Responsibility to protect | The Hindu

1 of 1

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/responsibility-to-protect/artic...

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 government
has recused itself from a fundamental responsibility that of protecting the right to free expression. It has relied on
the old chestnut maintenance of law and order and public tranquillity to justify the indefensible. That a clutch
of fringe Muslim organisations had protested against the film, claiming to be offended by its alleged depiction of the
community in a negative light, hardly justifies restraining its screening. If a threat of violence was anticipated, the
right response would have been to ensure that the necessary security arrangements were provided to ensure its
smooth screening rather than slap a temporary ban. Whether a film contains objectionable elements, and whether it
may be screened or not, are decisions that vest with the Central Board for Film Certification, constituted under the
stringent Cinematograph Act, 1952. It is difficult to believe that a film which passes through the process of
pre-censorship with its rigid guidelines contains material that would upset the sentiments of a religious community
and 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 order
threat does not justify such action. In 2006, the Supreme Court adopted this position while dismissing a petition
seeking to bar the screening of The Da Vinci Code; a little later, the Madras High Court quashed the Tamil Nadu
governments order suspending the screening of the film on the ground that it may lead to demonstrations and
disturb the peace and tranquillity of the state. The landmark case, which set the tone for these and related
judgments is S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagajivan Ram, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the right of the
former, a film producer, to release Ore Oru Gramathile, which was critical of the reservation policy in Tamil Nadus
educational institutions. In a stirring judgment that underlined that it was the duty of the state to protect the right
to unpopular forms of speech, the court held that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat
of demonstration and processions or threat of violence. As it observed, this would be tantamount to negation of
the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation. Given the precedents, it is highly doubtful that the
Tamil Nadu governments ban on Vishwaroopam will withstand judicial scrutiny. In capitulating before those who
protested against the film, the State has only passed the buck on its screening to the judiciary. Could this be exactly
what 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

6/3/2013 7:00 AM