Holding

The Supreme Court held that the serial does not violate the Cinematograph Act, the Constitution or the IPC, and therefore the petition for prohibition was dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to stop the further telecast of the TV serial "Tamas", alleging that its content would incite communal violence and violate Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution as well as Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and IPC sections 153A/153B. The serial, based on Bhisham Sahni's novel, depicts pre‑Partition Hindu‑Muslim and Sikh‑Muslim tensions and was granted a "U" certificate by the Central Board of Film Censors. The Bombay High Court, after viewing the entire serial, held that the film conveyed a message of peace, historical truth and the futility of violence, and that an average viewer would understand this lesson. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's view, emphasizing that the examining committee’s unanimous approval must be given full weight and that the standard of the ordinary reasonable person applies. It found no danger to public order, no violation of Articles 21 or 25, and dismissed the petition and the special leave petition.

Issues considered

Whether the telecast of "Tamas" violates Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 by being likely to incite offences or disturb public order.
Whether the serial infringes fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
Whether the content amounts to an offence under IPC sections 153A and 153B for promoting communal disharmony.
Whether the certification process under the Cinematograph Act was lawfully complied with.

Legislation cited

Cinematograph Act, 1952s. 3, s. 4, s. 4A, s. 5, s. 5A, s. 5B, s. 5C, s. 5D, s. 6
Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 25, s. Article 32
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 153A, s. 153B

Subjects

Cinematograph ActTelevision censorshipCommunal harmonyPublic orderFundamental rightsFreedom of expressionSection 5BIPC 153AArticle 21Article 25

Judgment

RAMESH·S/0 CHOTALAL DALAL
A
V.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

FEBRUARY 16, 1988

ISABYASACHI• MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] B

Cinematograph Act, 1952-Sections 3, 4, 4A, 5 and 5A to 5D-
T.V. Serial 'Tamas'-Screening of-Censor Board approving exhibi-
tion of film-Unanimous approval of examining committee to be given
full weight-Two High Court Judges saw film and approved the same--
No reason to differ from conclusions.
c
Constitution of India-Screening of serial-Whether an alleged
violation of Articles 21and25 of the Constitution.

The Serial titled "Tamas", based on a book written by Sree
Bhisham Sahni, was being screened on the T.V. Four of its episodes had D
"+ already been shown when the petitioner moved this Conrt under Article
32 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition and any other appro-
priate writ restraining its further screening and to enforce petitioner's
fundamental rights under Articles 2 t and 25 and for declaring the
screening or televising of "Tamas" as violative of section SB of the
Cinematograph Act, 1952. E

' Earlier, a writ had been admitted in the High Court of Bombay
and a single learned Judge granted interim stay. On appeal, the Divi-
sion Bench, after seeing the complete serial, vacated the stay. Special
leave petition has been filed against that judgment.
F
·'J Serial 'Tamas' takes us to a historical past-unpleasant at times,
r but revealing and instructive. In those years which 'Tamas' depicts, a
.human tragedy of gj'eat dimension took place in this sub-continent
though 40 years ago-which has left a lasting damage to the Indian
psyche.
G
'Tamas' depicts the Hindu-Muslim and Sikh-Muslim tension he-
y fore the partition of India and the killings and looting that took place.
According to the Division Bench of the High Court, the serial inter alia
depicts how communal violence was generated by fundamentalists and
extremists in both communities, how innocent persons were duped into
serving the ulterior purpose of fundamentalists, and how extremist ele- H
1011
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A ments infused tension and hatred for their own ends.

The petitioner's contentions are: (t) The exhibition of the serial is
against public order and is likely to incite the peQple to indulge in the
commission Qf llffences and is therefore violative of section SB( t\ of the
Cinematograpb Act, 1952 and destructive of principles embodied under
B Article 25; (2) Its presentation is likely to promote feelings of enmity,
hatred or ill-will among different religious groups and is prejudicial to
communal harmony and national integration, and is therefore an off-
ence under section 153A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) Events have been
depicted and characters portrayed in a manner that would provoke and
instigate people of all ages exposed to it, who will fail to grasp the
message if any behind the serial; (4) Truth in its naked form may not
C always and in all circumstances be desirable to be told or exhibited, and
(5) The Judges of the High Court have viewed the mm from their own
point of view but the average persons in the country are not as sober
and experienced as the Judges of the High Court.

