Author: Ritashree Banerjee, St Xavier’s University, Kolkata
Abstract
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell
Artistic freedom, an essential pillar of democracy, is under siege in India. While the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, the increasing censorship of films, literature, and performances raises questions about the true extent of this liberty. From government-imposed restrictions to politically and religiously motivated bans, artists often find themselves silenced under the pretext of maintaining public order and morality. This article explores the growing constraints on artistic expression in India, analyzing legal frameworks, recent controversies, and the impact of censorship on democracy. Through a comparative lens, it also examines how contemporary restrictions echo Orwellian themes of state control and thought policing.
Introduction
Art has long been a powerful tool for dissent, critique, and social change. In a democracy, the freedom to create and express without fear of retribution is fundamental. However, in India, artistic expression is increasingly constrained by censorship, legal restrictions, and social backlash. While Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, it is curtailed by reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which include concerns related to public order, morality, and national security.
Recent years have witnessed a surge in bans on films, books, paintings, and performances due to political, religious, or ideological opposition. The fear of offending sentiments has led to self-censorship among artists, publishers, and filmmakers, weakening the space for meaningful discourse. From the banning of books like The Satanic Verses to the protests against films such as Padmaavat and The Kerala Story, the pattern is clear—any content that challenges dominant narratives is swiftly silenced.
This article delves into the legal landscape governing artistic expression in India, examines landmark cases of censorship, and explores the chilling effect it has on creative freedom. In doing so, it draws parallels with Orwellian warnings of a society where thought is controlled and dissent is stifled.
The Legal Landscape of Artistic Censorship in India
The Indian legal system provides both protections and restrictions on artistic freedom. While Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this right is not absolute. Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions based on grounds such as public order, decency, morality, and security of the state. Over the years, these exceptions have been widely used to justify censorship.
Several laws regulate artistic expression in India, including:
The Cinematograph Act, 1952 – The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has the power to cut or ban films on grounds of obscenity, defamation, or harm to public order. Movies like Udta Punjab, Padmaavat, and The Kerala Story have faced such scrutiny.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups), 295A (hurting religious sentiments), and 499 (defamation) are frequently invoked against artists. These provisions have been used to ban books, paintings, and even social media posts.
The IT Act, 2000 – In the digital age, online content is also policed. Section 66A (now struck down) was used to arrest individuals for social media posts, and new IT Rules (2021) allow the government to regulate online content aggressively.
These laws, while meant to maintain public order, are often misused to suppress dissent, particularly when the content criticizes political, religious, or cultural norms.
Recent Cases of Artistic Censorship in India
Movies and Filmmakers Under Fire
Padmaavat (2018) faced violent protests from Rajput groups who claimed it distorted history. Despite Supreme Court clearance, threats forced changes in the movie’s portrayal and name.
The Kerala Story (2023) was accused of spreading misinformation and was banned in certain states due to its controversial depiction of religious conversions.
Documentaries like India: The Modi Question (2023) were blocked from public screening, showing a growing intolerance toward politically sensitive content.
Literature and Books Facing Bans
Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses was banned in India in 1988 due to accusations of blasphemy.
Perumal Murugan, the Tamil writer, declared himself “dead as a writer” after facing backlash for Madhorubagan, which depicted caste-based oppression.
Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus: An Alternative History was withdrawn from Indian markets after legal threats from religious groups.
Art and Performance Restrictions
MF Husain, one of India’s most celebrated painters, was forced into exile after facing legal cases for his nude depictions of Hindu goddesses.
Stand-up comedians like Munawar Faruqui have been arrested or forced to cancel shows due to accusations of hurting religious sentiments.
The Chilling Effect and Orwellian Parallels
The increasing censorship of art in India mirrors George Orwell’s warning in 1984, where thought control and suppression of dissent were key to authoritarian rule. In a democracy, art thrives on questioning authority, challenging societal norms, and fostering dialogue. However, when artists fear legal action, violence, or social ostracism, they begin to self-censor—limiting the scope of critical discourse.
This “chilling effect” discourages filmmakers, authors, and performers from tackling controversial issues, weakening the democratic values of free speech and artistic liberty. The trend of censoring art under the guise of national security, morality, or public order echoes Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, where truth is manipulated, and dissent is criminalized.
Judiciary’s Inconsistent Approach
While the Supreme Court has generally defended free speech, lower courts have often taken a conservative stance, leading to harassment of artists through prolonged legal battles. The lack of clear guidelines on censorship results in arbitrary decisions, where artistic works are banned or altered based on public outrage rather than legal merit.
Need for Reform
Stronger Legal Protections: India needs clearer legal standards to prevent misuse of censorship laws.
Speedy Judicial Relief: Courts must ensure faster resolutions in cases of artistic censorship to prevent harassment.
Public Interest vs. Political Pressure: Judicial decisions should focus on constitutional principles rather than appeasing political or religious groups.
The judiciary remains the ultimate safeguard against excessive censorship. However, unless courts consistently uphold artistic freedom, India risks becoming a nation where creative expression is dictated by mob sentiments and political agendas.
The Political and Social Influence on Censorship
Censorship in India is deeply intertwined with politics, religion, and societal pressures. It is not merely a legal tool but a powerful mechanism that various entities use to control narratives, suppress dissent, and shape public opinion. Governments, political parties, religious groups, and corporate interests often dictate what can and cannot be expressed in the public domain, leading to an erosion of artistic freedom and free speech.
