S. RANGARAJAN ETC. versus P. JAGJIVAN RAM & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 30-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
S. RANGARAJAN ETC. 
v. 
P. JAGJIVAN RAM & ORS. 
MARCH 30, 1989 
[K.N. SINGH, K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND 
KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Cinematograph (Certificate) Rules, 
1983. 
Sections 4, 5, 5A, B, C and 8/Guidelines ( 1)-(3) and notification 
dated January 21, 1987. 
High Court revoking 'U' certificate granted by Censor Board-
Validity of High Court order-Duty of Censor Board-Obligatory duty 
of state to protect freedom of expression. 
Constitution of India-Articles 19( 1)(a) and 19(2)-Freedom of 
speech and expression-Reasonable restrictions must be justified on 
anvil of necessity and not quicks-Sand of convenience and 
expediency-Obligatory duty of State to protect freedom of expression. 
'r· 
E 
The appellant, S. Rangarajan is a film producer. He produced a 
Tamil film "Ore Oru Gramathile" and applied for certificate for exhi-
bition of the film. The examination committee upon seeing the film 
refused to grant the Certificate but on a reference being made to the 
2nd Revising Committee for review and recommendation, the Commit-
tee hy a majority of 5:4 recommended the grant of a 'U' certificate 
F 
subject to deletion of certain scenes. 
On 7 .12.87 'U' certificate was granted which was challenged in 
the High Court by means of writ petitions. It was contended before the 
High Court that the film is treated in an irresponsible manner, the 
reservation policy of the Govt. has been projected in a biased manner 
G and the so-called appeal in the film that "India is one" is a hollow 
appeal which touches caste sensitivity of the Brahmin forward caste. It 
was also asserted that the film would create law and order problem in 
Tamil Nadu. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge but 
upon appeal they were allowed and the 'U' certificate issued to the 
appellant-producer was revoked. These two appeals, one by the pro-
H ducer of the film and the other by the Union of India have been filed by 
204 
. ' .. 
-
-
-+-
S. RANGARAJAN v. P.J. RAM 
205 
special leave of challenging the decision of the High Court. 
The principal contentions raised on behalf of the appellants were: 
(i) that the fnndamental right of freedom of free expression guaranteed 
under the Constitntion covers even the medinm of movies; that the 
opinion on the film ought not to be rested on the isolated passages 
disregarding the main theme and its message; (ii) That the Court should 
not concern itself with the correctness or legality of the views expressed 
in the film and the Court cannot limit the expression on any general 
issue even if it is controversial and that the writings of the film must be 
considered in a free and liberal manner in the light of the freedom of 
expression gnaranteed nnder the Constitution. It was asserted that the 
theme of the fllm is that reservation could be on the basis of economic 
backwardness instead of caste. 
A 
B 
c 
Counsel for the Respondents was critical about the manner in 
which the reservation policy of the Govt. has been condemned and the 
events and the characters protrayed in the film, as they are depicted in a 
biased manner and reaction to the film in Tamil Nadu is bound to be 
D 
volatile and likely to create law and order problem. Allowing the 
appeals, this Court, 
-I 
HELD: The motion pictures were originally considered as a 
form of amusement to be allowed to titillate but not to arouse. They 
were treated as mere entertainment and not an art or a means of 
E 
expression. Movie motivates thought and action and assnres a high 
degree of attention and retention. It makes its impact simultaneously 
arousing the visual and aural senses. The movie had unique capacity 
to disturb and arouse feelings. It has as mnch potential for evil as 
it was for good. It has an equal potential to instil or cultivate violent 
or good behaviour. [2110-E; 212G; 2130] 
Censorship by prior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but 
also necessary. [213E] 
F 
The Censors Board should exercise considerable circumspection on 
movies affecting the morality or decency of our people and cultnral 
G 
heritage of the country. The moral values in particular, should not be 
allowed to be sacrificed in the guise of social change or cnltural 
assimilation. [216G-H] 
The Censors should be responsive to social change and they must 
go with the current climate. The Censors may display more sensitivity 
H 
/ 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 
A to movies which will have a markedly del

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