What are the Laws of Censorship in India for Print and Electronic Media?

Introduction 

Censorship, broadly understood as the suppression or restriction of information deemed objectionable, has been a subject of deep and persistent debate worldwide. In India, where the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, censorship remains a particularly complex issue. It encompasses the regulation of various forms of media film, literature, art, and digital content as authorities aim to protect public order, morality, and social harmony in a culturally diverse nation. However, the practice is controversial as it navigates the balance between maintaining social order and upholding individual rights, with boundaries of acceptable expression often shifting in response to social and political pressures.

What is Censorship? 

Censorship refers to the suppression or control of speech, communication, or content that may be considered offensive, indecent, or a threat to social harmony and order. Governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies exercise censorship through various methods, often driven by standards intended to protect the public’s sensibilities and security. Yet, censorship is inherently subjective in its interpretation and enforcement, making it vulnerable to misuse or manipulation. This interpretive flexibility often shapes the scope of censorship differently across societies and raises questions about the limits of expression.

Censorship in India 

India’s censorship laws are notably expansive, covering a wide range of public expressions, including advertisements, films, theatre, music, news reports, literature, and art. Authorities regulate content deemed as harmful, indecent, or offensive based on moral, religious, and cultural grounds, although these parameters lack precise definitions. Indian censorship practices are executed both directly and indirectly, using an array of legislations and regulatory bodies such as the Central Board of Film Certification, the Press Council of India, the Cinematograph Act of 1952, and the Cable Television Act. While censorship seeks to prevent unrest and promote social order, there is growing concern that it encroaches upon the freedom of speech and expression, posing a considerable threat to individual rights.

History of Censorship in India 

The history of censorship in India dates back to the colonial era, beginning with the Cinematograph Act of 1918, which allowed the British government to control the content of films and other media to support its colonial interests. Initially, censorship focused on foreign films, primarily Western productions, to mitigate any potential anti-colonial sentiments among the Indian population. Provincial censorship boards were established in major cities to oversee film content, signalling the beginning of a regulatory approach toward controlling public information.

Following independence in 1947, censorship continued, with the newly formed government enacting the Cinematograph Act of 1951, which empowered it to regulate the film industry and maintain public morality and order. Subsequent legislation, including the Indian Telegraph Act (1885), the Official Secrets Act (1923), and the Information Technology Act (2000), expanded government authority over various forms of communication and media. Despite these regulations, censorship in India remains a hotly contested issue, as legal cases frequently test the boundaries of free speech against the need to uphold public morality. The history of censorship in India thus reflects an ongoing struggle to reconcile freedom of expression with societal harmony and security concerns.

Pros of Censorship 

1. Prevents Disharmony: By restricting content that could provoke communal discord, censorship can prevent social and religious conflicts. This helps in maintaining social harmony by limiting the spread of material likely to incite hatred or violence.
2. Preserves State Security: Censorship supports national security by controlling the dissemination of information that could pose a risk to social stability or the safety of the nation. It helps curb illegal activities, misinformation, and extremist propaganda that might threaten the public's sense of security or incite panic.
3. Maintains Morality: Censorship contributes to societal morals by restricting content that could be deemed inappropriate or harmful. This includes preventing the display of explicit or offensive material, helping to uphold community values and standards.
4. Prevents the Spread of False Beliefs and Rumours: Through censorship, governments can limit the spread of harmful misinformation or false beliefs, helping to prevent public panic. By filtering inappropriate or potentially harmful online content, censorship also protects vulnerable groups, especially children, from exposure to violent or exploitative material.
5. Protects Cultural Values: Censorship can serve as a safeguard for cultural heritage by curbing content that may be perceived as disrespectful or offensive to specific communities, thus promoting respect for cultural values and traditions.

Cons of Censorship 

1. Moral Policing: Censorship can sometimes act as a tool for moral policing, controlling aspects of personal choice and limiting individual freedoms rather than addressing larger public issues. The discretionary powers held by regulatory bodies may lead to content control that reflects the subjective moral standards of a select group.
2. Contradicts Free Speech: Censorship may conflict with the constitutional right to freedom of speech, which guarantees Indian citizens the right to express themselves within reasonable limits. The subjective definitions of morality, taste, and appropriateness challenge the principles of free expression, risking the suppression of diverse viewpoints.
3. Potential for Abuse of Power: Authorities could misuse censorship powers, leading to political suppression or the silencing of dissenting voices. With wide-ranging censorship capabilities, regulatory bodies may exercise control based on biases, political interests, or personal agendas.
4. Hinders Creativity and Artistic Expression: Strict censorship can inhibit creative freedom, stifling the growth of artistic expression and impacting the development of a dynamic cultural landscape. Content creators may feel restricted, fearing that their work could be censored or penalized.
5. Restricts Access to Information: Censorship can limit citizens’ access to a broad range of information and perspectives, hampering investigative journalism and limiting the free flow of ideas. This restriction may prevent people from making informed decisions, reducing the overall diversity of opinion in the public sphere.

