Head to Head

Thaang and Quest, How do you legally establish this changing scenario in your petition? In the matter of K A Abbas v/s Union of India (1970), a five-judge bench of the Supreme Cout ruled that cinematographic films in theatres were the most influential media of mass communication affecting the social mind, so exercise of censorship under the said Act was valid and necessary. The social situation based on which that decision was given has changed to such an extent that the decision needs to be overruled by a larger bench of the SC. Today modern technology makes dissemination of information possible in real time through various media, many of which are either not regulated or if regulated, not subject to pre-censorship. In 1980, Doordarshan was the only public service broadcaster. Now we have over 800 registered television channels, 1000s of local cable channels, and over 780 million TV viewers. By June 2017, the number of internet users shall reach about 450 million. With the onslaught of television and internet, we are increasingly “interfacing” with cultural data encoded in the digital form. It’s no longer “cinema” but “the digitised world” which is the 21st century media machine binding the universe. The direct corollary of this is that if the content presented/exhibited/uploaded on either of these avenues is free of censorship or precensorship, what is the rationale behind the same content getting cut/altered/deleted and thereby censored when and if exhibited in a cinema hall? This amounts to discrimination barred by

The Benegal Committee Report is an outcome of a very serious study of the present legal provisions