View source for Censorship in India

{{short description|none}} <!-- "none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive; see [[WP:SDNONE]] -->
{{Use British English|date=April 2012}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2020}}
{{Censorship by country}}

'''Censorship in India''' has taken various forms throughout its history. Although ''[[de jure]]'' the [[Constitution of India]] guarantees [[freedom of expression in India|freedom of expression]],<ref name="Article 19">{{cite web |url= https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/ |title= Article 19 in The Constitution Of India 1949 |website= indiankanoon.org |language=en |publisher= Indian Kanoon |access-date= 15 Sep 2023}}</ref> ''[[de facto]]'' there are [[freedom of expression in India#Restrictions|various restrictions]] on content, with an official view towards "maintaining communal and religious harmony", given the history of communal tension in the nation. 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".<ref>{{cite news | url=http://telegraphindia.com/1111207/jsp/nation/story_14848886.jsp | location=Calcutta, India | work=The Telegraph | title=Uncle dictates, cyber boys dispose - Sibal to work on norms for social sites | date=7 December 2011 | access-date=26 March 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160322061556/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111207/jsp/nation/story_14848886.jsp | archive-date=22 March 2016 | url-status=dead }}</ref>

In 2024, the annual [[Freedom in the World]] report by [[Freedom House]] gave India an overall score of 66 out of 100, corresponding to a status of "partially free", with a Civil Liberties rating of 33 out of 60 and a score of 2 out of 4 for the specific question "Are there free and independent media?".<ref>{{Cite web |title=India: Freedom in the World 2024 Country Report |url=https://freedomhouse.org/country/india/freedom-world/2024 |access-date=2024-03-14 |website=Freedom House |language=en}}</ref> The analysis specifically noted that this did not include conditions in Indian Kashmir, which was analysed separately and scored a much lower overall score of 26 out of 100 (status "not free"), with a Civil Liberties rating of 20 out of 60.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Indian Kashmir: Freedom in the World 2024 Country Report |url=https://freedomhouse.org/country/indian-kashmir/freedom-world/2024 |access-date=2024-03-14 |website=Freedom House |language=en}}</ref> This represents a continued worsening of conditions over the recent years; in comparison, in 2017 India was given an overall score of 77 out of 100 (status "free"), and a score of 42 out of 60 for civil liberties.<ref>{{Cite web |title=India: Freedom in the World 2017 Country Report |url=https://freedomhouse.org/country/india/freedom-world/2017 |access-date=2024-03-14 |website=Freedom House |language=en}}</ref>

According to the [[World Press Freedom Index]] (WPFI), a global analysis published by [[Reporters Without Borders]] (RSF), India's press freedom ranking has dropped from 140 out of 179 countries in 2019, to 161 out of 180 countries in 2023, classifying press freedom in India as being in a "serious" situation.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-02-26 |title=India {{!}} RSF |url=https://rsf.org/en/country/india |access-date=2024-03-14 |website=rsf.org |language=en}}</ref><ref>"Index 2023 – Global score". ''[[Reporters Without Borders]]''. Archived from the original on 10 May 2023. Retrieved 3 May 2023.</ref>

==Laws==
===Obscenity===
Watching, listening to, or possessing [[pornography|pornographic materials]] is generally legal. However, distribution of such materials is strictly banned.<ref>{{cite book |last=Rajak |first=Brajesh |title=Pornography Laws: XXX Must not be Tolerated |edition=paperback |year=2011 |publisher=Universal Law Co |location=Delhi |isbn=978-81-7534-999-5|page=61}}</ref> The [[Central Board of Film Certification]] allows release of certain films with sexual content (labelled [[Central Board of Film Certification#Current certificates|A-rated]]), which are to be shown only in restricted spaces, and are to be viewed only by people of age 18 and above.<ref>{{cite news |author=Viju B |author2=Bharati Dubey |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Family-entertainment-B-town-flicks-now-open-to-adults-only/articleshow/5397590.cms |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110811065841/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-12-31/india/28101486_1_adult-films-rating-system-movies |url-status=live |archive-date=2011-08-11 |title=Family entertainment? B-town flicks now open to adults only |date=2009-12-31 |work=[[The Times of India]] |agency=[[Times News Network|TNN]] |access-date=2010-05-21}}</ref> India's [[Public broadcasting|public television broadcaster]], [[Doordarshan]], has aired these films at late-night time slots.<ref>Sinhā, Niroja (1989). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=AYPaAAAAMAAJ Women and Violence]''. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House. [https://books.google.com/books?id=AYPaAAAAMAAJ&q=Doordarshan p. 97]. {{ISBN|0706942736}}. {{oclc|19812282}}. "Assuming that late night programme telecast would be restricted to adults, Doordarshan started showing adult films in recent past on TV."<!-- Period is sic—the quotation is a complete sentence. --></ref> [[Films]], [[television show]]s, and [[music video]]s are prone to scene-cuts or even bans. However, if any literature is banned, it is not usually for pornographic reasons. Pornographic magazines are technically illegal, but many [[softcore pornography|softcore]] Indian publications are available through many news vendors, who often stock them at the bottom of a stack of non-pornographic magazines, and make them available on request. Most non-Indian publications (including ''[[Playboy]]'') are usually harder to find, whether soft-core or [[hardcore pornography|hardcore]]. Mailing pornographic magazines in India from a country where they are legal is also illegal in India. In practice, the magazines are almost always confiscated by [[Central Board of Excise and Customs|Customs]], and are entered as evidence of law-breaking, and are punishable, and they undergo detailed scrutiny.

