Censorship - What Should Be Hidden From You?

Is somebody curating your reality? A closer look at the thin line separating protection and control in the digital age

I. Introduction

Censorship at its core, refers to the restriction, suppression, or removal of content. Content may be written, visual, or digital and must be declared inappropriate, harmful, or dangerous by a designated authority. In a country as diverse as India, where language, and ideologies vary dramatically across regions, the question of what is inappropriate and who decides this becomes deeply complex. This article explores the legal, constitutional, and ethical censorship in India, tracing its evolution through statutory enactments and judicial interventions, while examining the fragile balance between the freedom of expression and societal regulation. 

II. The Concept of Censorship

To “censor” means to restrict material from circulation based on standards of morality, decency, or public order. Historically, censorship was exercised by the state, or religious authorities to maintain ideological conformity. In modern democracies, it continues to be justified in the name of protecting national security, public morality, or social harmony. 

In India, censorship takes many forms ranging from a sentence in a magazine, or a film on the internet or on TV - on the grounds that it is deemed not worthy of being seen or is dangerous. This on the face of it, seems like a noble cause. The public after all includes children - and a hypothetical cartoon made for TV containing graphically violent or sexually suggestive content must be struck down or censored. If the cartoon or any problematic scenes within it are not subject to this filtration system, we risk corrupting the minds of millions of children whilst exposing them to content which is illegal for a person of that age to consume, and risks leaving irreparable damage to their psyche. For example, when a film scene or lyric is removed for being “offensive”, it may protect a section of society yet simultaneously suppress artistic freedom. Hence, censorship becomes not merely a regulatory act, but a glimpse into the values that a society prioritises at a given time. 

III. Legal Framework Governing Censorship in India 

In January of 2023, The Information Technology Rules, 2021 were actioned to block a BBC Documentary called India: The Modi Question. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), in consonance with which these rules were made, allows the state under Section 69A to block access to “any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource”. This may be done in the “interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above”.

Subject to even cursory reading, these grounds for suppression are vast, substantive and can mean to include almost any content that the state deems to fall under these categories.

Section 16 of these IT Rules veritably acts as a double-edged broadsword of censorship and says that officers authorised by the federal government can block communication on an “emergency basis”. The Rules also say that a committee must be formed to review such proposed censorship, however in the abovementioned case no such review has taken place. Therefore as of today, censorship of content is controlled solely by state officials. This paired with lax procedural rules translates into a scenario where any information or content deemed to be wrong or unpalatable by the state can be suppressed sans opportunity of hearing.

There is a bottleneck in challenging this procedural abscess in court as well. The censoring of the BBC documentary was later appealed against in the Supreme Court, which agreed to a hearing but has decided not to grant any interim relief. In other words, the documentary shall remain censored despite the very legality of the censorship being under question. This is a conventionally practiced cooldown period for both the judiciary which does not need to adjudicate on an issue involving the state’s use of its powers, as well as the state for whom censorship has succeeded.

IV. The Delicate Balance of Free Speech

India’s Apex Court has consistently emphasized the importance of balancing free speech with reasonable restrictions. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2013) 12 SCC 73, the Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for being vague and overbroad, violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which houses the fundamental right to freedom of speech. The Court held that any restriction on free speech must be clear, specific, and proportionate. 

Similarly, Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 ruled that restrictions on media freedom, including internet shutdowns, must be necessary and justified, not arbitrary. The principle - while the state can impose restrictions under Article 19(2)—such as for public order, decency, or security—it must not disproportionately infringe on the fundamental right to free expression. 

There exists an abyss of uncertainty of phrases such as “communal disharmony” as well as the terms used in the IT Act and Rules such as “interest of sovereignty and integrity of India”. The interpretation of these concepts are subjective and different for every individual, community and ruling faction. This leads to emergency powers becoming liable to be misused as a tool for political mileage due to their vague and all-encompassing nature. It also sets an ominous precedent, turning democracy into a vengeance cycle every election year at the expense of the public exchequer, with the larger cost of eroding social fabric and making divisiveness a cyclical norm. 

V. The Double-Edged Sword of Censorship

K. Abbas v Union of India (1970) 2 SCC 780 stands an old adage which held that if A Tale of Four Cities was inherently a depiction of cold, hard reality, then it could not be suppressed from the eyes of the general public. The question then stands - if the cold, hard reality as projected is liable to cause communal disharmony or hurt the sentiments of certain people – should such content be removed from public eyes altogether? Who decides if the content falls under this category? It is also an unavoidable corollary that the state as it progresses wields an ever-increasing amount of power and influence on social machinery, and the question of whether something stands to hurt sentiment or not, is invariably governed by majoritarian sentiment.

This probes the conundrum that at any point in time, there exist innumerable possibilities wherein a certain group or community’s sentiments can be hurt. Must the smoking of cigarettes on-screen be censored because non-smokers’ sentiments will be offended? Tobacco stands proven as one of the leading causes of cancer. Would the anti-tobacco clique not be completely justified at being aghast about the casual display and normalisation of a scientifically proven danger to society? Should depicting murder in movies be censored since the vast majority of people in the country are not murderers; and it would hurt their sentiments to witness such things whilst causing disharmony amongst the non-murderer lobby. There was a time when the taboo and sentiment against menstruation was so strong that sanitary pad makers could not advertise, since all the ads would have been censored. Menstruation was often transcoded as “shadows which so regularly come to their lives” and “characteristic ailments of their sex” in early advertisements. It was in 1885 that a newspaper ran an advertisement for Southhall pads. Some authors date the first advertisement of Southhall pads to 1889, featured in the Times of India as early as 1885.

VI. The Way Forward

Censorship is a fluid and ever-evolving mechanism, shaping and contorting to try and keep the behemoth of human behaviour and depravity in check. Since anybody can quite literally put anything on the internet, the task at hand is undoubtedly herculean. A random, faceless entity can describe their most malicious fantasies in a blog post, or vividly document a cartel execution on video and have it published for the whole world to see and absorb. 

India is understandably more prone to such groupism, simply since there are so many different types of cultures and communities in the country. People tend to lean on communities as support systems, and communities in many instances support their own through the hardest of battles. This develops camaraderie amongst people from the same group, and sentiments can very easily be hurt if anything is shown to be making light of, or as stereotyping a certain group or sect. The problem with not being thick-skinned whilst giving steadily increasing powers to the state to censor content, is that at some point this blanket of censorship becomes so heavy that it curtails one’s very freedom of expression in totality. This gives rise to manipulation of information, where governments and people with power dictate what is told to the people and what is kept from them.

Censorship when applied judiciously, serves as the perfect tool to safeguard public morality as well as national security. However, its potential for abuse necessitates keeping robust safeguards and judicial overseers. The Indian judiciary has consistently emphasized the gravity of balancing free speech with reasonable restrictions, but the vague and all-encompassing nature of terms like "communal disharmony" and "public order" leaves substantial room for misuse.

Censorship as a principle functions optimally when deployed sparingly to cull graphic abnormalities, or real and apparent threats to national security, as opposed to being an ambiguously defined blanket to be cast over anything deemed unsavoury or damaging to a certain group.