K.A. ABBAS versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 446 · Decided: 24-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 13 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

446 
K.A.ABBAS 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
September 24, 1970 . 
:[M. HlDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, G. K. MITTER, 
C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India Article 19(1) (") and (2)-Pre-censoT3hip of 
films-If unconstitutional-Cinematograph Act, 1952, s. 
5-B-Provisions 
of"--Directions under s. 5-B(2)'-lf. vague and therefore unconstitutional. 
The petitioo« made -e d<><::umentary film called "A Tale of Four 
·Cities" which attempted to portray the contrast between the life of the 
.rich and the poor in the four principal cities of the country. The film 
included certain shots of the red light district in Bombay. Allhough the 
petitioner applied to the Board of Film Censors for a 'U' Certificate for 
unrestricted exhibition of the film, he was granted a certificate onlv for 
exhibitfon restricted to adults. On an appeal made to it by the.petitioner, 
the Central Government i8'ued a direction on July 3, 1969 that a 'U' 
Certificate may_ be granted provided certain specified cuts were· made in 
the film. The petiti.:iner thereafter field the present petition seeking a 
declaration that the provisions of Part II of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, 
together with the rules prescribed by the Central Government on February 
6, 1960 in the exercise of· its powers under s. 5-B of the Act were un-
constitutional and void; he further prayed that the direction dated July 3, 
1969 should be quashed. 
The petitioner claimed thaf his fundamental 
right of free speech and expression was denied by the order of the Central 
Government and that he was entitled to a ·'U' Certificate for the film 
as of riaht. 
At the hearing of the petition the Central Government jndicated it had 
decided to grant a 'U' Certificate to the petitioner's film without the cuts 
previously ordered. 
The l'etitioner then applied for amendment of the 
petition so as to enable him. to challenge pre-censorship as offensive to 
freedom of speech and expression and alternatively the provisfons of the 
Act and the Rules, orders and directions under the Act as vague, arbitrary 
and indefinite. The Court allowe_d the amendment holding the petitioner 
was ri~t in contending that a person who invests capital .in promoting or 
producmg a film must h~ve ·clear guid~nce in adv~nce in the .mat!er of 
censorship of films even 1f the law of pre-censorship be not v10la!Ive of 
the fundamental right. 
It was contended- inter alia on beloalf of _the Petitioner (a) that pl'e-
censorship .jtself violated the right to freedom of speech and e.xpression; 
and (b) that even if it were a legitimate restraint on the freedom, it. must 
be exercised on very definite principles 'which leave no room for arbitrary 
.action . 
. HEW : (i) . Censorship of films including prior restraint is justified 
under the Constitution. 
It has been almost universally recognised that the treatment of mo~ion 
pictures must be different from that of other forms of art and expression. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
E 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
II:. A. ABBAS v. UNION (Hltfayatullah, C.J.) 
447 
This arises from the instant appeal of the motion picture, its versatility, 
realism (often surrealism). and its coordinatio of the <isual and aural 
senses. 
The art of the cameraman, with trick photography, vistavision 
and three dimensional representation,. has made the cinema picture mot'c 
true to life than even the theatre or indeed any other form of representa-
tive art. 
The motion picture is able to stir up emotions more deeply 
than any othelr product of art. 
Its effect particularly on children and 
adolescents. is very great since their immaturity makes them more will-
ingly suspend their disbelief than mature men and women. 
They also 
remember the action in the picture and try to emulate or imitate what 
they have seen. 
Therefore. classification of films into two categories of 
'U' films and 'A' films is a reasonable classification. It is also for this 
reason that motion pictures must he regarded differently from other forms 
of speech and expression. 
A person reading a book or .other writing or 
hea'ring a speech or viewing a painting or sculpture is not so deeply stirred 
as by seeing a motion picture. 
Therefore the treatment of the latter on 
a different footing is also a valid classification. [458 G] 
(ii) Section 5-B authorises the Central Government to issue such 
directions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall guide 
the authority competent to grant certifi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.