===National security===
The [[Official Secrets Act 1923]] is used for the protection of official information, mainly related to [[national security]].<ref>"[http://www.indialawinfo.com/bareacts/OSA.html The Official Secrets Act, 1923] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060525123340/http://www.indialawinfo.com/bareacts/OSA.html |date=25 May 2006 }}", IndiaLawInfo.com. Retrieved 4 June 2006</ref>

==Censorship by medium==

===Press===
{{Main|Freedom of the press in India}}
The Indian press does not enjoy extensive freedom. In 2023, it was ranked 140 in the [[Press Freedom Index]], published by [[Reporters Without Borders]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-06-21 |title=India {{!}} RSF |url=https://rsf.org/en/country/india |access-date=2023-08-22 |website=rsf.org |language=en}}</ref> In 1975, the [[Indira Gandhi]] government imposed censorship of press during [[The Emergency (India)|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".<ref name="austing">{{cite book|last=Austin|first=Granville|title=Working a democratic constitution: the Indian experience|year=1999|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0-19-564888-9|pages=295|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=r42bAAAAMAAJ}}</ref> It was removed at the end of emergency rule in March 1977.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=th8KAQAAIAAJ |title=The Emergency, Censorship, and the Press in India, 1975-77 |first=Soli J. |last=Sorabjee |publisher=Central News Agency |year=1977}}</ref>

On 2 October 2016 (see: [[2016 Kashmir unrest]]) the Srinagar-based Kashmiri newspaper, ''[[Kashmir Reader]]'' was asked to stop production by the [[Jammu and Kashmir (state)|Former Jammu and Kashmir]] government. 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"<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/kashmir-reader-ban-protest-valley-journalists-reactions-3063689/|title=Valley journalists protest against ban on Kashmir Reader|date=2016-10-04|access-date=2016-10-05}}</ref> 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. Working journalists protested the ban by marching to the Directorate of Information and Public Relations while the Kashmir Editors Guild (KEG) held an emergency meeting in Srinagar, thereafter asking the government to revoke the ban immediately, and asking for the intervention of the Press Council of India.<ref name=":0" /> The move has been criticised by a variety of individuals, academic and civil groups in Kashmir and international rights groups, such as [http://www.jkccs.net/ Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society] (JKCCS), Kashmir Economic Alliance (KEA), the Kashmir Center for Social and Development Studies (KCSDS) and [[Amnesty International]], among others. 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. [[All Parties Hurriyat Conference|Hurriyat]] leaders, known to champion the cause of Kashmiri independence, also recorded their protests against the banning of the newspaper. Amnesty International released a statement saying that "the government has a duty to respect the freedom of the press, and the right of people to receive information,"<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37559679|title=Kashmir newspaper ban criticised|date=2016-10-05|newspaper=BBC News|language=en-GB|access-date=2016-10-05}}</ref> while criticising the government for shutting down a newspaper for opposing it. 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",<ref name=":0" /> only to deflect the blame onto the police upon facing a tremendous backlash, and thereafter asking the presses to resume publication. On 28 December 2016, the newspaper resumed publication after the government lifted the ban after nearly three months.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-38448891|title=Kashmir Reader: Newspaper printing again after ban lifted|date=2016-12-28|newspaper=BBC News|language=en-GB|access-date=2018-04-24}}</ref>

====Obscenity and defamation====
In 1988, a "defamation bill" was introduced by [[Rajiv Gandhi]], but it was later withdrawn due to strong opposition.<ref name="The Hindu">{{cite news | url=http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/Readers-Editor/process-as-punishment/article5696398.ece | title=Process as punishment | work=[[The Hindu]] | date=17 February 2014 | access-date=18 February 2014 | author=A.S. Panneerselvan}}</ref> India's [[Supreme Court of India|supreme court]], while delivering the judgement in the ''Sportsworld'' case in 2014, held that "A picture of a nude/semi-nude woman&nbsp;... cannot per se be called obscene".<ref name="The Hindu" />

====Kashmir====
India’s government requires that all maps in publications circulated in India reflect its claim to the entire region of Kashmir, which is disputed by Pakistan, and regardless of current lines of control.<ref>{{cite journal |author=[[Sanjoy Majumder]] |date=2011-05-24 |title=Economist accuses India of censorship over Kashmir map |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-13529512 |journal=BBC News |volume= |issue= |pages= |doi= |access-date=}}</ref> Publications that do not conform are seized by the authorities and issues can end up being destroyed.

