Question

Mark the best option:
Principles:

1. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens the right to 'freedom of speech and expression'.
2. This freedom includes the right to express one's views and opinions on any issue through any medium, e.g., by word of mouth, writing, printing picture, Rim, movie, etc.
3. Reasonable restrictions may be imposed by the State on this freedom, 'in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, morality, sovereignty and integrity of India, or 'in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense'
4. While the Apex court has justified pre-censorship of a film because it caters to a mass audience, it has held that if the film is unobjectionable and cannot constitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration or threats of violence.
5. There is a difference between 'public order' and 'public tranquility', in that such acts as disturbing only the serenity of others may not fall within the term 'public order'.

Facts: Schoen Frederick Muller is an eminent businessman of German origin. He is known to have a fascination for showbusiness. He has recently produced a film on how a group of four detectives from different parts of the world unearths a conspiracy to assassinate a leader at the United Nations, and one of them turns out to be an accomplice in the plan. The film was awarded as the 'Best Motion Picture (Fiction)' in the Berlin Film Festival. The film is taken for exhibition in India by Spread the Word, an agency headed by Ritesh Zakaria, an Indian citizen.

Which of the following can approach an Indian court against an order imposing a ban on the film for containing objectionable material under Article 19 of the Constitution?

विकल्प

• Schoen Frederick Muller, because he was the producer and a curb on the film amounted to violating his freedom of speech and expression.

• Ritesh Zakaria, because he is an Indian citizen who was responsible for exhibiting the said film

• Both, since they were both involved with the said film.

• Neither of them can claim protection under Article 19 of the Constitution.

Answer 1

Neither of them can claim protection under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The film to be exhibited in India does not any way disturb the peace and order in the state, hence no ban can be imposed.