This observation was made while reviewing petitions in the “Women in Cinema Collective v State of Kerala & Others” case about the K. Hema Committee report.
- Formed under retired High Court Justice K. Hema, the Committee investigated sexual harassment and gender inequality in the Malayalam film industry.
The Debate: Regulating Violence in Cinema through Censorship vs. Protecting Freedom of Expression
- Argument for Regulating Violence in Cinema:
- Excessive violence may influence society by normalizing harmful behaviors.
- Glorifying violence in films can have negative psychological effects, especially on impressionable audiences.
- Argument for Protecting Freedom of Expression:
- Cinema reflects societal realities, including violence, and should not be censored for mirroring them.
- Freedom of speech allows filmmakers to express diverse perspectives, even if they include violence.
Important Judgments on Film Censorship and Freedom of Speech:
- K.A. Abbas v. Union of India: SC upheld pre-censorship in films as a reasonable restriction for public morality under Article 19(2).
- S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram: SC emphasized balancing freedom of expression with public interest, permitting censorship only for valid reasons.
- Ramesh v. Union of India: SC protected documentary films from censorship based on public protests or political concerns.
- F.A. Picture International v. Central Board of Film Certification: Bombay High Court criticized unnecessary censorship, affirming the filmmaker's constitutional rights.