===Film===
{{AI-generated|section=Film|ate=December 2025|date=December 2025}}
{{Further|Central Board of Film Certification#Controversies|List of films banned in India|l1=Controversies involving the Central Board of Film Certification|l2=}}
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.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2002-06-27 |title=India's film censor wants to legalise porn |language=en-GB |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2069900.stm |access-date=2023-05-02}}</ref> However, in the past two decades, there has been a noticeable shift in the board's approach toward censorship. One of the key factors that drives this change is the growing influence of Hollywood and the liberal mindset of young indians, which has resulted in an increase in exposure to more liberal cultural values.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Paunksnis |first=Šarūnas |date=January 2015 |title=Postmodern Experience in India: Imaginary Subaltern Space and Cinema |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2230807514546799 |journal=History and Sociology of South Asia |language=en |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=36–52 |doi=10.1177/2230807514546799 |s2cid=147507799 |issn=2230-8075|url-access=subscription }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dimitrova |first=Diana |date=2016-01-04 |title=Hinduism and Its Others in Bollywood Film of the 2000s |url=https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol20/iss1/10 |journal=Journal of Religion & Film |volume=20 |issue=1 |issn=1092-1311}}</ref>

India's supreme court has played a significant role in shaping the censorship board's approach to westernization of Bollywood films. 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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Censorship of Films |url=https://legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-351-censorship-of-films.html |access-date=2023-05-02 |website=legalserviceindia.com}}</ref> 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.

According to the [[Supreme Court of India]]:<ref name="CBFC">{{cite web |url=http://cbfcindia.gov.in/html/uniquepage.aspx?unique_page_id=6 |title=Background |publisher=Central Board of Film Certification |access-date=9 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100826234425/http://cbfcindia.gov.in/html/uniquepage.aspx?unique_page_id=6 |archive-date=26 August 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{cquote|Film censorship becomes necessary because a film motivates thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention as compared to the printed word. 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. Therefore, it has as much potential for evil as it has for good and has an equal potential to instill or cultivate violent or bad behaviour. It cannot be equated with other modes of communication. Censorship by [[prior restraint]] is, therefore, not only desirable but also necessary}}

In 2006, seven [[states and territories of India|states]] ([[Nagaland]], [[Punjab (India)|Punjab]], [[Goa]], [[Tamil Nadu]], [[Andhra Pradesh]]) banned the release or exhibition of the [[Hollywood (film industry)|Hollywood]] movie ''[[The Da Vinci Code (film)|The Da Vinci Code]]'' (and also [[The Da Vinci Code|the book]]),<ref>"[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5043934.stm India extends Da Vinci Code ban]", ''BBC News'', 3 June 2006. Retrieved 3 June 2006.</ref> although the CBFC cleared the film for adult viewing throughout India.<ref>"[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4995122.stm India censors clear Da Vinci Code]", ''BBC News'', 18 May 2006. Retrieved 29 May 2006.</ref> However, the respective high courts lifted the ban and the movie was shown in the two states.

In 2013, Kamal Haasan's ''[[Vishwaroopam]]'' was banned from the screening for a period of two weeks in [[Tamil Nadu]].<ref name="The Hindu" />

In 2014, the investigative documentary [[No Fire Zone|No Fire Zone: In the Killing Fields of Sri Lanka]] by [[Callum Macrae]] was refused certification by the CBFC on the grounds that it would damage India-Sri Lanka relationship.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/%E2%80%98no-fire-zone%E2%80%99-documentary-banned-india | title='No Fire Zone' documentary banned in India | publisher=Tamil Guardian | date=21 February 2014 | accessdate=6 July 2021}}</ref> The same rationale was used for the board's 2015 refusal to certify ''[[Porkalathil Oru Poo]]'', a biopic of [[Isaipriya]], a TV journalist raped and murdered by members of the Sri Lankan Army,<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-cinema/no-censor-certificate-for-tamil-film-on-lankan-tv-journalist/story-EZJOMq9NoBbqz3hWZIHwuK.html | title=No censor certificate for Tamil film on Lankan TV journalist | publisher=Hindustan Times | work=Gautaman Bhaskaran | date=26 May 2015 | accessdate=6 July 2021}}</ref> and in 2017, when [[Neelam (film)|Neelam]], a film based on the [[Sri Lankan civil war|Sri Lankan Civil War]] and the rise of the Tamil Groups including the [[LTTE]] was likewise denied certification.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/tamil/2017/oct/28/tamil-film-neelam-on-sri-lankan-civil-war-denied-certification-1685292.html | title=Tamil film 'Neelam' on Sri Lankan civil war denied certification | publisher=The New Indian Express | date=28 October 2017 | accessdate=6 July 2021}}</ref>

