Introduction
The portrayal of historical figures in movies often sparks debates about accuracy, cultural sensitivity, and legal concerns. A prominent case of such controversy is the defamation of Aurangzeb and other Mughal figures in the latest film called Chhava. This article examines the legal landscape governing such controversies, analyzing defamation laws, censorship protocols, judicial precedents, and societal implications.
I. The Chhaava Controversy: Context and Key Issues
a. Aurangzeb’s Villainous Portrayal
Chhaava is a film that portrays Aurangzeb as a villainous character, with Akshaye Khanna's performance as the Mughal emperor being notable for his intensity. However, the film simplifies historical complexities into a binary conflict between good and evil, with Aurangzeb embodying the latter. Critics argue that this lacks depth, reducing him to a disinterested figure commanding from his chambers while Sambhaji is shown as an invincible hero.
Despite these criticisms, Chhaava remains a movie that celebrates Sambhaji's heroics, with Aurangzeb as a character piece to highlight the Maratha king's bravery.
2. Public and Political Reactions
Public and Social Media Reactions to Chhaava
The portrayal of Aurangzeb in Chhaava (2025) ignited polarized reactions on social media, blending acclaim for Akshaye Khanna’s performance with debates over historical accuracy and communal sensitivities.
a. Praise for Akshaye Khanna’s role
Akshaye Khanna’s transformation into the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb became a focal point, with fans lauding his menacing gaze and kohl-laced eyes that captured Aurangzeb’s tyranny. Social media reactions erupted with memes and praise, with X users stating, “Even the original Aurangzeb would get confused by Khanna’s intense portrayal”. His prosthetic-driven appearance and restrained acting style—relying on subtle expressions rather than dialogue—were widely celebrated. Critics noted his ability to humanize a historically vilified figure while maintaining antagonistic gravitas, calling it a masterstroke in casting Aurangzeb as the villain in the film.
b. Mixed Reviews on Narrative Execution
While Vicky Kaushal’s portrayal of Chhatrapati Sambhaji earned praise for its fire intensity, the film itself faced criticism for uneven pacing and simplistic storytelling. Audiences praised the second half’s emotional depth and battle sequences but critiqued the sketchy first half as lacking cohesion. Some viewers felt the Mughals were reduced to caricatures, with one noting, The film relies on brute force, not strategy, to showcase Maratha valor. Despite a ₹130 crore budget and box office success (₹250 crore globally), critics labeled Chhaava a spectacle over substance effort.
c. Controversies and Misinformation
• False Protest Claims:
Viral posts falsely linked Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) protests to Chhaava, alleging demands to ban the film for denigrating Aurangzeb. Fact-checkers clarified these protests targeted a 2013 film titled Aurangzeb, not Chhaava. This misinformation sparked heated debates around historical accuracy and its impact on communal sensitivities in Indian cinema.
• Communal Tensions:
Actor Swara Bhasker faced backlash over unverified claims of filmy torture of Hindus, though no specific scenes in Chhaava validated these allegations. Politicians like Uday Samant (Maharashtra) objected to a dance sequence involving Sambhaji, reflecting broader anxieties over historical representation.
d. Legacy and Discourse
The film reignited debates about balancing creative liberties with historical accountability. While Maratha groups praised its focus on Sambhaji’s heroism, critics argued it perpetuated a Hindu-Muslim binary, simplifying complex histories into good vs. evil tropes. Social media amplified both extremes—celebrating Khanna’s comeback while dissecting the film’s flaws—highlighting cinema’s role in shaping public memory.
e. Political Remarks
Politicians also weighed in on the controversy, with some praising the film for its nationalist themes and others criticizing its historical inaccuracies. Maharashtra Minister Uday Samant expressed concerns about the film’s portrayal of Sambhaji, emphasizing the need for respectful representation of historical figures. These comments underscored the political sensitivity surrounding historical dramas, where artistic expression often intersects with communal and national identity.
Political leaders’ reactions highlighted the delicate balance between creative freedom and cultural responsibility in India’s cinematic landscape. So it would be apt to say that Chhaava’s reception underscores how historical films straddle art, identity, and politics. While Khanna’s performance dominated the discourse, the polarized reactions reveal India’s ongoing struggle to reconcile cinematic storytelling with contested pasts.
II. Legal Framework for Filmmakers
Cinematograph Act, 1952, and CBFC Guidelines
The Cinematograph Act, 1952, is the foundational legislation governing film certification and exhibition in India. It established the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which plays a crucial role in ensuring that films comply with national standards and do not harm public order or morality.
