Censorship in India has taken various forms throughout its history. Althoughde jure theConstitution of India guaranteesfreedom of expression,[1]de facto there arevarious restrictions on content, with an official view towards "maintaining communal and religious harmony", given the history of communal tension in the nation. According to the Information Technology Rules 2011, objectionable content includes anything that "threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order".[2]
In 2024, the annualFreedom in the World report byFreedom House gave India an overall score of 66 out of 100, corresponding to a status of "partially free", with a Civil Liberties rating of 33 out of 60 and a score of 2 out of 4 for the specific question "Are there free and independent media?".[3] The analysis specifically noted that this did not include conditions in Indian Kashmir, which was analysed separately and scored a much lower overall score of 26 out of 100 (status "not free"), with a Civil Liberties rating of 20 out of 60.[4] This represents a continued worsening of conditions over the recent years; in comparison, in 2017 India was given an overall score of 77 out of 100 (status "free"), and a score of 42 out of 60 for civil liberties.[5]
According to theWorld Press Freedom Index (WPFI), a global analysis published byReporters Without Borders (RSF), India's press freedom ranking has dropped from 140 out of 179 countries in 2019, to 161 out of 180 countries in 2023, classifying press freedom in India as being in a "serious" situation.[6][7]
Watching, listening to, or possessingpornographic materials is generally legal. However, distribution of such materials is strictly banned.[8] TheCentral Board of Film Certification allows release of certain films with sexual content (labelledA-rated), which are to be shown only in restricted spaces, and are to be viewed only by people of age 18 and above.[9] India'spublic television broadcaster,Doordarshan, has aired these films at late-night time slots.[10]Films,television shows, andmusic videos are prone to scene-cuts or even bans. However, if any literature is banned, it is not usually for pornographic reasons. Pornographic magazines are technically illegal, but manysoftcore Indian publications are available through many news vendors, who often stock them at the bottom of a stack of non-pornographic magazines, and make them available on request. Most non-Indian publications (includingPlayboy) are usually harder to find, whether soft-core orhardcore. Mailing pornographic magazines in India from a country where they are legal is also illegal in India. In practice, the magazines are almost always confiscated byCustoms, and are entered as evidence of law-breaking, and are punishable, and they undergo detailed scrutiny.
TheOfficial Secrets Act 1923 is used for the protection of official information, mainly related tonational security.[11]
TheIndian press does not enjoy extensive freedom. In 2023, it was ranked 140 in thePress Freedom Index, published byReporters Without Borders.[12] In 1975, theIndira Gandhi government imposed censorship of press duringThe Emergency; the day after, theBombay edition ofThe Times of India in its obituary column carried an entry that reads, "D.E.M O'Cracy beloved husband of T.Ruth, father of L.I.Bertie, brother of Faith, Hope and Justica expired on 26 June".[13] It was removed at the end of emergency rule in March 1977.[14]
On 2 October 2016 (see:2016 Kashmir unrest) the Srinagar-based Kashmiri newspaper,Kashmir Reader was asked to stop production by theFormer Jammu and Kashmir government. The ban order, issued by the Deputy Commissioner ofSrinagar Farooq Ahmad Lone cited that the reason for this was that the newspaper contains "material and content which tends to incite acts of violence and disturb public peace and tranquility"[15] The ban came after weeks of unrest in theKashmir valley, following the killing of the commander of a terrorist group known asHizbul Mujahideen (designated a terrorist group by India, theEuropean Union and theUnited States) whose name wasBurhan Wani. Journalists have decried this as a clampdown on freedom of expression and democracy in Kashmir, as a part of the massive media censorship of the unrest undertaken by the central government. Working journalists protested the ban by marching to the Directorate of Information and Public Relations while the Kashmir Editors Guild (KEG) held an emergency meeting in Srinagar, thereafter asking the government to revoke the ban immediately, and asking for the intervention of the Press Council of India.[15] The move has been criticised by a variety of individuals, academic and civil groups in Kashmir and international rights groups, such asJammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), Kashmir Economic Alliance (KEA), the Kashmir Center for Social and Development Studies (KCSDS) andAmnesty International, among others. Most of the major Kashmiri dailies have also rallied behind the KR, while claiming that the move represented a political vendetta against the newspaper for reporting events in the unrest as they happened on the ground.Hurriyat leaders, known to champion the cause of Kashmiri independence, also recorded their protests against the banning of the newspaper. Amnesty International released a statement saying that "the government has a duty to respect the freedom of the press, and the right of people to receive information,"[16] while criticising the government for shutting down a newspaper for opposing it. The journalists associated with the paper allege that, contrary to the claims of the J&K government, they had not been issued a notice or warning, and had been asked to stop production suddenly, which was only one manifestation of the wider media gag on Kashmir. Previously, the state government had banned newspapers for a few days in July, calling the move a "temporary measure to address an extraordinary situation",[15] only to deflect the blame onto the police upon facing a tremendous backlash, and thereafter asking the presses to resume publication. On 28 December 2016, the newspaper resumed publication after the government lifted the ban after nearly three months.[17]
In 1988, a "defamation bill" was introduced byRajiv Gandhi, but it was later withdrawn due to strong opposition.[18] India'ssupreme court, while delivering the judgement in theSportsworld case in 2014, held that "A picture of a nude/semi-nude woman ... cannot per se be called obscene".[18]
India’s government requires that all maps in publications circulated in India reflect its claim to the entire region of Kashmir, which is disputed by Pakistan, and regardless of current lines of control.[19] Publications that do not conform are seized by the authorities and issues can end up being destroyed.