In 2015, the CBFC demanded four cuts (three visual and one audio) from the art-house Malayalam feature film ''[[Chaayam Poosiya Veedu]]'' (''[[The Painted House]]'') directed by brothers [[Santosh Babusenan]] and [[Satish Babusenan]] because the film contained scenes where the female lead was shown in the nude. The directors refused to make any changes whatsoever to the film and hence the film was denied a certificate.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Praveen|first1=S.R.|title=Directors out against CBFC directives|url=http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/directors-out-against-cbfc-directives/article7598642.ece|access-date=31 August 2015|issue=Thiruvananthapuram|work=The Hindu|date=31 August 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Film denied certificate for depicting nudity|url=http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31811&articlexml=Film-denied-certificate-for-depicting-nudity-25082015004061|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151006162408/http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31811&articlexml=Film-denied-certificate-for-depicting-nudity-25082015004061|url-status=dead|archive-date=6 October 2015|access-date=25 August 2015|agency=Times News Network|issue=Kochi|work=The Times of India|date=25 August 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Infringement on Artistic Expression Flayed|url=http://epaper.newindianexpress.com/c/6311455|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151006200924/http://epaper.newindianexpress.com/c/6311455|url-status=dead|archive-date=6 October 2015|access-date=25 August 2015|agency=ENS|issue=Thiruvananthapuram|publisher=The New Indian Express|date=25 August 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Producers of film refuse censor cuts|issue=Thiruvananthapuram|work=Deccan Chronicle|date=25 August 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Ayyappan|first1=R|title=Exposed: Censors' Obsolete Norms|agency=DC|issue=Thiruvananthapuram|work=Deccan Chronicle|date=26 August 2015}}</ref>

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. In 20 pages, the appellate cited 20 objections to the release of the documentary, thought it did not suggest a single cut. The two-hour twenty minute documentary exposes the cola companies of abusing ground water, land, livelihoods, rivers, and the laws of the land. The documentary also holds actors & TV guilty and accountable for having violated the ethical and moral boundaries for profit over sustainability.

In 2023, [[The Kerala Story]], an allegedly [[Islamophobia|Islamophobic]] film based on the theory of [[Love jihad conspiracy theory|love jihad]] was banned from screening in West Bengal. The then chief minister [[Mamata Banerjee]] said that the decision was taken to "maintain peace in Bengal” and to avoid any incident of hate crime and violence.<ref>{{Cite web |title=West Bengal bans The Kerala Story to 'maintain peace' |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/west-bengal-govt-bans-the-kerala-story-2376421-2023-05-08 |access-date=2024-04-18 |website=India Today |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-05-09 |title=The Kerala Story: West Bengal ban on Islamic State film sparks row |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-65523873 |access-date=2024-04-18 |language=en-GB}}</ref> However soon later, the [[Supreme Court of India|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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-05-18 |title=Supreme Court stays West Bengal govt order banning film 'The Kerala Story' |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sc-order-west-bengal-ban-the-kerala-story-8616483/ |access-date=2024-04-18 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-05-13 |title=Why ban Kerala Story, SC asks Bengal government |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-ban-kerala-story-sc-asks-bengal-government/articleshow/100196327.cms |access-date=2024-04-18 |work=The Times of India |issn=0971-8257}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-05-18 |title=The Kerala Story: Supreme Court lifts West Bengal's ban on Islamic State film |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-65559491 |access-date=2024-04-18 |language=en-GB}}</ref>

=== Television ===

In February 2013, in the wake of controversy over suspension of exhibition of the film, ''[[Vishwaroopam]]'', the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting constituted a panel under the Chairmanship of Justice (Retd.) [[Mukul Mudgal]] to examine issues of film certification under the Cinematograph Act 1952. One of the [http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=91998 terms of reference] for the committee is to examine "the requirement of special categories of certification for the purposes of broadcasting on television channels and radio stations." But, the committee had not made any [https://web.archive.org/web/20140108081209/http://mib.nic.in/writereaddata/documents/Report_of_Expert_committee.pdf recommendations] on this important matter.