Key Provisions of the Cinematograph Act
1. Certification Process: The Act mandates that films must be certified by the CBFC before public exhibition. A film will not be certified if it is deemed to undermine national sovereignty, security, or public order or if it promotes communal discord, defamation, or contempt of court.
2. Classification of Films: The CBFC categorizes films into four main categories:
a. U: Universal, suitable for all ages.
b. UA: Parental guidance is required for children below 12 years.
c. A: Restricted to adults only.
d. S: Special, restricted to specific professional groups.
3. Regulation of Exhibitions: The Act requires that cinematograph exhibitions be licensed. No film can be exhibited without a license from the designated authority, typically the district magistrate.
4. Exemptions: The Central Government has the power to exempt certain films or classes of films from these provisions, subject to conditions and restrictions.
Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19(2)
While the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). These restrictions include considerations for sovereignty and security, public order, decency or morality, and prevention of incitement to offenses. The Cinematograph Act aligns with these constitutional provisions by ensuring that films do not violate these principles.
Judicial Precedents and CBFC Authority
Courts have consistently upheld the CBFC’s authority to regulate films under the Cinematograph Act. Judicial precedents emphasize that pre-censorship is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2), as seen in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1971). This ruling established that censorship is necessary to maintain public order and morality.
In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), the Supreme Court further clarified that films should provoke informed debate rather than violence or communal discord. This principle underscores the balance between artistic expression and societal sensitivities.
The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2023: Key Provisions and Implications
The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2023, introduced in the Rajya Sabha on July 20, 2023, seeks to amend the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which governs the certification and exhibition of films in India. The Bill introduces significant changes to film certification categories, strengthens anti-piracy measures, and modifies procedural aspects of film regulation.
Additional Certificate Categories
The Act revises the existing film certification system by introducing age-specific categories within the "UA" classification. Under the Act, films were previously certified as:
(i) ‘U’ (Universal),
(ii) ‘UA’ (Parental Guidance for children below 12 years),
(iii) ‘A’ (Adults only), and
(iv) ‘S’ (Restricted to specific professions or classes).
The Act replaces the "UA" category with three subcategories based on age appropriateness:
(i) UA 7+,
(ii) UA 13+, and
(iii) UA 16+.
These age endorsements aim to guide parents or guardians regarding suitability for children but are not enforceable by third parties. This change aligns India’s certification system with international practices.
Separate Certification for Television and Other Media
Films certified as "A" or "S" will require a separate certification for exhibition on television or other media platforms prescribed by the central government. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) may direct filmmakers to make necessary deletions or modifications to obtain this additional certificate.
Anti-Piracy Measures
It introduces stringent provisions to combat piracy, addressing unauthorized recording and exhibition of films. It criminalizes:
(i) Unauthorized recording—making or transmitting infringing copies of films at licensed venues without authorization.
(ii) Unauthorized exhibition—publicly exhibiting infringing copies for profit at unlicensed locations or in violation of copyright law.
Attempting unauthorized recording is also deemed an offense. Certain exemptions under the Copyright Act, 1957 apply, including private use, reporting current affairs, and reviews or critiques. Violations are punishable with imprisonment ranging from three months to three years and fines between ₹3 lakh and 5% of the audited gross production cost. These measures aim to curb piracy losses estimated at ₹20,000 crore annually.
Perpetual Validity of Certificates
It removes the current ten-year validity period for film certificates issued by the CBFC. Certificates will now be perpetually valid, simplifying administrative processes for filmmakers.
Revisional Powers of the Central Government
The Act previously allowed the central government to review and issue orders regarding certified or pending films. The Bill eliminates this power, emphasizing CBFC’s autonomy in film certification decisions.
Judicial Intervention in Cinematograph Act Revisions: The K.M. Shankarappa Case and Its Legacy
The K.M. Shankarappa v. Union of India (1990) case and its subsequent affirmation by the Supreme Court fundamentally reshaped India’s film certification framework by curtailing executive overreach into judicial and quasi-judicial decisions. Here’s a breakdown of the case, its implications, and its relevance to recent amendments:
Background of the Case
In K.M. Shankarappa v. Union of India (1990), the Karnataka High Court examined the constitutionality of Section 6(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which empowered the Central Government to revise decisions of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT). The petitioner challenged this provision, arguing that it violated the separation of powers doctrine under the
Constitution.
