South Asia Censorship News

Authorities in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir have banned 25 books by acclaimed scholars, writers and historians, accusing them of promoting terrorism, secessionism and undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India.

The titles include works by internationally renowned Islamic thinker Syed Abul Ala Maududi, constitutional expert AG Noorani, award-winning author and activist Arundhati Roy, Kashmiri academics Hafsa Kanjwal and Ather Zia, and prominent historians Ayesha Jalal and Sugata Bose.

A government notification issued by the Home Department said the publications were forfeited under Section 98 of the newly implemented Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -- Indias Code of Criminal Procedure.

Officials allege the books contain false narratives, glorify terrorism, vilify Indian security forces and distort historical facts, claims the authorities say contribute to the radicalisation of Kashmiri youth and incitement to violence.

Among the banned works are:

• Al-Jihad Fil Islam by Maududi
• Azadi and Kashmir: The Case for Freedom by Arundhati Roy
• Colonizing Kashmir by Hafsa Kanjwal
• Resisting Disappearance by Ather Zia
• Kashmir in Conflict by Victoria Schofield
• The Kashmir Dispute 1947--2012 by AG Noorani.

The nationalist government of Narendra Modhi has blocked 18 streaming platforms in India, claiming they promoted obscenity and vulgarity under the guise of 'creative expression.

The targeted streaming platforms -- dubbed "OTT" (over the top) are Dreams Films, Voovi, Yessma, Uncut Adda, Tri Flicks, X Prime, Neon X VIP, Besharams, Hunters, Rabbit, Xtramood, Nuefliks, MoodX, Mojflix, Hot Shots VIP, Fugi, Chikooflix and Prime Play .

The Modhi government is accusing the platforms of the crime of "depicting nudity and sexual acts". And for obscene and pornographic content despite multiple warnings, India Toda reported.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said in a statement that it was enforcing the 2000 Information Technology Act, and that the crackdown also included 19 websites, 10 apps -- seven on Google Play Store, three on Apple App Store -- and 57 social media accounts associated with the targeted platforms.

According to the government, the now-censored streamed content depicted nudity and sexual acts in various inappropriate contexts, such as relationships between teachers and students, incestuous family relationships, etc. as well as sexual innuendos and, in some instances, prolonged segments of pornographic and sexually explicit scenes devoid of any thematic or societal relevance.

India's ministry of information and broadcasting (I&B) has ordered an inquiry after Tamil actor-producer Vishal Krishna Reddy declared on social media that he had to pay a sum of Rupee 6.5 lakh to Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) members in Mumbai to get his film cleared. The film, titled Mark Antony (Hindi), was released on September 28. I&B ministry orders inquiry after Tamil actor releases video of bribe-taking at CBFC I&B ministry orders inquiry after Tamil actor releases video of bribe-taking at CBFC

Reddy explaied: We had applied online to CBFC Mumbai , he said. Due to technical issues, we got delayed. On Monday, when my team members visited the CBFC office, they were asked to pay Rupee 6.5 lakh-- Rupee 3 lakh for watching the film and Rupee 3.5 lakh to give a certificate on time. TWe had no option but to pay up, as much was at stake.

The actor said his team transferred the money to two bank accounts. I am not showing a porn or adult film, he said. I am showing a film that has already been certified in the South in all four languages. So I don't know how they have the guts to ask for money so openly.

A statement by the I&B ministry on Friday afternoon claimed that the government had zero tolerance for corruption and stringent action would be taken against anyone found involved in the episode.

The Kerala High Court has recently passed a significant judgment declaring that watching pornography in private without sharing or exhibiting it to others is not an offence under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the sale, distribution, and display of obscene material.

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, while delivering the judgment in the case of Aneesh v State of Kerala, asserted that an individual's private choice to view explicit content in their personal space should not be subject to legal interference, as it would violate their right to privacy.

This ruling clarifies that watching explicit content privately, whether in the form of photos or videos on a mobile device, does not fall within the purview of Section 292 IPC. The court made it clear that this provision only applies when someone attempts to circulate, distribute, or publicly exhibit such material.

In a specific case where an individual was charged under Section 292 for watching explicit videos on his mobile phone in a public place, the court quashed the case, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence to establish the offense.