Why in news?
- The Supreme Court has stayed the notifications and orders by certain States to prohibit the exhibition of the movie Padmaavat.
- Click here to know the controversy with the movie.
What is the rationale?
- There were apprehensions that states were sympathising with fundamentalist elements for protecting the vote banks.
- Notably, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh have been explicit in voicing support for the protestors who have clearly violated the law.
- However, these were legally masked as “law and order issues” to curtail freedom of expression.
- Freedom of speech is indeed subject to reasonable restrictions (like public order) under article 19.
- But governments should not succumb to the use of “violent threats and intimidations” by fringe groups.
- The SC has thus ruled that states have to balance between the twin responsibility of protecting free speech and maintaining law and order.
- States cannot choose between the two or compromise one for the other as both are important state duties.
Is the call for a ban justified?
- The film does not claim any historical accuracy and the protestors taking offence have not even seen the film.
- Despite this, several cuts were already suggested by a special panel formed by the CBFC to re-examine the film after initial certification.
- This was in addition to the filmmakers agreeing to change the name of the film from Padmavati to Padmaavat.
- Notably, Padmaavat was the actual title of the medieval fictional poem which the movie is based on.
- Given these responses for public sentiments, a further call for a ban seems irrational.
What lies ahead?
- The state machinery should keep it responsive but not subdued to the fundamentalist attitudes in the society.
- The state institutions should take serious note of the SC order to balancing between their varied roles to uphold the constitutional principles.
Source: The Hindu