Key Findings
- Unconstitutionality of Executive Revisionary Powers
The High Court held that allowing the Central Government to revise decisions of the CBFC (a quasi-judicial body) violated the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly the rule of law and separation of powers. The court also emphasized that permitting the executive to override judicial/quasi-judicial decisions would undermine judicial independence and create a conflict of interest. - Supreme Court Affirmation
The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa (2001), upheld the High Court’s decision. It reiterated that executive revision over CBFC/FCAT decisions is a "travesty of the rule of law," as it allows the government to act as a "super appellate authority" over judicial bodies. - Striking Down Section 6(1)
Portions of Section 6(1) enabling the Central Government to revise CBFC/FCAT decisions were struck down. This ensured that film certification decisions remained within the domain of quasi-judicial bodies, free from political interference.
Impact on Cinematograph Act Amendments
1. 2021 Amendment Act & 2023 Bill
The Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023 abolished the FCAT and removed the Central Government’s revisional powers over certified films. However, this move faced criticism:
Flawed Assumption: Legislators assumed that without the FCAT, executive revision would be permissible. However, the Shankarappa judgments had already barred revisions even against CBFC decisions.
Ignored Precedents: The amendments overlooked the Supreme Court’s reasoning in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970), where the government had withdrawn censorship demands after judicial scrutiny, reinforcing the need for judicial oversight.
2. Persisting Constitutional Issues
The 2023 Act retains provisions allowing the Central Government to demand modifications for TV/other media exhibitions of films certified as “A” or “S.” Critics argue this revives executive interference, albeit indirectly.
Broader Implications
i. Doctrine of Separation of Powers: The judiciary has consistently barred executive encroachment into judicial functions. For instance, in P. Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1987), the Supreme Court struck down a law letting the state revise tribunal orders, calling it antithetical to the rule of law.
ii.Censorship vs. Free Speech: The Shankarappa rulings reinforced that film certification is a quasi-judicial process, not an executive privilege. This balances artistic freedom with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
Current Relevance
The 2023 amendments, while progressive, risk reintroducing executive influence through ambiguous provisions (e.g., TV certification mandates). Courts may need to intervene again if the government oversteps. Furthermore, The Shankarappa precedent remains a bulwark against attempts to politicize film certification, ensuring that censorship aligns with constitutional principles rather than bureaucratic or political whims.
Defamation in Movies: Types, Case Laws, and Constituents
Defamation in the context of movies involves statements or portrayals that harm a person's reputation. In India, defamation is both a civil and criminal offense, governed by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the law of torts.
Types of Defamation
Libel: This refers to written defamation, such as statements published in newspapers, books, or online. Libel is considered more serious because it is permanent and can reach a wider audience.
Slander: This involves spoken defamation, which is temporary but can still cause harm. Slander is often considered less severe than libel because it is ephemeral.
Cyber Defamation: With the rise of the internet, cyber defamation has become a significant concern. This includes defamatory statements made online, such as on social media platforms
Constituents of Defamation For a statement to be considered defamatory, it must: Be Published: The statement must be communicated to a third party. Lower Reputation: It must harm the person's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. Be False: The statement must be untrue.
Case Laws and Defamation in Movies
- S.T.S. Raghavendra Chary v. CheguriVenkatLaxma Reddy (2018): This case highlighted the distinction between libel and slander in the Indian context, emphasizing that both forms of defamation require publication.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Although not directly related to movies, this case addressed cyber defamation under the Information Technology Act, 2000. It underscored the importance of balancing free speech with the need to protect reputations online.
- Shatrughan Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi (1996): This case involved defamatory allegations against a community, illustrating how defamation can affect groups as well as individuals.
Defamation in Historical Films
One of the key issues filmmakers of Historical films have faced in the past is the depiction of historical figures who feel that their community or cultural heritage is being misrepresented to the general public. Such differences in opinions often lead filmmakers caught up with last-minute litigations. A few cases that led to controversies are highlighted below:
1. Padmaavat Case
Background: The film Padmaavat (2018), directed by Sanjay Leela Bhansali, faced widespread protests from Rajput groups, particularly the Karni Sena, who alleged that the film distorted the legacy of Queen Padmini. They claimed that the portrayal of a romantic dream sequence between Padmini and Alauddin Khilji was disrespectful and defamatory to Rajput history and culture. Legal Proceedings: Multiple petitions were filed across various High Courts to ban the film, citing defamation and potential communal unrest. The Supreme Court intervened when state governments like Rajasthan, Haryana, and Gujarat imposed bans on the film despite its clearance by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
What Was Held:
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the filmmakers, stating that once a film is certified by the CBFC, state governments cannot impose bans arbitrarily.