D The respondents on the other hand, urge that all the appropriate
I t· ,
authorities have considered the film suitable for unrestricted public
exhibition and the only question is whether the film bas been misjudged
or wrongly judged and allowed to be exhibited or serialised on a wrong
approach. This film indubitably depicts violence. That violence between
the communities took place before the pre-partition days is a fact and it
E is the truth.

Dismissing the petitions, this Court,

HELD: ( t) The Cinematograpb Act itself contains several
provisions to ensure the fuliIJment of the conditions laid down in sec-
F tion SB, and also tii ensure that any film which is likely to offend the
religious susceptibilities of the people is not screened for public exhi- __J/
bition. [1021G-H] 1
(2) On the aforesaid statute, as it presently stands, the procedure
for grant of certificate of exhibition to a film is quite elaborate, and the
G unanimous approval by the examining committee must be given full
weight and the Court would be slow to interfere with the conclusion of a
body specially constituted for this purpose. [1022C-D]

(3) The correct approach in judging the effect of exhibition of a
film or of readinjl a book is to judge from the standards of ordinary
I-J reasonable man. [1019C-D]
RAMESH v. U.0.1. 1013

( 4) The two learned Judges viewed the film from the point of view
A
of "how the average person for whom the film is intended will view it."
They have found that the message of the picture was good, and have
come to the conclusion that the average person will learn from the
mistakes of the past and realise the machination of the fundamentalists'
as the film itself shows how realisation ultimately dawns as to the futility
of violence and hatred and how the inherent goodness in human nature B
triumphs. In their view, those who forget history are condemned to
repeat it. It is ollt of tragic experience of the past that we can fashion
our present in a rational and reasonable manner and view our future
with wisdom and care. Awareness in proper light is a first step towards
the realisation. [ 1022F-H]

(5) The finding of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
c
is that the picture viewed in its entirely, is capable of creating a lasting
impression of the message of peace and co-existence, and that people

,
are not likely to be obsessed, overwhelmed or carried away by the
scenes of violence or fanaticism shown in the film. This Court sees no
reason to differ from the conclusion. [1024D I D

(6) It is the lesson of history that naked truth in all times will not
be beneficial but truth in its proper light indicating the evils and the
consequences of those evils is instructive and that message is there in
'Tamas'. [I023D]
E
(7) It is true that a writer or a preacher should cling to truth and
right, if the very heavens fall. This is a universally accepted basis. Yet
in practice all schools alike are forced to admit the necessity of a measure
of accommodation in the very interests of truth itself. I1023B I

(8) Judged by all standards of a common man's point of view of F
'-1 presenting history with a lesson in this film, these boundaries appear to
l have been kept in mind. [1023C-D]

(9) The Court is unable to see any alleged violation of Articles 21
and 25 of the Constitution. The position that the petitioner has a right to
draw attention of this Court to ensure that the communal atmosphere is G
kept clean and unpolluted, is accepted. He has done well to draw atten-
y tion to this danger. This Court has examined and found that there is no
snch danger and the respondents have not acted improperly or
imprudently. [1024E-F]

Bhagwati Charan.Shukla v. Provincial Government, A.I.R. 1947 H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A Nagpur \; K.A. Abbas v. The Union of India and Another, [1971] 2 Y
S.C.R. 446; Ebrahim Sulaiman Sail v. M.C. Muhammad and Anr.,
[1980] l S.C.R. 1148 and Rajkapoor v. Laxman, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 512,
referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 107 of
B. 1988.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) i
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Dr. N.M. Ghatate and S.V. Deshpande for the
Petitioner.
c Kuldeep Singh, Additional Solicitor General, Soli J. Sorabjee,.
Parimal K. Shroff, P.H. Parekh, Sanjay Bhartari and Miss A. Sub-
hashini for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This writ petition was disposed
of by our Order dated lst of February, 1988, we indicated therein that
we will give our reasons shortly. This we do by this judgment.
RAMESH v. U.0.1. (MUKHARJI, J.) 1015

)'" .Justice Lentin and Justice Mrs. Sujata Manohar saw the. complete A
serial on 22nd of January, 1988 and vacated the stay by an order dated
23rd of Janu•.ry, 1988. The judgment is impugned in the special leave
petition which is taken on board and is also disposed of by this com-
mon judgment. It may also be mentioned that four episodes of the said
_ serial have already been telecast. · >·

