Freedom supreme 

Freedom supreme 

Context

The apex court’s order on ‘Padmaavat’ underlines truths which are conveniently forgotten, to the unholy glee of the mob

The Real issue

While Indian governments have perfected the art of the ban on the convenient fear of public disorder, the Supreme Court has returned the focus of the debate over the suppression of culture to the real issue: Protection of the constitutional right to free expression.

Back to the right question

The question is no longer: “Are anyone’s sentiments hurt?” It is back to: “Are fundamental rights curtailed?”

SC View

While hearing a petition against the selective banning by states of Padmaavat

• Once a film has been cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it has the right to state protection for screenings
• States cannot suspend screenings citing law and order concerns
• Rather, it is their duty to firmly address them.
• The decisions of a statutory body like the CBFC must be honoured, for otherwise it would be rendered irrelevant.

Principles trampled

• These principles, and the primacy of free speech, were overridden for decades by the law and order concerns of various governments, which gave free rein to vandals to create a state of lawlessness and disorder
• Once established, the fear that the state will not protect free speech rights is not readily dispelled. It was established by the then UPA government’s failure to prevent M F Husain being hounded out of the country by a mob.

But quality of debate better now

• But the quality of the debate has taken a turn for the better with this case.
• The apex court has prescribed all attempts to override the CBFC’s clearance thus reinforcing the power of the institution.
• In addition, it has made it the business of state governments to ensure screenings and protect the cinema crew.

Another question for another day

And, most interestingly, Harish Salve, counsel for the plaintiff Viacom18, has promised — and he should be applauded for that — to argue “someday”

• for the artist’s right to distort history

This is the argument which will sunder (split apart) the Gordian knot (an extremely difficult or involved problem) in which history, myth and tradition are now messily bound up.

History is different from folk tales, myth

Rigorous history stands apart from folk histories, myth and creative traditions. The first must be respected, while the others are ever-changing playthings and talismans which have entertained generations and given meaning to their lives. 

Conclusion

Unless we can tell one from the other, we run the risk of being rendered speechless