Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 135 (1.39 seconds)
Documents citing K. A. Abbas vs The Union Of India & Anr on 24 September, 1970

Bata India Ltd. vs A.M. Turaz & Ors. on 15 October, 2012

A similar question came up before this Court in K.A. Abbas v. The Union of India, [1971] 2 SCR 446 wherein Chief Justice Hidayatullah exhaustively dealt with the question of prior restraint in the context of the provisions of the Constitution and the Act. The learned Chief Justice after setting out the various provisions to which we have already adverted posed the questions; `How far can these restrictions go and how are these to be imposed'? The documentary film ` A tale of four cities' made by K.A. Abbas portrayed the contrast between the luxuious life of the rich and the squalor and poverty of the poor in the four principal cities of the country and included therein shots from the red light district of Bombay showing scantily dressed women soliciting customers by standing near the doors and windows. The Board of Film Censors granted `A' certificate to the film and refused the `U' certificate sought by Abbas. This was on the ground that the film dealt with relations between sexes in such a manner as to depict immoral traffic in women and because the film contained incidents unsuitable for young persons. Abbas challenged the Board's decision on the ground (i) that pre-censorship cannot be tolerated as it was in violation of the freedom of speech and expression and (ii) even if it is considered legitimate it must be exercised on well-defined principles leaving no room for arbitrary decisions. This Court held that censorship in Indian had full justification in the field of exhibition of films since it was in the interest of society and if the legitimate power in abused it can be struck down. While dealing with the grounds on which the `U' certificate was refused, the learned Chief Justice observed: "The task of the censor is extremely delicate and his duties cannot be the subject of an exhaustive set of commands established by prior ratiocination. But direction is necessary of him so that he does not sweep within the terms of the directions vast areas of thought, speech and expression of artistic quality and social purpose and interest. Our standards must be so framed that we are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least capable and the most depraved amongst us determines what the morally healthy cannot view or read. The standards that we set for our censors must make a substantial allowance in favour of freedom thus leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret life and society with some of its foibles along with what is good. We CS(OS) No. 3010/2012 Page 36 of 66 must not look upon such human relationships as banned in toto and for ever from human thought and must give scope for talent to put them before society. The requirements of art and literature include within themselves a comprehensive view of social life and not only in its ideal from and the line is to be drawn where the average man moral man begins to feel embarrassed or disgusted at a naked portrayal of life without the redeeming touch of art or genius or social value. If the depraved begins to see in these things more than what an average person would, in much the same way, as it is wrongly said, a Frenchman sees a woman's legs in everything, it cannot be helped. In our scheme of things ideas having redeeming social or artistic value must also have importance and protection for their growth."
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 12 - K Gambhir - Full Document

M/S. Park View Enterprises And Others vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 18 October, 1998

89. Mr. Sundaravaradan, learned Counsel, would state that these provisions lead to 'a sea of uncertainly' in their implementation, and relies on K. A. Abbas v. Union of India, , which deals with provisions ot Cinematograph Act, wherein it was held that the direction issued by the Central Government under S. 5B(2) is void for vagueness. It was emphasised therein as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 149 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

N.V.Sankaran Alias Gnani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 January, 2013

"15.The right of a film-maker to make and exhibit his film, is a part of his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. A film is a medium for expressing and communicating ideas, thoughts, messages, information, feelings and emotions. It may be intended either for public exhibition (commercial or non-commercial) or purely for private use. The requirement under Sections 4 and 5-A of the Act relating to certification by the Board, where the film is intended for public exhibition, by applying the guidance principles set out in Section 5-B, is a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the said right of speech and expression contemplated under Article 19(2), and therefore, constitutional (vide K.A. Abbas v. Union of India1, S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram2 and LIC of India v. Manubhai D. Shah3). But the question here is not whether the requirement that films can be released for public exhibition, only if they possess a certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification, is a reasonable restriction. The question is whether the Government can impose a condition that the entry of films for the Awards will be restricted to only those which possess a certificate issued by the Board under Section 5-A of the Act. Whether the Government should encourage the production of films with aesthetic and technical excellence and social relevance, whether such encouragement should be by giving awards periodically or annually, and if it decides to give such awards, whether the field of competition should be restricted only to films which have been certified by the Board, are all matters of policy of the Government."
Madras High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 5 - K Chandru - Full Document

Crossword Entertainment Private ... vs Central Board Of Film Certification & ... on 11 December, 2017

25. Examining the underlying theme and storyline of the subject film "Mohalla Assi" in context of the above principles, as contended by the petitioner, the film is a poignant tale of how culturally 2 K.A.Abbas Vs. Union of India & Another (supra) 3 Phantom Films Private Limited Vs. The Central Board of Certification (supra) 4 Bobby Art International etc.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - S Sachdeva - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Film Federation Of India And Anr. on 14 October, 1988

In Ranjit D. Udeshi's case, , the Supreme Court laid down certain principles on which the obscenity of a picture was to be considered with a view to decide whether the book should be allowed to circulate or withdrawn As observed by the Supreme Court in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, that the said principles apply mutatis mutandis to films and also other areas besides obscenity. The Khosla committee adopted them and recommended them for the guidance of the film censors. These principles which have been summarised by the Khosla Committee in its report have been reproduced in the case of K.A. Abbas. The Khosla Committee said---
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next