B
The petitioner states that the exhibition of the said serial is
against public order and is likely to incite tl:te people to indulge in the
commission of offences and it is therefore, violative of section 5B (1)
of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and
destructive of principle embodied under Article 25 of the Constitution.
I It is also contended that under section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, c
"\ this presentation is likely to promote or attempts to promote, on
grounds of religion, caste or community, disharmony or feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill-will among different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes; or comm_!'llities and is further prejudicial to
the maintenance of harmony betiveen different' religious, racial,
language or regional groups and incites people to participate or trains D
them to the use or criminal force or violence or participate. in such
)' criminal acts. So, therefore, it is an offence under section 153A of the
Indian Penal Code. Our attention was drawn to section 153B of the
Indian Penal Code and it was submitted that the serial is prejudicial to
.I,.-- the national integration. ·
E
Serial "Tamas" depicts the Hindu-Muslim tension and sikh-
muslim tension before the partition of India. It further shows how the
killings and looting took place between these communities before the
,._ pre-independence at Lahore. "Tamas" is based on a book written by
Sree Bhisham Sahni. It depicts the period prior to partition and how
., ··-communal violence was generated by fundamentalists and extremists F
. in both communities and how innocent persons were duped into serv-
ing the ulterior purpose of fundamentalists and communities of both
sides and how an innocent boy is ~duced to violence resultillg in his
harming both communities. It further shows how extremist elements in
both communities infused tension and hatred for their own ends. That
is how the two learned Judges of the mill Court of Bombay men- G
...,_ tioned hereinbefore have viewed it. They have also seen.that realisa-
r tion ultimately dawns as to the futility of it all and finally how inherent
goodness in human mind triumphs and both communities learn to live
in amity. They saw that the people learnt this lesson in a hard way.
This is the opinion expressed by two experienced Judges of the High
Court after viewing the serial. H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] 2 S.C.R.

A The location of the story is Lahore. The period is just before ~
independence. The very introductory part of the serial wb;c".was tele-
cast on 9th of January, 1988 displayed that the ide2 ;. ·. ·~, . Jage
behind the serial is to keep people away from getting ill :" '• .< ;,. "''eh
violence arising out of communal animosity. By te:; ..'..',;.,.; it on
Doordarshan, Dr. Chitale appearing for the petitioner said, now seen
B by vast majority of people, the said serial is exposed to person of all .
ages, who will fail to grasp the message if any behind the serial. The~
.veryfirst serial, according to the petitioner, depicts one person who is
reported to be a member of Scheduled Caste from the Hindu commu-
nity being asked by one Thekedar to get a pig killed and bring its dead
. body in order to serve the meal for an English man. The dead body is
shown to be axed and collected by one person named 'Kalu' who is \
C represented to be a Christian. Kalu gets a dead pig from the said )"
member of the Scheduled Caste Hindu who killed it. That dead pig is
shown to be found at the door steps of a mosque. This, according to
the petitioner, was provocative and was bound to result in instigation
in Hindus against Muslims and consequently to rouse Muslim anger
D resulting in some reaction on the part of the Muslims, which in its own
tum 1is bound to have reaction by way of some acts of violence on the
part of Hindus. According to the petitioner, the total result would be '(
that there is likelihood that members of both the c:Ommunities will
· rise in passion and anger against each other and take to acts which
would lead to communal violence and riots.
E
The petitioner further states that in the first episode shown on
9th J antiary, 1988 one elderly Hindu who is depicted as a 'Guru', a
preceptor, and is shown as giving inspiration/advice and instigation to
a young boy to practise violence, to begin with, by asking the boy to~
cut the throat of the hen, and when' the boy gets nervous and shows his
·'-.. F . unwillingness and unpreparedness, the Guru warns him that unless he
·,. showed his courage to kill a hen to begin with, how can he become
'· bold and courageous to kill his enemy. The petitioner further alleges
that in the background of this incident and in context 'of what precedes
__ and succeeds this incident between the Guru and the boy, it is clear
that Guru has instigated the boy to get into the trend of thought and
G i feeling to be ready to commit violence against his enemies, in oreder
to kill them, and on viewing the first part of the said serial as a whole
this instigation is to Hindu young boys to take to violence against '(
Muslims. This is nothing but promoting feelings of enmity and hatred
between Hindus and Muslims.