The current classifications of films in India are as follows:
* '''अ / U'''&nbsp;– unrestricted public exhibition;
* '''अ/व / U/A'''&nbsp;– unrestricted public exhibition, but with a caution regarding parental guidance to those under 12 years of age;
* '''व / A'''&nbsp;– public exhibition restricted to adults 18 years of age and older only;
* '''S'''&nbsp;– public exhibition restricted to members of a profession or a class of persons (e.g. [[Doctor (title)|doctors]] etc.)—very rare.

===Music===
[[Thrash metal]] band [[Slayer|Slayer's]] 2006 album ''[[Christ Illusion]]'' was banned in India after [[Catholicism|Catholic]] churches in the country took offense to the artwork of the album and a few song titles and launched a protest against it. The album was taken off shelves and the remaining catalogue was burnt by [[EMI|EMI Music India]].<ref name="AlbumsDestroyed">{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6039976.stm|title='Offensive' album pulled in India|date=11 October 2006|work=BBC.co.uk|publisher=BBC|access-date=8 November 2011}}</ref>

===<span class="anchor" id="Dramas"></span>Theatre===
In 1978, [[Kiran Nagarkar]] wrote the play ''Bedtime Story'', based partly on the [[Mahābhārata]]. Its performance was partially [[ban (law)|banned]] for 17 years by conservative Hindu organizations and parties like [[Shiv Sena (1966–2022)|Shiv Sena]], [[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]] (RSS) and [[Hindu Mahasabha]].<ref name="Banned3">{{cite news |last1=Tripathi |first1=Salil |title=When Kiran Nagarkar said the unsayable |url=https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/2izXvQjOpQm0hFGPz0vdIK/When-Kiran-Nagarkar-said-the-unsayable.html?facet=amp |access-date=6 September 2019 |work=livemint.com |agency=[[Mint (newspaper)|livemint]] |publisher=[[HT Media]] |date=28 February 2015 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Banned1">{{cite news |title=Award-winning author Kiran Nagarkar dies |url=https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other/award-winning-author-kiran-nagarkar-dies/articleshow/71001678.cms |access-date=6 September 2019 |work=Mumbai Mirror |agency=[[Mumbai Mirror]] |issue=2 |publisher=[[The Times Group]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Tejuja |first1=Vivek |title=Kiran Nagarkar's 'Bedtime Story and Black Tulip' a terrific read |url=https://www.news18.com/news/books/book-review-bedtime-story-and-black-tulip-975182.html |access-date=6 September 2019 |work=news18.com |agency=[[News18]] |publisher=[[Network18 Group]] |date=20 March 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Dutta |first1=Amrita |title=The bilingual bard of Bombay and Mumbai, Kiran Nagarkar gave Indian writing in English an electric charge |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/kiran-nagarkar-dead-english-writer-the-bilingual-bard-of-bombay-and-mumbai-5970829/lite/ |access-date=6 September 2019 |work=The Indian Express |agency=[[The Indian Express]] |publisher=[[Indian Express Group]] |date=6 September 2019 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Joshi |first1=Poorva |title=Mumbai is indifferent to the rest of the country: author Kiran Nagarkar |url=https://m.hindustantimes.com/art-and-culture/we-just-don-t-care-for-mumbai-anymore-kiran-nagarkar/story-NrP2MiU1ObqKcpG7CaNUAN_amp.html |access-date=6 September 2019 |work=hindustantimes.com |agency=[[Hindustan Times]] |issue=2 |publisher=[[HT Media]] |date=17 March 2016 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Bhattacharya |first1=Chandrima S. |title=Duty to protest: Author |url=https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/duty-to-protest-author/cid/1509437 |access-date=6 September 2019 |work=telegraphindia.com |agency=[[The Telegraph (Kolkata)|The Telegraph]] |issue=1 |publisher=[[ABP Group]] |date=29 October 2015 |location=[[Calcutta]], [[West Bengal]], [[India]] |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Party Ban">{{cite book |last1=Purandare |first1=Vaibhav |editor1-last=Sundarji |editor1-first=Padma Rao |editor2-last=Dasgupta |editor2-first=Shrabani |editor3-last=Mathpal |editor3-first=Sanjeev |editor4-last=Sahadevan |editor4-first=Shaji |title=Bal Thackeray and the rise of Shiv Sena |date=2012 |publisher=Roli Books Private Limited |location=[[Mumbai, Maharashtra]] |isbn=9788174369918 |pages=288 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JS1hBAAAQBAJ&q=bedtime+story+banned+kiran+shiv+sena&pg=PT122 |access-date=6 September 2019 |language=en |quote=In 1977-78, the [Shiv Sena] party, along with the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, extra-legally banned ''Bedtime Story'', a play written by Kiran Nagarkar.}}</ref>

In 1999, the [[Maharashtra]] government banned the [[Marathi language|Marathi]] play ''Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy'' or ''I, [[Nathuram Godse]], Am Speaking''.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/135340.stm | work=[[BBC News]] | title=Gandhi play banned | date=18 July 1998 | access-date=28 April 2010}}</ref> The ban was challenged before the [[Bombay High Court]], which rescinded it as exceeding government authority and illegal.