Working on Censorship in India 

Censorship laws in India are implemented through a combination of constitutional provisions, statutory regulations, and judicial rulings that balance freedom of expression with public order and security. These laws address content across various mediums, including print media, cinema, television, and digital platforms, and include both broad and specific guidelines for permissible and restricted content. 

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Censorship

The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) governs the procedural framework for handling criminal cases and provides specific powers to the state regarding content regulation. Under Section 95 of the CrPC[1], state governments can issue orders to confiscate publications considered harmful to the state or public order, such as material that is deemed seditious or inflammatory. This provision allows a magistrate to authorize searches and seizures of objectionable publications, often enacted in situations where content is thought to incite violence, hatred, or threats to state security. 

Press Council of India and Print Media

The Press Council of India (PCI), established under the Press Council Act of 1978, serves as a self-regulatory body for print media. Its mandate includes upholding journalistic standards while balancing freedom of the press with social responsibility. The PCI can censure publications or journalists for ethical violations, issue warnings, and set standards for ethical journalism. Although it has no power to ban publications outright, the council’s adjudications significantly influence journalistic conduct. The PCI also provides guidelines on reporting sensitive topics, particularly those related to communal issues, to ensure content aligns with public interest and social harmony.

Cable Television Networks Act, 1995

The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 regulates cable television content, including mandatory certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The Act prohibits the transmission of content deemed obscene, inciting, or harmful to public order. It empowers the government to issue directives to cable operators, even allowing temporary bans if channels violate programming codes. This Act has frequently been invoked to restrict broadcasting of foreign content and enforce standards aligned with local cultural values. It also allows for restrictions on content based on moral or societal grounds, ensuring compliance with CBFC certifications for unrestricted (U) or restricted (UA, A, S) public viewership. 

Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, oversees the regulation of films for public exhibition. It certifies films and categorizes them based on age appropriateness:

• U (Unrestricted): Suitable for all audiences.
• UA (Unrestricted with Parental Guidance): Children below 12 require parental guidance.
• A (Adult): Restricted to adults.
• S (Special): Restricted to specific groups, often based on professional or thematic relevance.

In K.A. Abbas v. Union of India[2], the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of pre-censorship in films, noting that cinema is uniquely influential and requires regulation under Article 19(2)[3] of the Constitution. This ruling established that censorship is permissible to prevent public disorder while reinforcing those films, as a form of expression, deserve constitutional protection. 

Social Media Platforms and the IT Rules, 2021

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 introduce extensive regulatory mechanisms for digital and social media platforms, covering entities like Facebook, Twitter, and OTT platforms. These rules mandate that platforms appoint a Chief Compliance Officer and Grievance Officer to respond to content-related complaints. Under Sections 67A, 67B, 67C, and 69A of the IT Act, 2000[4], platforms must remove or restrict unlawful content within 36 hours of government directives. These regulations aim to curb misinformation, protect user privacy, and mitigate the spread of offensive material. For instance, platforms must trace the origin of messages when directed by law enforcement to address concerns around national security and public order.

Cinematograph Act, 1952

The Cinematograph Act, 1952 governs film censorship, giving the CBFC the authority to certify or restrict films under conditions that prevent public disorder or morality violations. In Sree Raghavendra Films v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[5], the court held that CBFC-certified films could not be arbitrarily restricted by state authorities, affirming that censorship authority rests with the CBFC. 

Conclusion

The ongoing conversation around censorship in India highlights a critical need for a balanced legal framework that upholds the right to free speech while recognizing the societal realities in which media content circulates. A nuanced approach to censorship is essential one that respects creative expression yet safeguards against threats to national security, public order, and morality. Effective censorship laws should not only protect the peace and integrity of the nation but also encourage an environment where art and ideas can flourish without fear of undue suppression.

A robust framework would include well-defined criteria for national security threats, allowing opinions latitude without infringing on rights, and should involve proactive handling and transparent documentation of cases. This approach would affirm the democratic principle of free expression, within bounds necessary for societal harmony. As an open society, India benefits from a system of self-regulation with oversight, where content creators and media organisations maintain high standards of accountability and ethics. Ultimately, balanced and thoughtful censorship laws are essential to fostering a resilient society where freedom of expression coexists harmoniously with national security and public welfare.

[1] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s.95.

[2] AIR 1971 SC 481.

[3] The Indian Constitution, art. 19(2).

[4] The IT Act, 2000, ss. 67A, 67B, 67C, 69A.  

[5] 1995 (2) ALT 43.

Download