Opinion Editorial
Published: January 25, 2013 00:16 IST | Updated: January 25,
2013 00:57 IST
Responsibility to protect
In banning the screening of Kamal Haasans Vishwaroopam for a
period of two weeks, the Tamil Nadu governmenthas recused itself
from a fundamental responsibility that of protecting the right to
free expression. It has relied onthe old chestnut maintenance of
law and order and public tranquillity to justify the indefensible.
That a clutchof fringe Muslim organisations had protested against
the film, claiming to be offended by its alleged depiction of
thecommunity in a negative light, hardly justifies restraining its
screening. If a threat of violence was anticipated, theright
response would have been to ensure that the necessary security
arrangements were provided to ensure itssmooth screening rather
than slap a temporary ban. Whether a film contains objectionable
elements, and whether itmay be screened or not, are decisions that
vest with the Central Board for Film Certification, constituted
under thestringent Cinematograph Act, 1952. It is difficult to
believe that a film which passes through the process
ofpre-censorship with its rigid guidelines contains material that
would upset the sentiments of a religious communityand pose a real
danger to public order.
It is a pity that such reflexive bans are imposed despite the
courts reiterating time and again that a law and orderthreat does
not justify such action. In 2006, the Supreme Court adopted this
position while dismissing a petitionseeking to bar the screening of
The Da Vinci Code; a little later, the Madras High Court quashed
the Tamil Nadugovernments order suspending the screening of the
film on the ground that it may lead to demonstrations anddisturb
the peace and tranquillity of the state. The landmark case, which
set the tone for these and relatedjudgments is S. Rangarajan vs. P.
Jagajivan Ram, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the
right of theformer, a film producer, to release Ore Oru Gramathile,
which was critical of the reservation policy in Tamil
Naduseducational institutions. In a stirring judgment that
underlined that it was the duty of the state to protect the rightto
unpopular forms of speech, the court held that freedom of
expression cannot be suppressed on account of threatof
demonstration and processions or threat of violence. As it
observed, this would be tantamount to negation ofthe rule of law
and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation. Given the
precedents, it is highly doubtful that theTamil Nadu governments
ban on Vishwaroopam will withstand judicial scrutiny. In
capitulating before those whoprotested against the film, the State
has only passed the buck on its screening to the judiciary. Could
this be exactlywhat it wanted?
Keywords: Vishwaroopam film release, Vishwaroopam film
controversy, Muslim group protest, TN govt.ban, Madras High Court,
Kamal Haasan
Printable version | Jun 3, 2013 7:00:19 AM |
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/responsibility-to-protect/article4341102.ece
The Hindu
Responsibility to protect | The Hindu
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/responsibility-to-protect/artic...
1 of 1 6/3/2013 7:00 AM
