Tags:
Journalism of Courage
From Memento and Novo to Fifty First Dates, the idea of a mind that can8217;t store memory is a compelling subject to spin a movie around. But this anterograde amnesia is decidedly less fun in real life, as the Jodhaa Akbar farce is repeated over and over again in different parts of the country as though the principle of free expression had to be rediscovered afresh each time. The film was first banned in Rajasthan after some Rajput groups claimed that historical facts were distorted. The Jaipur high court lifted the ban. Exactly the same thing happened in Madhya Pradesh. The ban was lifted, only to come down again in Uttar Pradesh, and then some places in Uttarakhand and Haryana. Now, the Supreme Court mulls the problem all over again 8212; to arrive at the same conclusion. Is there no such thing as institutional memory and judicial precedent?
The screening of a film is a fundamental right covered under free speech, and can be restricted only if it threatens public order. Our courts have underscored this freedom, time and again, even through controversial cases like the teleserial Tamas. They have also struck it down, most memorably in the banning of the The Satanic Verses. Either way, in determining standards of sensitivity, the ordinary and common sense perspective is privileged over that of a clutch of agitators. And as the Supreme Court famously ruled in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram , 8220;freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threats of demonstrations and violence. That would be tantamount to negation of the rule of law and surrender to blackmail and intimidation.8221;
