Kerala moves SC against Governor again

General Studies Paper 2

Context:

An ongoing case before the Kerala High Court on restricting negative reviews of films in the first few days of their release constitutes an interesting as well as challenging free speech issue.

Introduction

• The court has taken on the task of distinguishing genuine film criticism from attempts to destroy a movie’s prospects of success through malicious comments, or by threatening to post negative reviews with a view to extorting money.
• It appears that the court is aware of the implications of any move to restrict or curb disparaging reviews for free speech and freedom of expression, but it remains to be seen how it will be able to balance the commercial interests of film-makers and the freedom of reviewers.

Free speech

• Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But around the world, there are governments and those wielding power who find many ways to obstruct it.
• They impose high taxes on newsprint, making newspapers so expensive that people can’t afford to buy them. Independent radio and TV stations are forced off the air if they criticize Government policy. The censors are also active in cyberspace, restricting the use of the Internet and new media.

Article 19 (1) 0f the Indian Constitution

• Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India states that, all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
• The philosophy behind this Article lies in the Preamble of the Constitution, where a solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizen, liberty of thought and expression.
• The exercise of this right is, however, subject to reasonable restrictions for certain purposes being imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

Key features of the right

• This right is available only to a citizen of India and not to foreign nationals.
• The freedom of speech under Article 19(1) (a) includes the right to express one’s views and opinions at any issue through any medium, e.g. by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, film, movie etc.
• This right is, however, not absolute and it allows Government to frame laws to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency and morality and contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.

Recent issue

• Film director Mubeen Rauf had approached the court for a direction to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry and the State Information Technology Department, among others, to ensure that social media influencers and film reviewing vloggers do not publish any reviews of his film Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam in social media for at least seven days from the date of its release.
• Remarks and observations made so far in interlocutory orders suggest that the court’s focus is mainly on those who either post anonymously or vloggers with unknown credentials who trash films within hours of their release with apparently malicious intent, and do not threaten the freedom of film reviewers with acknowledged expertise and experience.

Court’s order

• In an order on October 25, Justice Devan Ramachandran directed that “a close watch on the online platforms shall be maintained, to ensure that anonymous mala fide content is not allowed to circulate; and necessary action under the provisions of the “IT Act” [Information Technology Act] shall be taken and implemented scrupulously without delay”. Interestingly, the order also notes that apparently due to the very pendency of these proceedings, the film made by the petitioner had a good run at the box office as it was spared “review bombing”, the term that has gained currency for the phenomenon of deliberate spoiling of a film’s prospects.

Conclusion

• The court’s observation in its latest order that the freedom of those involved in making a film should not be sacrificed at the altar of the “unbridled freedom of expression” of those acting under the impression that they are not governed by any parameters or regulations should not lead to a verdict either curbing the freedom to critically analyze a film or an attempt to restrict the art of criticism. After all, making and reviewing a film are both two aspects of the same right to free speech.