H The petitioner further states that in the first serial the dialogue
RAMESH v. U.0.1. [MUKHARJI, J.) 1017

·y between the Hindu leaders and Muslim leaders is so arranged that
A
Indian National Congress is suggested to be a Hindu Organisation. In
" -.,, the present background, therefore, the petitioner claims that the ex-
hibition of said serial is likely to create communal disharmony.

"Tamas" had been given 'U' certificate by the Central Board of
Film Censor. In this connection we may refer to the relevant provi- B
sions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which is an Act to make provi-
sion for the certification of cinematograph films for eithibition and for
regulating exhibitions by means of cinematograph. Section 3 of the
Act provides for Board of Film Censors. Section 4 of the Act provides
for examination of films. A film is examined in the first instance by an
Examining Committee under section 4A and, in certain circumstances,
it is further examined by a Revising Committee under section 5. Mem-
c
~
'

hers of both the Committees are expected to set out not only their
recommendations but also the reasons therefore in cases where there
is difference of opinion amongst the members of the Committee. Sec-
tion 5A of the Act provides that if a(ter examining a film or having it
examined in the prescribed manner, the Board considers that the film D
. I is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition, such a certificate is given
which is called 'U' certificate. Section 5B of the Act provides for
g11,idance in certifying films. The said section 5B provides as follows:

"5-B. Principles for guidance in certifying films-(1) A
~ film shall not be entitled for public exhibition if, in the
opinion of the authority competent to grant the certificate,
E

~ the film or any part of it is against the interests of (the
sovereignty and integrity of India) the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency
or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of Court
or is likely to incite the commission of any offence. F

(2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-
section (1) the Central Government may issue such direc-
tions as it may think fit setting out the principles which shall
guide the authority competent to grant certificates under
'f this Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition." G

y Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act provides for the constitu-
tion of Appellate Tribunals, consisting of persons who are familiar
with the social, cultural or political institutions of India, have special
knowledge of the various regions of India and also special knowledge
of films and their impact on society, to hear appeals from the orders of H
'
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988) 2 S.C.R.

A the Censor Board. Under section 5D, as it stands at present, the Tri- y·
bunal can hear appeals by persons who, having applied for a certificate
in respect of a film, are aggrieved by an order of the Board refusing to '1' ~
grant a certificate or granting a restricted certificate or directing the
appellant to carry out certain excisions or modifications in the film. In
addition, there is also an overall revisional power in the Central
B Government to call for the record of any proceeding in relation to any
film at any stage, where it is not made the subject matter of appeal to
the Appellate Tribunal, to enquire into the matter and make such
order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, including a direction that the
exhibition of the film should be suspended for a period not exceeding
two months. Under the newly added sub-section 5 of section 6, the
Central Government has also been given revisional power in respect of
C a film certificated by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that it is 4
necessary to pas~ an order in the interests of the sovereignty and I _,,,
integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States or public order or decency or morality.

D Learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri Kuldeep Singh, for
the Central Government, strongly urged before us that the film should
be allowed to be exhibited. As a matter of fact in his enthusiasm, he
submitted that there should be an order to the Government to exhibit
the film again and again. He urged that all the appropriate authorities
have considered the film and Doordarshan authorities have also inde-
E pendently examined this question. It has to be borne in mind that there
is no allegation of any ma/a fide or bad motive on the part of the
authorities concerned. The only question, therefore, is whether the ..
film has been misjudged or wrongly judged and allowed to be ex-
hibited or serialised in T.V. on a wrong approach. This film indubit-
ably depicts violence. That violence between the communities took
p place before the pre-partition days is a fact and it is the truth. Dr.
Chi tale, however, submits that truth in its naked form may not always
and in all circumstances be desirable to be told or exhibited.

