S Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court protected a film’s right to be shown. A movie is speech under Article 19(1)(a). The State cannot block it just because some groups threaten protests or violence. The correct answer is to keep order, not to silence the speaker.
- Films are a protected medium of communication.
- No “heckler’s veto”: threats cannot trump free speech.
- U certificate restored; democratic debate must stay open.
Issues
- Are films protected speech under Article 19(1)(a)?
- Can exhibition be stopped due to fear of demonstrations or violence?
Rules
- Constitution — Article 19(1)(a) (speech) subject to Article 19(2) (reasonable restrictions).
- Films — A recognized medium of expression; certification cannot bow to hostile threats.
Facts (Timeline)
1987: Producers of a Tamil film (“In One Village”) sought certification for public exhibition.
The Examining Committee refused a certificate.
On review, a Second Revising Committee suggested a U certificate with minor deletions. Some opposed, alleging bias against the Government’s reservation policy.
Dec 1987: U certificate granted. It was challenged in the High Court.
A Single Judge dismissed the petitions. A Division Bench later accepted them and revoked the certificate, relying on dissent in the Revising Committee.
Appeal reached the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Appellant (Producer)
- Film is protected speech under Article 19(1)(a).
- CBFC’s U certificate, after edits, should stand.
- Opposition or threats cannot justify a ban.
Respondent (Opponents/State)
- Film portrays reservation policy unfairly; may disturb public order.
- Revocation protects harmony and avoids unrest.
Judgment
The Supreme Court restored the film’s U certificate. The views of the producer may be right or wrong, but in a democracy, such views may be shown and debated. The State must guard free speech and maintain order; it cannot silence speech because others threaten to break the law.
- Hostile audience cannot command censorship.
- Article 19(1)(a) covers films; Article 19(2) limits must be applied narrowly.
- High Court order was set aside; appeal allowed.
Ratio
Films are speech. The State cannot suppress expression due to anticipated protests. The duty is to ensure security and allow exhibition, unless a valid Article 19(2) ground is clearly met.
Why It Matters
- Rejects the “heckler’s veto” in Indian free speech law.
- Guides film certification standards toward liberty, not fear.
- Strengthens democratic debate on sensitive policies.
Key Takeaways
- Article 19(1)(a) protects cinema as speech.
- Threat of disorder ≠ valid reason to ban.
- Use policing, not censorship, to handle protests.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “FILM ≠ FEAR” — Film is speech; fear cannot silence.
- Identify expression → film = Article 19(1)(a).
- Check limits → only clear 19(2) grounds.
- Reject heckler’s veto → protect, don’t suppress.
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Rule | Application | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a film protected speech? | Art. 19(1)(a) + 19(2) | Certification cannot depend on hostile threats | Yes, films are protected |
| Can fear of protests justify a ban? | Reasonable restrictions only | State must ensure order, not silence | No, ban invalid |
Glossary
- Heckler’s veto
- When the State suppresses speech because opponents threaten disruption.
- U certificate
- A certificate allowing universal exhibition, sometimes after cuts.
- Reasonable restriction
- Limits under Article 19(2) like security, public order, decency.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now