- The Court emphasized that artistic freedom is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution but is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
- It rejected claims of defamation against Queen Padmini, highlighting that historical figures cannot be defamed due to the absence of living heirs.
Outcome: The film was released nationwide after including disclaimers clarifying that it was a work of fiction inspired by historical events. The ruling reinforced the CBFC’s authority in certifying films and protecting creative expression.
2. Bajirao Mastani Case
Background: Bajirao Mastani (2015) depicted the love story between Peshwa Bajirao I and Mastani. Descendants of Bajirao objected to certain fictionalized elements, including a dance sequence featuring Kashibai (Bajirao’s wife) and a romantic subplot involving Mastani. They argued that these scenes distorted historical facts and tarnished their family’s legacy. Legal Proceedings: A petition was filed in the Bombay High Court seeking a stay on the film’s release until edits were made to remove allegedly defamatory content.
What Was Held:
The Bombay High Court allowed the film’s release after minor edits were made to address concerns about historical inaccuracies. The Court held that filmmakers are entitled to creative liberties as long as there is no malicious intent to harm reputations or incite violence. It emphasized that public interest in historical discourse should outweigh individual grievances over artistic interpretation.
Outcome: The film was released with disclaimers stating it was a dramatized version of historical events. This case set a precedent for balancing creative freedom with respect for historical sensitivities.
3. Udta Punjab Case
Background: Udta Punjab (2016) is a gritty drama highlighting drug abuse in Punjab. The CBFC demanded 89 cuts, including the removal of references to Punjab, claiming that the film defamed the state and could incite unrest.
Legal Proceedings: Phantom Films challenged the CBFC’s decision in the Bombay High Court, arguing that excessive censorship violated their right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
What Was Held: The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Phantom Films, reducing the cuts from 89 to just one. It criticized the CBFC for acting beyond its mandate and emphasized that censorship should not stifle creativity or public debate on critical issues like drug abuse. The Court reiterated that films are a medium for artistic expression and social commentary, protected under constitutional rights.
Outcome: The film was released with minimal changes, marking a significant victory for filmmakers against arbitrary censorship.
Notable Legal Challenges Under IPC: Sections 153A and 295A
Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are pivotal in addressing hate speech and actions that promote enmity or insult religious beliefs. While these provisions aim to maintain societal harmony, their broad wording has led to misuse, often triggering debates about free speech and artistic expression.
Section 153A: Promoting Enmity Between Groups
Section 153A penalizes acts that promote enmity between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, language, or other grounds. It also covers actions prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony. This provision was introduced in 1898 to counter communal tensions and has since evolved to address modern challenges. The punishment includes imprisonment up to three years, a fine, or both.
For an offense under Section 153A to be established, the prosecution must prove:
- Mens Rea: The accused must have malicious intent to create enmity or hatred.
- Presence of Two or More Groups: The alleged act must involve creating discord between identifiable communities or groups.
The Supreme Court has clarified this in landmark cases, such as Patricia Mukhim’s case in 2021, where the FIR against her for allegedly creating communal disharmony was quashed. The Court ruled that intent to incite violence is essential for conviction under Section 153A. Similarly, in Amish Devgan v Union of India, the Court emphasized that mere criticism without malicious intent does not constitute an offense.
Section 295A: Insulting Religious Beliefs
Section 295A criminalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting a religion or its beliefs. This provision was added in response to communal tensions during the colonial era and remains relevant today. It applies to speech, writing, or actions targeting religious sentiments.
For conviction under Section 295A, the prosecution must establish:
- Deliberate Intent: The act must be intentional and aimed at insulting religious beliefs.
- Malicious Nature: The offender’s actions must be driven by malice rather than mere negligence or ignorance.
Courts have often dismissed cases under Section 295A unless clear evidence of intent is presented. For instance, in PK (2014), allegations of insulting Hindu beliefs were rejected as the film was deemed satirical rather than maliciously offensive.
Challenges and Misuse
Despite their importance in preserving societal harmony, Sections 153A and 295A are frequently misused:
a. Political Exploitation: Governments have been accused of using these provisions to suppress dissent or target critics. For example, Pawan Khera’s arrest under Section 153A highlighted concerns about restricting free speech for political purposes.
b. Low Conviction Rates: According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), conviction rates for Section 153A cases remain low (around 20%), while police pendency rates are high (over 60%). This indicates that many cases lack substantive evidence.
c. Impact on Free Speech: Broad interpretations of these sections create a chilling effect on press freedom and artistic expression, with individuals resorting to self-censorship.