During the course of the arguments before us on the lst of
February, 1988 our attention was drawn to an item in the Hindustan
G Times of that day which contained an interview with the author Sree \'
Bhisham Sahni. Strictly speaking such evidence is not admissible but
since it is a matter of public interest, we have looked into it. The ~
author has received the Sahitya Akademi award for this novel. It was ~ ·~
written in 1974. The book is being taught in various universities. There
has been no adverse reaction to the novel during the past fourteen
H years. The author further said "certain nuances which were, however,
RAMESH v: U.O.l. [MUKHARJI, J.J 1019

y clear in the book are not so in the serial". The author has drawn A
attention to the incident that the mischief of getting a pig slaughtered
• i. and having it placed outside a mosque, was done by a character refer-
red to as "Chaudhuri" in the film. In the novel his full name is
mentioned as Murad Ali, which is obviously not a Hindu name,
according to the author.
B
Vivian Bose, J. as he then was in the Nagpur High Court in the
case of Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government, A.l.R.
1947 N agpur 1 has indicated the yardstick by which this question has to
be judged. There at page 18 of the report the Court observed that the
effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable,
strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and C
vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point
of view. This in our opinion, is the correct approach in judging the
effect of exhibition of a film or of reading a book. It is the standard of
ordinary reasonable man or as they say in English law "the man on the
top of a clapham omnibus".
D
> •
This question came to be examined by this Court from a different
angle in the case of K.A. Abbas v. The Union of India and another,
[1971] 2 S.C.R. 446. There K.A. Abbas the petitioner made a
documentary film called "A Tale of Four Cities", which attempted to
portray the contrast between the life of the rich and the poor in the
four principal cities of the country. The film included certain shots of E
the red light district in Bombay. Although the petitioner applied to the
Board of Film Censors for a "U" Certificate for unrestricted exhibi-
tion of the film, he was granted a certificate only for exhibition
restricted to adults. The petitioner then filed the writ petition in this
Court. At the hearing of the petition the Central Government indi-
cated that it had decided to grant a 'U' certificate to the petitioner's F
~ film without the cuts previously ordered. Hidayatullah C.J. has
r--exhaustively dealt with the question and noted the statutory require-
ments. In that film there was a scanning shot of a very short duration,
much blurred by the movement of the photographer's camera, in the
words of Chief Justice, in which the red light district of Bombay was
shown with the inmates of the brothels waiting at the doors or G
windows. Some of them wore abbreviated skirts showing bare legs up
to the knees and sometimes a short above them. This was objected to.
The film was shown to the learned Judges in the presence of the
lawyers. The learned Chief Justice at page 468 of the report addressed
himself to the question: "How far can these restrictions go and how
are these to be imposed". The Court examined the provisions of Sec- H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 119881 2 S.C.R.

A lion 5B(2) of the Act. After examining the relevant provisions and y
large number of authorities, the Chief Justice noted that the task of the
censor was extremely delicate and its duties cannot be the subject of an
exhaustive set of commands established by prior ratiocination. Chief
Justice at page 474 of the report observed as follows:
B
"Sex and obscenity are not always synonymous and it is
wrong to classify sex as essentially obscene or even inde·
cent or immoral. It should be our concern, however, to
prevent the use of sex designed to play a commercial role
by making its own appeal. This draws in the censors scis-
sors. Thus audiences in India can be expected to view with
c equanimity the story of Oedipus son of Latius who commit·
ted patricide and incest with his mother. When the seer
Tiresias exposed him, his sister Jocasta committed suicide·
<--,.
~·
by hanging herself and Oedipus put out his own eyes. No
one after viewing these episodes would think that patricide
or incest with one's own mother is permissible or suicide 'in
D such circumstances or tearing out one's own eyes is a
natural consequence. And yet if one goes by the letter of
the directions the film cannot be shown. Similarly, scenes
depicting leprosy as a theme in a story or in a documentary
are not necessarily outside the protection. If that were so
Varrier Elwyn's Phulmat of the Hills or the same episode in
E Henryson's Testament of Cresseid (from where Verrier
Elwyn borrowed the idea) would never see the light of the
day. Again carnage and bloodshed may have historical
value and the depiction of such scenes as the sack of Delhi
by Nadirshah may be permissible, if handled delicately and
as part of an artistic portrayal of the confrontation with {
F Mohammad Shah Rangila. If Nadir Shah made golgothas of
skulls, must we leave them out of the story because people ~-..!·
must be made to view a historical theme without true I
history? Rape in all its nakedness may be objectionable but
Voltaire's Candide would be meaningless without Cune-
gonde's episode with the soldier and the story of Lucrece
G could never be depicted on the screen." (emphasis
supplied)
y
Chief Justice observed that our standards must be so framed that
we are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least capable
H and the most depraved amongst us determines what the morally healthy
cannot view or read. The standards that we set for our censors must
RAMESH v. U.0.1. [MUKHARJI, J.[ 1021