TheCentral Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which is the film-regulating agency in India, orders directors to remove anything that it deems to be offensive, including sex, nudity, violence, or subjects that are considered to be politically subversive or taboo.[20] However, in the past two decades, there has been a noticeable shift in the board's approach toward censorship. One of the key factors that drives this change is the growing influence of Hollywood and the liberal mindset of young indians, which has resulted in an increase in exposure to more liberal cultural values.[21] Additionally, globalization and modernization have played a significant role in shaping Indian society, leading to a greater acceptance of progressive attitudes toward social issues. As a result, the Indian Film Board has become more lenient with censorship guidelines, allowing filmmakers greater creative freedom to explore themes that were previously considered taboo.[22]
India's supreme court has played a significant role in shaping the censorship board's approach to westernization of Bollywood films. The court has shown a more liberal outlook toward creative expression in Indian cinema, and has intervened in cases where the censorship board's decisions were deemed excessive or arbitrary.[23] This has led to a more nuanced approach toward issues of westernization in Bollywood, with the court balancing the need to preserve Indian culture and values with the need to allow filmmakers to freely express themselves.
According to theSupreme Court of India:[24]
Film censorship becomes necessary because a film motivates thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention as compared to the printed word. The combination of act and speech, sight and sound in semi darkness of the theatre with elimination of all distracting ideas will have a strong impact on the minds of the viewers and can affect emotions. Therefore, it has as much potential for evil as it has for good and has an equal potential to instill or cultivate violent or bad behaviour. It cannot be equated with other modes of communication. Censorship byprior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but also necessary
In 2006, sevenstates (Nagaland,Punjab,Goa,Tamil Nadu,Andhra Pradesh) have banned the release or exhibition of theHollywood movieThe Da Vinci Code (and alsothe book),[25] although the CBFC cleared the film for adult viewing throughout India.[26] However, the respective high courts lifted the ban and the movie was shown in the two states.
In 2013, Kamal Haasan'sVishwaroopam was banned from the screening for a period of two weeks inTamil Nadu.[18]
In 2014, the investigative documentaryNo Fire Zone: In the Killing Fields of Sri Lanka byCallum Macrae was refused certification by the CBFC on the grounds that it would damage India-Sri Lanka relationship.[27] The same rationale was used for the board's 2015 refusal to certifyPorkalathil Oru Poo, a biopic ofIsaipriya, a TV journalist raped and murdered by members of the Sri Lankan Army,[28] and in 2017, whenNeelam, a film based on theSri Lankan Civil War and the rise of the Tamil Groups including theLTTE was likewise denied certification.[29]
In 2015, the CBFC demanded four cuts (three visual and one audio) from the art-house Malayalam feature filmChaayam Poosiya Veedu (The Painted House) directed by brothersSantosh Babusenan andSatish Babusenan because the film contained scenes where the female lead was shown in the nude. The directors refused to make any changes whatsoever to the film and hence the film was denied a certificate.[30][31][32][33][34]
In 2015, the noted documentary film-makers Jharana Jhaveri and Anurag Singh's "Charlie and the Coca Cola Company: Quit India" ran into trouble with the CBFC, and the case is still pending. In 20 pages, the appellate cited 20 objections to the release of the documentary, thought it did not suggest a single cut. The two-hour twenty minute documentary exposes the cola companies of abusing ground water, land, livelihoods, rivers, and the laws of the land. The documentary also holds actors & TV guilty and accountable for having violated the ethical and moral boundaries for profit over sustainability.
