Shut your eyes

We are dismayed, to say the least, at the order passed by the Bombay High Court decreeing that no films with an 8216;A8217; of 8216;A/U8217; certification can be shown on private channels or cable television. While this ban applies only within Maharashtra8217;s borders it concerns us all since it has serious implications for how entertainment, freedom of expression and personal freedom are to be defined in this country. Pro-active morality crusaders with their narrow spectrum view of the world cannot be allowed to become the arbiters of contemporary mores and morals.

Ironically, even Doordarshan has a more open policy on adult viewing. Earlier this year, the I038;B ministry took a conscious decision not to indulge in censorship or cultural policing . It ruled that adult fare will be shown after 10 pm. This at least is an attempt to handle a controversial issue in a nuanced fashion, rather than imposing an arbitrary and blanket ban. In Britain, the film certification authority is actually refining yardsticks of certification in keeping with the complexity of the modern film narrative 8212; and the new classification of 8216;Romance and Intimacy8217; indicates this welcome approach. Why should we in India, then, decide that adults can only view what some construe as 8220;wholesome entertainment8221;?

In any case, how can such an order be implemented? Given the innumerable cable service providers in an average city, how can the fare they telecast be monitored and regulated? Rulings that fail the test of practicality undermine the authority of the court. We have as a newspaper always supported judicial interventions that have contributed to the well-being of citizens and good governance. The lead article on this page, for instance, has unconditionally supported the Bombay High Court order on the demolition of unauthorised constructions in Ulhasnagar. But court orders have to be implementable if they are to be taken with the seriousness due to the judicial process.