The Supreme Court had to deal with a similar issue in connection with the serial, Tamas. A writ petition was filed by an advocate in the Supreme Court for restraining the serial’s telecast on the ground that its exhibition which depicted communal tension and violence during the pre-Partition period could lead to serious law and order problems and thus adversely affect communal harmony. The Supreme Court rejected the plea and held that “Tamas takes us to a historical past, unpleasant at times, but revealing and instructive”. It further ruled: “Truth in its proper light indicating the evils and the consequences of those evils is instructive and that message is there in Tamas — and viewed from an average, healthy and common sense point of view there cannot be any apprehension that Tamas is likely to affect public order or incite the commission of any offence. On the other hand, it is more likely that it will prevent incitement to such offences in future by extremists and fundamentalists.”

In the case of the film, Ore Oru Gramathile, a determined effort was made to ban its exhibition by a group of persons who regarded its theme and presentation as hostile to the policy of reservation of jobs and seats in educational institutions in favour of SCs and backward classes. Threats were issued by these groups to release snakes and burn down the theatres in which the movie was screened. The Madras High Court revoked the certificate granted to the movie by the Censor Board and restrained its exhibition. The SC promptly reversed the high court judgment. In its landmark judgment, it approved the observations of the European Court of Human Rights that “freedom of expression protects not merely ideas that are accepted but those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of the pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society.” The court laid down an extremely important principle that “freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threats of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. That would be tantamount to negation of the rule of law and surrender to blackmail and intimidation. Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people”.

... contd.