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".
[12] In 1975, the Indira Gandhi government imposed censorship of press during The Emergency; the day after, the Bombay edition of The 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".
The ban order, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Srinagar 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 the Kashmir valley, following the killing of the commander of a terrorist group known as Hizbul Mujahideen (designated a terrorist group by India, the European Union and the United States) whose name was Burhan 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.
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.
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.
The Central 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.
[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.
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.
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.
Censorship by prior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but also necessaryIn 2006, seven states (Nagaland, Punjab, Goa, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh) have banned the release or exhibition of the Hollywood movie The Da Vinci Code (and also the book),[25] although the CBFC cleared the film for adult viewing throughout India.
[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.
[35][36] However soon later, the Supreme 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.
[68] 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.