In 2004, Eve Ensler's ''[[The Vagina Monologues]]'' was banned in Chennai. The play, however, has played successfully in many other parts of the country since 2003. A Hindi version of the play has been performing since 2007.

===Maps===
In 1961, it was criminalised in India to question the territorial integrity of [[Survey of India|frontiers of India]] in a manner which is, or is likely to be, prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India.<ref>[http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/Laws/The-Criminal-Law-Amendment-Act-1961.htm The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111115065227/http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/Laws/The-Criminal-Law-Amendment-Act-1961.htm |date=15 November 2011 }}, Vakilno1.com</ref>

===Books===
{{Main|Book censorship in India}}

{{See also|List of books banned in India}}
*Beginning in 1975, India banned ''[[Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong]]''.<ref name=":2323">{{Cite book |last=Chakrabarti |first=Sreemanti |title=Mao's Little Red Book: A Global History |date=2013 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-1-107-05722-7 |editor-last=Cook |editor-first=Alexander C. |location=Cambridge |pages= |chapter=Empty Symbol: The Little Red Book in India}}</ref>{{Rp|page=|pages=118, 127}}
*Several books of the Bangladeshi writer [[Taslima Nasrin]] have been banned in [[West Bengal]] due to Alleged Separatism Promotion.
* In 1989, The import<ref>{{cite news | url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Reading-Satanic-Verses-legal/articleshow/11622048.cms | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130429125416/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-25/india/30662344_1_import-ban-book-satanic-verses | url-status=live | archive-date=29 April 2013 | author=Manoj Mitta | title=Reading 'Satanic Verses' legal | date=25 January 2012 | work=[[The Times of India]] | access-date=24 October 2013}}</ref> of [[Salman Rushdie]]'s ''[[The Satanic Verses]]'' was banned in India for its purported attacks on [[Islam]].<ref>"[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/190588.stm Rushdie 'hurt' by India ban ]", BBC News, 10 October 1998. Retrieved 29 May 2006.</ref> India lifted the Ban in May 2011.
* In 1990, ''Understanding Islam through Hadis'' by [[Ram Swarup]] was banned.<ref>[https://archive.today/20130203115940/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100718/jsp/7days/story_12697165.jsp "Publish and be banned"], ''The Telegraph'' (Calcutta), 18 July 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013.</ref> In the same year, the Hindi translation of the book was banned, and in March 1991 the English original became banned as well.<ref>[http://www.hindustantoday.com/2013/05/25/top-10-books-those-banned-in-india/ "Top 10 Books those Banned in India"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030618/http://www.hindustantoday.com/2013/05/25/top-10-books-those-banned-in-india/ |date=4 March 2016 }}, ''Hindustan Today''. Retrieved 24 October 2013.</ref>
* ''Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India'' by American scholar James Laine was banned in 2004 by Centre Left, Indian National Congress due to Promotion of Indic Values and Hindutva.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/novetzke/Novetzke%20Laine%20Article.pdf "The Laine Controversy and the Study of Hinduism"], Christian Lee Novetzki, ''International Journal of Hindu Studies'' (World Heritage Press), Volume 8, Issue 1-3 (2004), pages 183-201, ISSN 1022-4556, DOI 10.1007/s11407-004-0008-9. Retrieved 24 October 2013.</ref>
* Laine's translation of the 300-year-old poem ''Sivabharata'', entitled ''The Epic of Shivaji'', was banned in January 2006.<ref name=TwoCircles-May2010>[http://twocircles.net/2010may27/hypocrisy_guise_freedom_expression.html "Hypocrisy in the guise of freedom of expression"], M. Zajam, TwoCircles, 28 May 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013.</ref> The ban followed an attack by [[Sambhaji]] Brigade activists on the [[Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute]] in [[Pune]]. The subsequent governments have not revoked the ban.<ref>[http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/education/archive/060122/education2.htm "History epic on Shivaji banned in India"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029200811/http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/education/archive/060122/education2.htm |date=29 October 2013 }}, Basharat Peer, ''Dawn'', 22 January 2006. Retrieved 24 October 2013.</ref>
