Dismissing the petition, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in their judgment said, “To apply the litmus test, it is to be borne in mind that a book should not be read in a fragmented manner. It had to be read as a whole.”
The petitioner N. Radhakrishnan had sought a ban on a part of the novel which he contended had portrayed women and temple priests in an “objectionable” manner.
The court said that language, ideas, style, the manner of portrayal of a character, and other aspects of the book had to be appreciated from an objective point of view.
Speaking for the bench, Chief Justice Misra said, “There may be subjective perception of a book as regards its worth and evaluation, but the said subjectivity cannot be allowed to enter the legal arena for censorship or a ban.”
The CJI further said, “It has to be kept in mind that the imagination of a writer has to enjoy freedom. It cannot be asked to succumb to specifics. That will tantamount to imposition.”
Asserting that a writer “should have free play with words, like a painter has it with colours”, the court said, “The passion of imagination cannot be directed.”
Source : Times of India
The Supreme Court on September 5 dismissed a plea seeking a ban on a part of Malayalam novel Meesha saying subjective perception about the book cannot be allowed to come into the legal arena for censorship to
stifle the creative imagination of a writer.
Dismissing the petition, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in their judgment said, “To apply the litmus test, it is to be borne in mind that a book should not be read in a fragmented manner. It had to be read as a whole.”
The petitioner N. Radhakrishnan had sought a ban on a part of the novel which he contended had portrayed women and temple priests in an “objectionable” manner.
The court said that language, ideas, style, the manner of portrayal of a character, and other aspects of the book had to be appreciated from an objective point of view.
Speaking for the bench, Chief Justice Misra said, “There may be subjective perception of a book as regards its worth and evaluation, but the said subjectivity cannot be allowed to enter the legal arena for censorship or a ban.”
The CJI further said, “It has to be kept in mind that the imagination of a writer has to enjoy freedom. It cannot be asked to succumb to specifics. That will tantamount to imposition.”
Asserting that a writer “should have free play with words, like a painter has it with colours”, the court said, “The passion of imagination cannot be directed.”
Dismissing the petition, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in their judgment said, “To apply the litmus test, it is to be borne in mind that a book should not be read in a fragmented manner. It had to be read as a whole.”
The petitioner N. Radhakrishnan had sought a ban on a part of the novel which he contended had portrayed women and temple priests in an “objectionable” manner.
The court said that language, ideas, style, the manner of portrayal of a character, and other aspects of the book had to be appreciated from an objective point of view.
Speaking for the bench, Chief Justice Misra said, “There may be subjective perception of a book as regards its worth and evaluation, but the said subjectivity cannot be allowed to enter the legal arena for censorship or a ban.”
The CJI further said, “It has to be kept in mind that the imagination of a writer has to enjoy freedom. It cannot be asked to succumb to specifics. That will tantamount to imposition.”
Asserting that a writer “should have free play with words, like a painter has it with colours”, the court said, “The passion of imagination cannot be directed.”