Why in News?
The Supreme Court recently rejected a petition seeking to block the release of the film An Insignificant Man based on Delhi chief minister. The court’s observation comes amidst countrywide protests over the film “Padmavati”, for allegedly distorting the depiction of its main character.
FACTS FOR PRELIMS
SUPREME COURTS JUDGEMENT
A three-judge bench held that Freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct and the right should not be ordinarily interfered with.
It stated that the right of a filmmaker can’t be curtailed. Courts are to be extremely slow to pass any kind of restraint order in such a situation and should allow the respect that a creative man enjoys in writing a drama, a play, a book on philosophy, or any kind of thought that is expressed on the celluloid or theatre etc
ARTICLE 19 (1)(a)-Freedom of speech and expression.
It implies that every citizen has the right to express his views opinions, belief and conviction, freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, picturing or in any other manner.
ARTICLE 19 (2)-Reasonable restrictions to article 19 (1)(a)
Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in 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 in relation to contempt of court,
-or incitement to an offence
SOURCE-The Hindustan Times.