)' make a substantial allowance in favour of freedom thus leaving a vast A
area for creative art to interpret life and society with some of its foibles
along with what is good. We must not look upon such human relation-
ship as banned in toto and for ever from buman thought and must give
scope for talent to put them before society. In our scheme of things,
the Chief Justice noted, ideas having redeeming social or artistic value
must also have importance and protection for their growth. B

Our attention was also drawn by Dr. Chitale to the decision of
this Court in Ebrahim Sulaiman Sail v. M. C. Muhammad and another,
11980] 1 S.C.R. 1148, where Gupta, J. speaking for the Court observed
that truth was not an answer to a charge of corrupt practice under
section 123(3A) of the said Act; what was relevant was whether the C
-~eech promoted or sought to promote feelings of enmity or hatred as
{ mentioned in that provision. But the likelihood must be judged from
healthy and reasonable standards.

The question was again considered by this Court in Rajkapoor v.
Laxman, 11980] 2 S.C.R. 512. This Court reiterated that the Penal D
Code is general and the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is special. The
scheme of the Cinematograph Act is deliberately drawn up to meet the
explosively expanding cinema menace if it were not strictly policed.
No doubt, the cinema is a great instrument for public good if geared to
social ends and can be a public curse if directed to anti-social objec-
tives. The decision reiterated that a balance has to be struck. On the E
evidence available before this Court it appears that a balance has been
struck.

Dr. Chi tale emphasised that in an interview with the author, the
author said that "Tamas" was not a historical novel. It merely takes
into account certain events from history and builds upon them. He F
' l further said that life provided the raw material and a writer moulded it
(''according to his imagination and perception of reality.

We have given full thought to the contentions urged on behalf of
the petitioner and come to the conclusion that these contentions can-
not be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, as we have already pointed G
out, the Cinematograph Act itself contains several provisions to
'y ensure the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in section SB and to
ensure that any film which is likely to offend the religious suspectibi-
lities of the people are not screened for public exhibition. In the pre-
sent case the Film Censor Board has approved the exhibition of the
film. That apart we are informed that the Doordarshan authorities also H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A scrutinise a film before it is exhibited on the television screen. Though y
we- ronothave the details of the authority or body which scrutinised
the film for-purposes of exhibition on the television, the procedure
does involve further examinatipn of the film from standards of puWic
acceptability before it is shown on the television. It is true that the
remedy of an approach to the Appellate Tribunal is available only to
B persons aggrieved by the refusal of the Board to grant a certificate or
the cuts and modifications proposed by it. It is for the consideration of
the Central Government whether the scope of this section should be
expanded to permit appeals to the Tribunals even by persons who are
aggrieved by the grant of certificate of exhibition to a film on the
ground that the principles laid down for the grant of certificates in
c section 5B have not been fulfilled. But, even on the statute as .it pre-
sently stands, the procedure for grant of certificate of exhibition to a~
film is quite elaborate and the unanimous approval by the examining
Committee must be given full weight. As pointed out by Krishna Iyer,
r
J. in the Rajkapoor case (supra), a Court woul_d be slow to interfere
with the conclusion of a body specially constituted for this purpose.
D ''!.!!Ii
Secondly·,, in this case we have the advantage of the views of two
experienced Judges of one of the premier High Courts of this country.
The learned Judges found that the message of the fihn was good. They
have stated that the film shows how realisation ultimately dawns as to
futlity of violence and hatred, and how the inherent goodness in
E human nature triumphs. Dr. Chitale submitted that the Judges have
viewed the film from their point of view but the average persons in the
country are not as sober and experienced as Judges of the High Court.
But the Judges of the High Court of Bombay have viewed it, as they
said, from the point of view of "how the average person for whom the
film is intended will view it" and the learned Judges have come to the
F conclusion that the average person will learn from the mistakes of the
past and realise the machinations of the fundamentalists and will not I_,,,
perhaps commit those mistakes again. The learned Judges further ob- -'l
served that illiterates are not devoid of common sense, or unable to
grasp the calumny of the fundamentalists and extremists when it is '
brought home to them in action on the screen. This is how they have
G viewed it: those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. It is
out of the tragic experience of the past that we can fashion our present
in a rational and reasonable manner and view out future with wisdom y
and care. Awareness in proper light is a first step towards that realisa-
tion. It is true that in certain circumstances truth has to be avoided.
Tamas takes us to a historical past-unpleasant at times, but revealing
H and instructive. In those years which Tamas depicts a human tragedy
RAMESH v. U.0.1. [MUKHARJI, J.[ 1023