* In [[Punjab, India|Punjab]] the ''[[Bhavsagar Granth]]'' (''Bhavsagar Samunder Amrit Vani Granth''), a 2,704-page religious treatise was banned by the state government in 2001,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.epw.in/insight/caste-and-religion-punjab.html |title=Caste and Religion in Punjab |work=Economic and Political Weekly |date=26 May 2007 |access-date=5 October 2008}} {{subscription required}}</ref> following clashes between mainstream Sikhs and the apostate [[Sikh]] sect that produced it. It was said{{Who|date=January 2010}} that the granth had copied a number of portions from the Guru Granth Sahib. In one of the photographs it showed [[Baba Bhaniara]], wearing a shining coat and [[Punjab plume controversy|headdress]] in a style similar to that made familiar through the popular posters of Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth guru of the Sikhs. In another Baba Bhaniara is shown riding a horse in the manner of Guru Gobind Singh. The ban was lifted in November 2008.<ref>[http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1822/18220490.htm A godman and a political storm"], Praveen Swami, ''Frontline'' (published by ''The Hindu''), Volume 18, Issue 22 (October/November 2001). Retrieved 24 October 2013.</ref>
* ''[[The Polyester Prince]]'',<ref>[https://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=94&book=9781864484687 ''The Polyester Prince: The Rise of Dhirubhai Ambani''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029211113/https://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=94&book=9781864484687 |date=29 October 2013 }}, Hamish McDonald, Allen & Unwin, 1998, 273 pages, {{ISBN|1-86448-468-3}}.</ref> a biography of the Indian businessman [[Dhirubhai Ambani]] was banned after Reliance obtained a court injunction on anticipatory defamation grounds.<ref>[https://archive.today/20130203201914/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110730/jsp/opinion/story_14295812.jsp "Ban the Ban: The republic of India bans books with a depressing frequency"], Rramachandra Guha, ''The Telegraph'' (Calcutta), 30 July 2011. Retrieved 24 October 2013.</ref>
* Importing the book ''[[The True Furqan]]'' (''al-Furqan al-Haqq'') by Al Saffee and Al Mahdee into India has been prohibited since September 2005.<ref>[http://www.cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2k5/csnt78-2k5.htm "Notification No. 78 /2005-Customs (N.T.)"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150424042524/http://www.cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2k5/csnt78-2k5.htm |date=24 April 2015 }}, Anupam Prakash, Under Secretary to the Government of India, 7 September 2005. Retrieved 24 October 2013.</ref>
* R.V. Bhasin's ''Islam - A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims'' was banned in [[Maharashtra]] in 2007 during the tenure of [[Vilasrao Deshmukh]] (ex Chief Minister, Maharashtra) on grounds that it promotes communal disharmony between Hindus and Muslims.<ref>[http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/1871.html "Book on Islam banned, author's house raided in Mumbai"], Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, 7 April 2007. Retrieved on 9 May 2010.</ref><ref>[http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/judgements/2010/CRAPPLN142107.pdf Criminal Application No.1421 of 2007] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130430210808/http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/judgements/2010/CRAPPLN142107.pdf |date=30 April 2013 }}. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay. 6 January 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013.</ref><ref>[https://openlibrary.org/works/OL5761246W/Islam_a_concept_of_political_world_invasion_by_Muslims ''Islam, a concept of political world invasion by Muslims''], R.V. Bhasin, National Publications (Mumbai), 166 pages, 2003. Retrieved 24 October 2013.</ref>

===Internet===
{{Main|Internet censorship in India}}

[[Freedom House|Freedom House's]] ''Freedom on the Net 2015'' report gives India a Freedom on the Net Status of "Partly Free" with a rating of 40 (scale from 0 to 100, lower is better). Its Obstacles to Access was rated 12 (0-25 scale), Limits on Content was rated 10 (0-35 scale) and Violations of User Rights was rated 18 (0-40 scale).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2015/india|title=India|website=freedomhouse.org|access-date=9 April 2016|archive-date=12 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190312152959/https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2015/india|url-status=dead}}</ref> India was ranked 29th out of the 65 countries included in the 2015 report.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net-2015/table-country-scores|title=Table of Country Scores|website=freedomhouse.org}}</ref>

