Premium
This is an archive article published on November 10, 2005

Smoking in films: I&B, Health to file different affidavits

It would probably be for the first time that the government of India would be filing two sets of opinion on the same issue before the court ...

.

It would probably be for the first time that the government of India would be filing two sets of opinion on the same issue before the court of law.

With the ministries of Information and Broadcasting and Health failing to reach a consensus on the banning of smoking scenes in films, the government view will constitute two sets of affidavits in the Delhi High Court. Hearing a petition filed by film director Mahesh Bhatt seeking quashing of the ban, Delhi High Court issued a notice to the Centre as the respondent. The government is scheduled to present its views on Thursday.

‘‘The I&B Ministry’s views differ from those of the Health Ministry. Therefore it would file a different affidavit in the court,’’ said a source.

Story continues below this ad

The I&B ministry claims that the health ministry has neither incorporated I&B views in the proposal nor clarified why the Tobacco Act should supercede the Cable Act or the Cinematographic Act.

Bhatt’s petition alleges that the ban, which is being imposed on the basis of the Tobacco Act, infringes on the liberties allowed to the art of filmmaking under the Cinematographic act.

Despite the suggestion of the I&B Ministry that the ban be imposed only from April 2, 2006, the Union Health Ministry has sought its implementation from January 1.

I&B had ruled out a cover ban on smoking scenes saying it was impractical. It had suggested that disclaimers, saying ‘smoking is injurious to health’, should be be mandatory for scenes showing the use of tobacco. It also said that cropping or masking of such scenes in foreign films, as sought by the health ministry in the ban notifications, was not possible.

Story continues below this ad

The I&B Ministry had suggested that smoking should be allowed in films that required it for historical or characterisation needs, if it was an integral part of the storyline or if it was not done in a manner that glorified smoking.

However, the ministry feels, these suggestions were ignored and it would therefore have to clarify its stand separately in the court.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement