointed out that "a war unnecessarily leads to an unjustified

production of arms and weapons and at times this is utilised by the

politicians towards corrupt purposes." It was further held that there

is no need to delete the scene showing people shouting slogans

against the Hindu Bombs and the Muslim Bombs. It was reasoned

that "if the scenes of riots in the television series (which are such at

the residences of various people), could not affect the public order,

there is no reason for anybody to imagine that any such slogans

would affect the public order." It was further underscored that

neither is the Indian bomb a Hindu bomb nor the Pakistan bomb a

Muslim bomb. "One must know as to whether there is another

perception and if so what is it. If the scene is deleted, people will

not know as to what is the perception of the bombs in one section

of the society." It was further held that "the whole speech or the

scene is to be considered." As regards the speech of Bhai Sangare,

the Bombay High Court held that he was entitled to his expression.

It went on to observe:

"Again, the question is whether one sentence can be read separately and can be criticised as affecting public order? What is to be noted is that the entire speech is made to oppose the manufacture of the bomb. It is also critical of the device being exploded on Buddha Jayanti. It is with a view to point out the contrast between Buddha and Hindu Gods that the speaker has referred to the fact that they have weapons in their hands. That by itself cannot amount to creating any conflict or an occasion to affect the public order."

"....an issue may be one but there are many facets of looking at it. It is quite possible that the persons is authority today may feel that what they see is the only correct facet of it though it may not be so. It is only in democratic form of government that the citizens have the right to express themselves fully and fearlessly as to what is their view point towards the various events which are taking place around. By suppressing certain view point, it is not only the propagator of the view point who suffers but it is the society at large and equally the people in authority who suffer. This is because they fail to receive the counter-view and it may eventually lead to an immense damage to the society due to an erroneous decision at the hands of the persons in authority in the absence of the counter- view. That apart, the freedom of speech and expression is important not merely for the consequences that ensue in the absence thereof but since the very negation of it runs as an anti-thesis to basic human values, instincts and creativity."

42. The impugned orders of the CBFC and the FCAT on the fourth

excision cannot, in light of the law explained in the above

decisions, be sustained.

Scope of the powers of the Court

43. The answer to the question whether this Court can overturn the

decisions of the CBFC and the FCAT and direct the film to be

certified as fit for unrestricted viewing without the cuts has been

answered by the Bombay High Court in F.A. Picture International

(supra) where it rejected the argument that ordinarily the High

Court would not substitute the view of the CBFC. It was explained

as under (AIR, p. 152):

"Applying the tests which have been laid down by the Supreme Court and for the reasons that we have indicated, we are of the view that the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification was one which no reasonable body of persons could have arrived at. We are conscious of the position in law that the Court exercising writ jurisdiction would ordinarily not substitute its view for the view of an expert. In that formulation, the word "ordinarily" is significant. Significant because the foundation for its exercise tests on the commitment of the Court as an expounder of constitutional principle. Where the decision of the CBFC entrenches upon the fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression, it is not merely the function but the duty and responsibility of the Court to intervene. Free speech and expression is a value which is fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society. The orders passed by the CBFC and by the Appellate Tribunal are unsustainable and must be quashed and set aside. We order accordingly. We

direct the first respondent to issue an appropriate Censor Certificate for the film "Chand Bujh Gaya". There shall be no order as to costs."

Maintainability of the petition

44. Counsel for the Respondents raised an objection to the

maintainability of the petition on the ground of territorial

jurisdiction of this Court. It was pointed out that the Petitioner was

located in Bangalore and the CBFC which passed the impugned

order dated 5th November 2009 was in Mumbai. It is submitted that

merely because FCAT happened to be in Delhi did not vest this

Court with jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. This issue is

no longer res integra. A Full Bench of this Court in New India

Assurance v. Union of India AIR 2010 Del 43 negatived this very

contention and held that a writ petition was maintainable as long as

the tribunal whose decision was under challenge was located within

the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

Conclusion

45. Had Anhad is about a film maker‟s journeys across the Indian

landscape and across the border to Karachi in Pakistan in quest of

the Ram that constituted the creative imagination and life of the

philosopher poet Kabir. This is triggered by her interrogating the

attempt to turn Ram into a symbol of divisive politics. The film

maker finds that Kabir‟s Ram is beyond legends and narratives.

The film lends democratic space to the „speaking subject‟ and the

„citizen viewer‟ to engage in a civilized debate on issues that are

perceived to be contentious. It invites introspection into and the

cleansing of prejudices from the inner recesses of a bigoted mind

with the aid of Kabir‟s words and thoughts. It demonstrates how

the created barriers of regions, borders, languages, religions,

nationalities and nations melt away in Kabir‟s universal message of

love and compassion. A viewer who stays to see the film till its end

is unlikely to be left feeling hateful or vengeful towards any

religion or community. The viewer might be impelled to

contemplate on the futility of bigotry and violence. Viewed in this

light, and in light of the settled constitutional law of the freedom of

speech and expression, none of the excisions as directed by the

CBFC, three of which have been upheld by the FCAT, are legally

sustainable.

46. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 28 th May 2010 of the

FCAT and the order dated 5th November 2009 of the CBFC are

hereby set aside. The film Had Anhad will forthwith be granted a

"V/U" certificate of unrestricted viewing by the CBFC without any

of the excisions directed in terms of the impugned orders of the

CBFC and the FCAT. The writ petition is allowed with costs of

Rs.10,000/- which will be paid by the Respondent Union of India

to the Petitioner within four weeks.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

March 9, 2011 ha/ak