NEW DELHI: Bollywood heroes can now light up without fearing the Union health minister.
Calling it a violation of fundamental rights and artistic freedom, the Delhi high court on Friday set aside the ban imposed by the government on depiction of smoking on screen.
Quashing the ban piloted by the Union health ministry under Anbumani Ramadoss, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said: "Directors of films should not have multifarious authorities breathing down their necks when indulging in creative acts...a film can't be made only with moral lectures as they often reflect negative aspects of society."
Terming smoking as a reality of life, Justice Kaul said: "Prostitution may not be desirable but it does exist. It is accordingly shown in films. The same may be the position of a lot of other habits or social evils." He added, "A film must reflect the realities of life. Smoking is a reality of life. It may be undesirable but it exists. It is not banned by any law. To shift the burden on the director to curb smoking would be wholly violative of Article 19 (1) (a)."
Justice Kaul rejected the rules passed by the government in October 2006 as an umpire judge after a division bench had given a split verdict last year. "The tendency to put restriction on cinematographic and artistic freedom is often found to be the easiest path," he said. Authorities must "take into consideration the requirements of creative field which has to be dealt with on a separate pedestal".
Deciding in favour of film director Mahesh Bhatt's petition challenging the Centre's notification, the court pointed out how films routinely depict gambling and kidnapping which "can't be prohibited to promote an idealistic socity...in fact what can be more reprehensible than rape? Yet it is shown in films."
The judge was of the view that since a Censor Board was already in place to supervise what could be depicted, an additional law was uncalled for. "Any form of censorship is an inroad on the freedom of expression apart from the fact that censorship is highly subjective and can be essentially mindless...To per se depict such an act without glamourizing it or promoting any particular product cannot be prohibited as it would bar a representation of how life is."
In February last year, an HC division bench had delivered a split verdict on the issue with both judges disagreeing if the government was justfied. Bhatt in his petition had challenged the constitutional validity of a provision in the Cigarettes and other Tobacco products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, The Economic Times, Supply and Distribution) Act 2003, which bans on-screen smoking.
The health ministry, under Ambumani Ramadoss, had pushed for the ban imposed in 2006 contending that on-screen depiction of smoking is against public interest as people try to imitate their stars' actions and get tempted to take up smoking which is injurious to health.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Delhi_HC_stubs_out_ban_on_smoking_on-screen/articleshow/4024003.cms
Calling it a violation of fundamental rights and artistic freedom, the Delhi high court on Friday set aside the ban imposed by the government on depiction of smoking on screen.
Quashing the ban piloted by the Union health ministry under Anbumani Ramadoss, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said: "Directors of films should not have multifarious authorities breathing down their necks when indulging in creative acts...a film can't be made only with moral lectures as they often reflect negative aspects of society."
Terming smoking as a reality of life, Justice Kaul said: "Prostitution may not be desirable but it does exist. It is accordingly shown in films. The same may be the position of a lot of other habits or social evils." He added, "A film must reflect the realities of life. Smoking is a reality of life. It may be undesirable but it exists. It is not banned by any law. To shift the burden on the director to curb smoking would be wholly violative of Article 19 (1) (a)."
Justice Kaul rejected the rules passed by the government in October 2006 as an umpire judge after a division bench had given a split verdict last year. "The tendency to put restriction on cinematographic and artistic freedom is often found to be the easiest path," he said. Authorities must "take into consideration the requirements of creative field which has to be dealt with on a separate pedestal".
Deciding in favour of film director Mahesh Bhatt's petition challenging the Centre's notification, the court pointed out how films routinely depict gambling and kidnapping which "can't be prohibited to promote an idealistic socity...in fact what can be more reprehensible than rape? Yet it is shown in films."
The judge was of the view that since a Censor Board was already in place to supervise what could be depicted, an additional law was uncalled for. "Any form of censorship is an inroad on the freedom of expression apart from the fact that censorship is highly subjective and can be essentially mindless...To per se depict such an act without glamourizing it or promoting any particular product cannot be prohibited as it would bar a representation of how life is."
In February last year, an HC division bench had delivered a split verdict on the issue with both judges disagreeing if the government was justfied. Bhatt in his petition had challenged the constitutional validity of a provision in the Cigarettes and other Tobacco products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, The Economic Times, Supply and Distribution) Act 2003, which bans on-screen smoking.
The health ministry, under Ambumani Ramadoss, had pushed for the ban imposed in 2006 contending that on-screen depiction of smoking is against public interest as people try to imitate their stars' actions and get tempted to take up smoking which is injurious to health.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Delhi_HC_stubs_out_ban_on_smoking_on-screen/articleshow/4024003.cms
No comments:
Post a Comment