In 2023,The Kerala Story, an allegedlyIslamophobic film based on the theory oflove jihad was banned from screening in West Bengal. The then chief ministerMamata Banerjee said that the decision was taken to "maintain peace in Bengal” and to avoid any incident of hate crime and violence.[35][36] However soon later, theSupreme Court ordered the ban to be lifted hearing a plea from the filmmakers, observing that fundamental right to free speech can’t be made dependent on public display of emotions.[37][38][39]
In February 2013, in the wake of controversy over suspension of exhibition of the film,Vishwaroopam, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting constituted a panel under the Chairmanship of Justice (Retd.)Mukul Mudgal to examine issues of film certification under the Cinematograph Act 1952. One of theterms of reference for the committee is to examine "the requirement of special categories of certification for the purposes of broadcasting on television channels and radio stations." But, the committee had not made anyrecommendations on this important matter.
The current classifications of films in India are as follows:
Thrash metal bandSlayer's 2006 albumChrist Illusion was banned in India afterCatholic churches in the country took offense to the artwork of the album and a few song titles and launched a protest against it. The album was taken off shelves and the remaining catalogue was burnt byEMI Music India.[40]
In 1978,Kiran Nagarkar wrote the playBedtime Story, based partly on theMahābhārata. Its performance was partiallybanned for 17 years by conservative Hindu organizations and parties likeShiv Sena,Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) andHindu Mahasabha.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47]
In 1999, theMaharashtra government banned theMarathi playMe Nathuram Godse Boltoy orI,Nathuram Godse, Am Speaking.[48] The ban was challenged before theBombay High Court, which rescinded it as exceeding government authority and illegal.
In 2004, Eve Ensler'sThe Vagina Monologues was banned in Chennai. The play, however, has played successfully in many other parts of the country since 2003. A Hindi version of the play has been performing since 2007.
In 1961, it was criminalised in India to question the territorial integrity offrontiers of India in a manner which is, or is likely to be, prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India.[49]
Freedom House'sFreedom on the Net 2015 report gives India a Freedom on the Net Status of "Partly Free" with a rating of 40 (scale from 0 to 100, lower is better). Its Obstacles to Access was rated 12 (0-25 scale), Limits on Content was rated 10 (0-35 scale) and Violations of User Rights was rated 18 (0-40 scale).[66] India was ranked 29th out of the 65 countries included in the 2015 report.[67]
TheFreedom on the Net 2012 report says:[68]
India is classified as engaged in "selective" internet filtering in the conflict/security and internet tools areas, and as showing "no evidence" of filtering in the political and social areas by theOpenNet Initiative in May 2007.[69] ONI states that:
As a stable democracy with strong protections for press freedom, India’s experiments with [internet] filtering have been brought into the fold of public discourse. The selective censorship of [websites] and blogs since 2003, made even more disjointed by the non-uniform responses of [internet] service providers (ISPs), has inspired a clamour of opposition. Clearly government regulation and implementation of filtering are still evolving. … Amidst widespread speculation in the media and blogosphere about the state of filtering in India, the sites actually blocked indicate that while the filtering system in place yields inconsistent results, it nevertheless continues to be aligned with and driven by government efforts. Government attempts at filtering have not been entirely effective, as blocked content has quickly migrated to other [websites] and users have found ways to circumvent filtering. The government has also been criticised for a poor understanding of the technical feasibility of censorship and for haphazardly choosing which [websites] to block. The amended IT Act, absolving intermediaries from being responsible for third-party created content, could signal stronger government monitoring in the future.[69]
A "Transparency Report" fromGoogle indicates that theGovernment of India initiated 67 content removal requests between July and December 2010.[70]
After the beginning of the2020-2021 China-India skirmishes, Indiabanned TikTok.[71]: 11
In 1977-78, the [Shiv Sena] party, along with the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, extra-legally bannedBedtime Story, a play written by Kiran Nagarkar.
