Intolerance to artistic expression doesn't suit India, says Kerala HC

Intolerance to cultural and artistic expressions does not befit a civilised country like India, the Kerala high court has said.

The court made the observation while hearing a plea which claimed that the depiction of a gun concealed inside a Bible in the Malayalam action movie Antony denigrates Christianity.

Justice Devan Ramachandran said that the production and creation of a cinematographic movie were guided by imagination and real-life experiences.

"The liberty of a team, while creating a cinematographic movie, certainly has to be respected, provided they do not trample upon or infringe the rights of individuals or society," the court said.

It further said that in the instant matter, the petitioner's complaint, that the scene in question was an affront to the religious faith of Christians, was rather "uncharitable", because the censor board did not find the scene to be contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups.

The court also said that during the review screening, the members of the committee concerned of the censor board did not even notice the Bible, because the scene was a fleeting one, without any reference to any particular scripture.

"I propose not to say anything further, but deem it necessary to add that intolerance to cultural and artistic expressions is not something that behooves well for a civilised country like ours."

"But if any particular scene is established to be violating the unexpendable respect required to racial, religious or other groups, certainly, it is for the 'Board' to intervene and take necessary action," Justice Ramachandran said.

In this matter, the movie producer had already moved the Board, during the pendency of the petition, to blur the scene to avoid any further controversy.

The Central government lawyer, appearing for the Board, said that the producer's application has already been allowed and the scene blurred so that the book cannot be identified.

The court said that since the Board had already taken action on the request of the producer, it was closing the petition without issuing any orders or directions.

The petitioner, in his plea moved on December 18 last year, wanted to injunct release of the film till the allegedly objectionable scene was removed.