The Influence of politics on censorship is evident in the state-imposed bans on books, films, and digital content. Governments frequently use legal provisions to justify such actions under the pretext of maintaining public order. One of the most notable examples is the banning of The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie in 1988, not because it was legally examined for violations but due to political pressure from religious groups. Similarly, films like Padmaavat have faced bans, violent protests, and disruptions, not because they violated any law but because they clashed with dominant political or religious sentiments. The state’s intervention in what is deemed “acceptable” for public consumption often has little to do with legality and more to do with appeasement politics.
Laws that were originally meant to prevent hate speech and maintain public order have often been weaponized to silence dissent. Sections like 124A of the IPC (sedition law), UAPA, and 295A (hurting religious sentiments) have been used disproportionately against journalists, activists, and artists. The arrest of journalist Siddique Kappan under UAPA while he was covering the Hathras gang rape case is a glaring example of legal tools being used to suppress free speech rather than uphold justice. Social media has also become a battleground for censorship, with platforms being compelled to remove content that criticizes ruling parties or challenges dominant narratives. The removal of the BBC documentary India: The Modi Question is a case in point, where digital censorship was used to prevent an alternative perspective from reaching the masses.
Censorship is not always imposed by the state; it is also driven by social and religious pressures. The rise of what can be called “offense culture” has led to an environment where any work of art, literature, or cinema that challenges traditional or religious norms is met with outrage. Perumal Murugan, a Tamil writer, was forced to withdraw his novel One Part Woman in 2015 after facing severe backlash and threats from caste-based groups. Similarly, films like PK faced violent protests simply for questioning religious superstitions. The growing trend of mob-driven censorship has led to a culture where artistic expression is dictated by those who claim to be offended rather than by any legal standard.
This atmosphere of fear has forced many artists to engage in self-censorship. Filmmakers, writers, and stand-up comedians often avoid controversial topics to escape legal and social troubles. Anurag Kashyap, one of India’s most outspoken filmmakers, has publicly stated that producers now hesitate to finance films that could be perceived as controversial. Many comedians, including Munawar Faruqui, have faced legal cases and physical threats for their satirical content, pushing them to tone down their performances or cancel shows altogether. When artists begin to censor themselves out of fear, it signals a dangerous shift where the freedom to question and critique is stifled even before an external force intervenes.
The consequences of unchecked censorship are far-reaching. It suppresses critical thinking, discourages meaningful debate, and fosters an environment where propaganda thrives. A society where artists and intellectuals are afraid to express themselves is one where democracy is slowly being dismantled. It creates a culture of fear where political authoritarianism can take root, and the free exchange of ideas becomes a privilege rather than a right.
To counteract this, there is an urgent need for judicial oversight to prevent politically motivated censorship. The courts must act as the final safeguard against unjust restrictions on speech and artistic expression. Additionally, stronger protections for artists must be implemented to prevent frivolous legal cases and mob-driven suppression. Public awareness is equally essential—citizens must recognize the dangers of excessive censorship and advocate for a culture of open dialogue and debate.
Censorship in India today is not just a legal or artistic issue; it is a battle over who controls the narratives that shape our society. If political and social influences continue to dictate what can be expressed, the very foundation of free speech and creative liberty will be at risk. The choice, ultimately, is whether we allow fear and control to govern our voices or stand up for a society where every opinion, no matter how uncomfortable, has the right to be heard.
Conclusion
Censorship in India isn’t just about laws or guidelines; it’s about fear. It’s about the slow, creeping realization that saying the wrong thing—writing the wrong sentence, making the wrong film—can mean court cases, threats, or worse. And over time, that fear doesn’t just silence people; it makes them stop thinking about saying anything at all.
Maybe that’s the real victory of censorship—not the books banned or the films pulled from theatres, but the quiet, unspoken self-censorship that comes after. The way an artist pauses before writing, a filmmaker hesitates before filming, a comedian rewrites a joke to avoid trouble. The way we all start choosing safer words, smaller ideas, quieter opinions.
And yet, history shows that art always finds a way. That no matter how many bans or threats or lawsuits, someone will always write the thing they weren’t supposed to write, say the thing they weren’t supposed to say. Maybe because they believe in free speech, or maybe just because they can’t help it. Maybe because stories have always belonged to the people, not to the ones trying to control them.
So the question isn’t whether censorship will exist—it always will. The question is how long before we stop letting it shape the way we think.
FAQS
• What is censorship in India?
Censorship in India refers to the suppression or regulation of speech, books, films, news, or other forms of expression by the government or other authorities to maintain public order, morality, or national security.
• What are the main laws governing censorship in India?
Key laws include the Cinematograph Act, 1952, Indian Penal Code (Sections 124A, 153A, 295A, etc.), IT Act, 2000, and the Press Council Act, 1978.
These laws regulate content across different media.
• Who decides what content gets censored?
Various bodies like the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for films, the Press Council of India for print media, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) for online content play major roles in censorship.
• What are the recent examples of censorship in India?
Cases like book bans, film edits by CBFC, restrictions on OTT content, and internet shutdowns in politically sensitive areas are common instances of censorship in India.
• Is censorship a violation of free speech in India?
The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution) is subject to reasonable restrictions, meaning censorship is legally allowed in cases related to national security, public order, morality, and defamation. However, excessive censorship often sparks debates on its misuse.
