[Reader-list] Judgement Day - War and Peace (Jang Aur Aman) Vs Censorship

[Harsh Kapoor]

[Important victory for Freedom of Speech in India]


South Asia Citizens Wire  |  25 April,  2003

#2.

Judgement  Day - WAR AND PEACE (JANG AUR AMAN) Vs Censorship

24 April 2003. The Honorable Justices H. Gokhale and R. Desai of the 
Bombay High Court delivered their final verdict in the matter of the 
censorship of the film "War and Peace".

It may be recalled that the Central Board of Film Certification 
(CBFC) had ordered 21 cuts in this anti-war, anti-nuclear documentary 
film. The cuts included demands to delete footage depicting the 
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse, all mention of the 
Tehelka arms scandal, all statements made by Dalits and all speeches 
by political leaders.

We appealed to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) who 
reduced the cuts to two and also asked for an "addition" to the film. 
Aggrieved by these interventions we approached the Bombay High Court 
for redress. Following his petition, the CBFC shockingly filed a 
petition challenging the order of their own higher body (the FCAT) 
and demanding that all 21 cuts be re-imposed.

On 5th April during the course of arguments,  the Honourable judges 
asked the CBFC if they had ever in their history appealed against the 
orders of their own higher authority. The answer came in the 
negative. The judges then inquired as to what special interest the 
CBFC had in the matter of "War and Peace" that had prompted them to 
challenge the order of the FCAT. When no coherent reply was 
forthcoming the judges asked if the CBFC wanted to withdraw their 
petition. The CBFC  withdrew their petition challenging the order of 
the FCAT.

What remained in contention were the orders passed by the FCAT.  The 
following are some excerpts from the judgement delivered by Justices 
H. Gokhale and Ranjana Desai in the matter.

Excerpts from the Judgement

         " In the present case, the petitioner is trying to espouse 
the cause of peace and against war. It is in this context of making 
of this documentary that the above three scenes are incorporated 
therein. It is a matter of his legitimate right to decide as to what 
should be included therein and we have no hesitation in saying that 
neither of the two cuts recommended are in any way justified. The 
Petitioner has only recorded a demonstration in one scene and then 
the speech of a Dalit leader in another. It was his choice to include 
both these scenes and even what is stated by the demonstrators or in 
the speech of the Dalit leader, is not conflicting with the theme of 
the documentary. Similarly as far as the addition recommended is 
concerned, the Petitioner submits, and in our view rightly, that the 
same was totally uncalled for."

ŠŠ..  " Before we conclude, we would like to record the oft stated 
proposition that an issue may be one but there are many facets of 
looking at it. It is quite possible that the persons in authority 
today may feel that what they see is the only correct facet of it 
though it may not be so. It is only in a democratic form of 
government that the citizens have the right to express themselves 
fully and fearlessly as to what is their view point towards the 
events which are taking place around. By suppressing certain view 
point, it is not only the propagator of the view point who suffers 
but it is the society at large and equally the people in authority 
who suffer. This is because they fail to receive the counter view and 
it may eventually lead to an immense damage to society due to 
erroneous decision at the hands of the persons in authority in the 
absence of the counter view. That apart, the freedom of speech and 
expression is important not merely for the consequences that ensue in 
the absence thereof but since the negation of it runs as an 
anti-thesis to basic human values, instincts and creativity. It is 
high time that the persons in authority realize the significance of 
freedom of speech and expression rather than make and allow such 
attempts to stifle it."

I am deeply grateful to Advocate P.A. Sebastian who fought the case 
in the Bombay High Court, to Ms Nitya Ramakrishna and M.S. Ganesh who 
earlier represented the film before the FCAT in New Delhi and to the 
thousands of well wishers across the country and globe. We believe 
that this judgement will be a shot in the arm for all democratic and 
secular forces and for artists, writers, journalists and filmmakers 
in particular as it re-establishes the right to freedom of expression 
as guaranteed by our Constitution.

Anand Patwardhan [Mumbai, India]