Judicial Safeguards
To curb misuse, courts have laid down safeguards:
1. Government Sanction: Prosecution under Sections 153A and 295A requires prior government approval before trial begins.
2. Intent Requirement: The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed the need for proving deliberate intent to incite violence or insult religious beliefs.
3. Reasonable Man Standard: Courts assess alleged offenses based on how a reasonable person would interpret them rather than overly sensitive reactions.
4. If objections arise post-certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), filmmakers can file a writ petition in High Courts or the Supreme Court under Article 226 or Article 32, challenging undue censorship or interference.
5. Courts have previously ruled in favor of filmmakers when CBFC certification was challenged (Prakash Jha v. Union of India).
5. Procedural Safeguards and Filmmaker Recourse
a. CBFC Certification Process
CBFC Certification Process: Submission, Screening, and Appeals
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) plays a pivotal role in regulating the public exhibition of films in India under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. It ensures that films adhere to national standards of decency, morality, and public order while balancing creative freedom. The certification process involves three key stages: submission, screening, and appeals.
1. Submission
Filmmakers begin the certification process by submitting their films to one of the CBFC’s regional offices. The submission includes the script, trailers, and the final cut of the film. Along with these materials, filmmakers must provide an application form detailing the film's content and intended target audience. This stage initiates the formal scrutiny process to determine whether the film complies with CBFC guidelines.
2. Screening
Once submitted, an examining committee is formed to review the film. This panel typically consists of a chairperson and four advisory panel members who watch the film and evaluate its content based on CBFC’s certification guidelines. The committee may suggest edits or modifications to ensure compliance with standards related to public decency, morality, and communal harmony. For example:
a. Scenes promoting violence, obscenity, or communal discord may be flagged for removal.
b. Disclaimers may be mandated for fictionalized content or sensitive historical narratives.
After reviewing the film, the committee forwards its recommendations to the CBFC chairperson for approval. Filmmakers are then informed of any required cuts or modifications.
3. Appeals
If filmmakers disagree with the CBFC’s decision, they can appeal to higher authorities. Until 2021, this included approaching the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT). However, after FCAT’s dissolution, appeals are now directed to High Courts or other judicial forums. These avenues allow filmmakers to challenge excessive censorship or defend their creative rights.
b. State-Level Bans
States like Karnataka and Gujarat have invoked Cinema Regulation Acts to suspend releases (e.g., Padmaavat). However, courts frequently overturn such bans, citing federal overreach.
c. Recent Reforms: Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023
The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, introduced significant reforms to modernize India’s film certification process. One of the most notable changes is the introduction of new age-based classifications, further subdividing the existing UA category into three subcategories: UA 7+, UA 13+, and UA 16+. These classifications aim to provide parents and guardians with clearer guidance on the suitability of films for children, balancing creative freedom with the need to protect vulnerable audiences. The traditional U (universal), A (adults only), and S (specialized) categories remain unchanged.
Another key provision empowers the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to recall films for reassessment. This allows the CBFC to review previously certified films if they are found to violate certification guidelines post-release. While this measure is intended to address unforeseen issues, such as public backlash or complaints about offensive content, it has raised concerns among filmmakers and critics.
Critics argue that the power to recall films risks enabling retroactive censorship, potentially chilling creative expression. Filmmakers fear that this provision could be misused to target politically or socially sensitive works after their release. Such actions could discourage bold storytelling and lead to self-censorship within the industry.
While these reforms aim to streamline certification and enhance inclusivity, balancing regulatory oversight with artistic freedom remains a challenge.
Conclusion:
The legal framework for historical films in India seeks to balance creative freedom with societal sensitivities. The Cinematograph Act and CBFC guidelines ensure that films do not harm national integrity or stoke communal tensions. While Chhaava's portrayal of Aurangzeb is legally permissible, it highlights the need for historical accuracy and cultural responsibility. Filmmakers must navigate the fine line between artistic expression and respecting historical truths. The CBFC plays a vital role in certifying films while ensuring that creative freedoms are upheld.
What we also learn from the case of Chhava is that social media discussions can also lead to the spread of misinformation, which in turn can lead to communal tensions and this is a challenge filmmakers will face while portraying historical events. Therefore, they must balance creative expression and cultural sensitivity. This also involves engaging with historians to ensure they portray accurate and respectful depictions of historical figures and events.
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Tags :others
