Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
CitationAIR 1988 SC 775, (1988) 1 SCC 668
CourtSupreme Court of India
Date16 February 1988
Year1988
BenchSabyasachi Mukharji, S. Ranganathan JJ.
Acts/ArticlesArticle 19(1)(a), Article 21, Cinematograph Act Section 5B
CategoryConstitutional Law

Key Principle Established

Screening of a film depicting partition violence (Tamas) is within the ambit of freedom of expression. Cannot be banned merely because it may offend some groups.

Brief Facts

A petition sought to restrain Doordarshan from telecasting “Tamas,” a serial depicting the violence and horror of the 1947 Partition. The petitioner argued it would incite communal violence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to ban the serial, holding that depicting historical truth is protected expression. A film or serial cannot be banned merely because some groups may find it offensive. The right of the public to access creative works depicting historical events is part of Article 19(1)(a).

Impact & Significance

This judgment protected artistic freedom and historical narrative from censorship driven by political or communal sensitivities.

Tags & Related Topics

Constitutional Law Article 19(1)(a) Article 21 Cinematograph Act Section 5B
← Previous Judgment R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
Next Judgment → In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident

Related Judgments

1984

Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of M.P.

(1984) 3 SCC 243

Release of bonded labourers without rehabilitation is cruelty. The State must ensure identification, release AND rehabilitation of bonded labourers.

Read Analysis
1986

Sheela Barse v. Union of India

(1986) 3 SCC 632

Children cannot be kept in jails. Directions issued for establishment of juvenile courts, children's homes, and appointment of duty counsel…

Read Analysis
1993

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa

AIR 1993 SC 1960

State is liable to pay compensation for custodial death as a public law remedy under Article 32/226, independent of any…

Read Analysis

Disclaimer

This judgment summary is for educational and research purposes. While care has been taken to accurately represent the ratio and findings, for authoritative reference always consult the original judgment text from official sources (SCC Online, AIR, Manupatra, or court websites).

Need Case Law Research or Legal Representation?

22+ years of practice before Punjab & Haryana High Court and Supreme Court of India.

Call: +919915442266 WhatsApp

Need Legal Assistance?

Contact Advocate Ravinder Singh Dhull for expert legal guidance on your matter.