'( of great diniinsion took place in this sub-rnntinent-though 40 years A
ago-it has left a lasting damage to the Indian psyche. It has been said
by Lord Morley in "On Compromise" that it makes all the difference
. in the world whether you put truth in the first place or in the second
place. It is true that a writer or a preacher should cling to truth and
right, if the very heavens fall. This is a universally accepted basis. Yet
in practice, all schools alike are forced to admit the necessity of a B
measure or accommodation in the very interests of truth itself. Fan~tic
is a name of such ill repute, exactly because one who deserves to be so
called injuries good causes by refusing timely and harmless concession;
• by irrigating projudices that a wiser way of urging his own opinion
might have turned aside; by making no allowances, respecting no
motives, and recognising pone of those qualifying principles that are
~nothing less than necessary to make his own principles true and fitting
c
f ma given society. Judged by all standards of a common man's point of
view of presenting history with a lesson in this film, these boundaries
appear to us could have been kept in mind. This is also the lesson of
history that naked truth in all times will not be beneficial but truth in
its proper light indicating the evils and the consequences of those evils D
, ., is instructive and that message is there in "Tamas" according to the
views expressed by the two learned Judges of the High Court. They
viewed it from an average, healthy and commonsense point of view.
That is the yardstick. There cannot be any apprehension that it is likely
to affect public order or it is likely to incite into the commission of any
offence. On the other hand, it is more likely that it will prevent incite- E
ment to such offence&in future by extremists and fundamentalists.

Dr. Chitale, relying strongly on certain observations in Abbas'
case (supra, at p. 459 of the reports) contended that there was real
danger of the film in this case inciting people to violence and to
commit other offences arising out of communal disharmony. It is no F
doubt true that the motion picture is a powerful instrument with a
'much stronger impact on the visual and aural senses of the spectators
than any other medium of communications; likewise, it is also true that
, the television, the range of which has vastly developed in our country
in the past few years, now reaches out to the remotest corners of the
country catering to the not so sophisticated, literary or educated G
masses of people living in distant villages. But the argument overlooks
y that the potency of the motion picture is as much for good as for evil. If
some scenes of violence, some nuances of expression or some events in
the film can stir up certain feelings in the spectator, an equally deep
strong, lasting and beneficial impression can be conveyed by scenes
revealing the machinations of selfish interests, scenes depicting mutual H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988) 2 S.C.R.
A respect and tolerance, scenes showing comradeship, help and kindness Y
which transcend the barriers of religion. Unfortunately, modem
development both in the field of cinema as well as in the field of
national and international politics have rendered it inevitable for
people to face the realities of internecine conflicts, inter alia, in the
name of religion. Even contemporary news bulletins very often carry
B
scenes of pitched battle or vio)ence. What is necessary sometimes is to
penetrate behind the scenes and analyse the causes of such conflicts.
The attempt of the author in this film is to draw a lesson from our
country's past history, expose the motives of persons who operate
behind the scenes to generate and foment conflicts and to emphasise •
tbe desire of persons to live in amity and the need for them to rise
c above religious barriers and treat one. another with kindness,
sympathy and affection. It is possible only for a motion picture to , .J,. ·
convey such a message in depth and if it is able to do this, it will be an \
achievement of great social value. In the present case the finding of the
learned Judges of Bombay High Court is that the picture viewed in its
eatirety is capable of creating a lasting impression of this message of
D peace and co-existence and that people are not likely to be obsessed,
overwhelmed or carried away by the scenes of violence or fanaticism
shown in the film. We see no reason to differ from this conclusion.

Before we conclude we note that the petition was based on
alleged violation of Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution. We are
E unable to see any alleged violation of those articles. We, however
accept the position that the petitioner has a right to draw attention of
this Court to ensure that the communal atmosphere is kept clean and
unpolluted. He has done well to draw attention to this danger. We
have examined and found that there is no such danger and the respon-
dents have not acted improperly or imprudently.
F
In the aforesaid view of the matter this petition under Article 32
of the Constitution fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Similarly, on similar grounds the special leave petition arising
out of the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated 23rd
G January, 1988 in Appeal No. 96/88 is also dismissed.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order Y
as to costs.

R.S.S. Petition dismissed.