S RANGARAJAN VS P JAGJIVAN RAM (CASE SUMMARY)
The Supreme Court in S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) SCC (2) 574 held that open criticisms of Government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The story of the movie titled “Ore Uru Gramathile” revolved around a Brahmin girl getting Adi Dravida caste certificate to get admission into college. She subsequently cleared IAS. In the movie , there were some references to caste system encouraged by political system and also reference to Dr. Ambedkar. The producer applied for “U” certificate for exhibition of the film. Examining committee refused to grant certificate. The Revising Committee agreed to issue “U” certificate subject to deletion of certain scenes. Granting of “U” certificate was challenged before the Single Bench of High Court which was dismissed but the Division Bench of High Court revoked “U” certificate granted to movie. The matter finally reached to the Supreme Court.
FINDINGS OF THE SURPEME COURT
The Supreme Court observed that motion pictures were originally considered as 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 expression. But later decisions of American Supreme Court declared that expression by means of motion pictures are included within free speech and free press guarantee of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court noted that framework of Indian Constitution differs from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Article 19 (1) (a) guarantees all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. The freedom of expression means the right to express one’s opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture or any other manner. It would thus include the freedom of communication or the right to propagate or publish opinion. But these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement of offence. Framers of the Constitution intended to strike a balance between the liberty guaranteed and the social interest specified.
The Supreme Court observed that there is significant difference between the movie and other modes of communication. Movies have cumulative impact on the spectators. The movie has unique capacity to disturb and arouse feelings. It has as much potential for evil as it has for good. Censorship by prior consent is not only desirable but also necessary.
The Supreme Court did not agree with the view of the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that criticism of reservation policy or praising the colonial rule will not affect the security of the State and integrity of India. There is no utterance in the film threatening to overthrow the government by unlawful or unconstitutional means. There is no talk of secession.
The Supreme Court observed that in democracy it is not essential that everyone should sing the same song. Freedom of expression is the rule and taken for granted. Everyone has a fundamental right to form his own opinion on any issue of general concern. He can form and inform by any legitimate means.
The Supreme Court observed that movie is the legitimate and the most important medium in which issues of general concern can be treated. The producer may project his own messages which the others may not approve. The State cannot prevent open discussion and open expression, however hateful to its policies.
There does indeed have to be a compromise between the interest of freedom of expression and social interests. But the two interests simply cannot be balanced as if they are of equal weight. Our commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered. The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It should have proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest. In other words, the expression should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the equivalent of a “spark in the powder keg”.
The Supreme Court concluded that Fundamental Freedom under Article 19 (1) (a) can be reasonably restricted only for the purposes mentioned in Articles 19 (2) and restriction may be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicks and of convenience or expediency. Open criticisms of Government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and reversed the judgment of the High Court.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.