The ''Freedom on the Net 2012'' report says:<ref>[http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/India%202012.pdf "India Country Report"], ''Freedom on the Net 2012'', Freedom House. Retrieved 25 September 2012</ref>
* India's overall Internet Freedom Status is "Partly Free", unchanged from 2009.
* India has a score of 39 on a scale from 0 (most free) to 100 (least free), which places India 20 out of the 47 countries worldwide that were included in the 2012 report. India ranked 14 out of 37 countries in the 2011 report.
* India ranks third out of the eleven countries in Asia included in the 2012 report.
* Prior to 2008, censorship of internet content by the Indian government was relatively rare and sporadic.
* Following the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which killed 171 people, the Indian Parliament passed amendments to the Information Technology Act (ITA) that expanded the government's censorship and monitoring capabilities.
* While there is no sustained government policy or strategy to block access to internet content on a large scale, measures for removing certain content from the internet, sometimes for fear that they could incite attacks, have become more common.
* Pressure on private companies to remove information that is perceived to endanger public order or national security has increased since late 2009, with the implementation of the amended ITA. Companies are required to have designated employees to receive government blocking requests, and assigns up to seven years' imprisonment private service providers—including ISPs, search engines, and cybercafes—that do not comply with the government's blocking requests.
* Internet users have sporadically faced prosecution for online postings, and private companies hosting the content are obliged by law to hand over user information to the authorities.
* In 2009, India's supreme court ruled that bloggers and moderators can face libel suits and even criminal prosecution for comments posted on their websites.
* Prior judicial approval for communications interception is not required and both central and state governments have the power to issue directives on interception, monitoring, and decryption. All licensed ISPs are obliged by law to sign an agreement that allows Indian government authorities to access user data.

India is classified as engaged in "selective" internet filtering in the conflict/security and internet tools areas, and as showing "no evidence" of filtering in the political and social areas by the [[OpenNet Initiative]] in May 2007.<ref name=ONICountryProfiles-India>[http://opennet.net/research/profiles/india "ONI Country Profile: India"], OpenNet Initiative, 9 May 2007</ref> ONI states that:
<blockquote>
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. Clearly government regulation and implementation of filtering are still evolving. … Amidst widespread speculation in the media and blogosphere about the state of filtering in India, the sites actually blocked indicate that while the filtering system in place yields inconsistent results, it nevertheless continues to be aligned with and driven by government efforts. Government attempts at filtering have not been entirely effective, as blocked content has quickly migrated to other [websites] and users have found ways to circumvent filtering. The government has also been criticised for a poor understanding of the technical feasibility of censorship and for haphazardly choosing which [websites] to block. The amended IT Act, absolving intermediaries from being responsible for third-party created content, could signal stronger government monitoring in the future.<ref name=ONICountryProfiles-India/>
</blockquote>

A "Transparency Report" from [[Google]] indicates that the [[Government of India]] initiated 67 content removal requests between July and December 2010.<ref>[http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-asked-google-to-block-content-critical-of-government/article2142480.ece India asked Google to block content critical of government ] [[The Hindu]] - 29 June 2011</ref>

After the beginning of the [[2020–2021 China–India skirmishes|2020-2021 China-India skirmishes]], India [[Censorship of TikTok|banned TikTok]].<ref>{{Cite book |title=China's Digital Expansion in the Global South |date=2024 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=978-1-032-94328-2 |editor-last=Foster |editor-first=Christopher |location=London |chapter=China's Digital Expansion in the Global South: Systemic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda |editor-last2=Gao |editor-first2=Ping |editor-last3=Han |editor-first3=Xia |editor-last4=Heeks |editor-first4=Richard |editor-last5=Jepson |editor-first5=Nicholas |editor-last6=Schindler |editor-first6=Seth |editor-last7=Zhou |editor-first7=Qingna}}</ref>{{Reference page|page=11}}

==See also==
{{Portal|Freedom of speech|India}}
* [[Ethical Code for Digital News Websites]]
* [[Freedom of the press in British India]]
* [[Television content rating systems#India|Television content rating systems in India]]
* [[List of films banned in India]]
* [[List of books banned in India]]
* [[List of pornography laws by region#India|Pornography laws in India]]
* [[Internet censorship in India]]
* [[Central Board of Film Certification]], the Indian film classification and censorship body

== References ==
{{reflist}}

;Further reading
*[[Chandmal Chopra]] and [[Sita Ram Goel]]. 1987. ''[[The Calcutta Quran Petition]]''. New Delhi: Voice of India.
*Elst, Koenraad. 1992. '[https://archive.org/details/negationism-in-india-concealing-the-record-of-islam/ Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam]'.
*Kumar, Nishant. ''Religious Offense and Censorship of Publications: An Enquiry through the Prism of Indian Laws and the Judiciary.'' New Delhi: Routledge India, 2023.
*[[Arun Shourie]], [[Ram Swarup]], and Goel, Sita Ram Goel, 1998. ''Freedom of expression: secular theocracy versus liberal democracy''.

== External links ==
*[http://www.ifex.org/india/ Freedom of Expression in India], [[International Freedom of Expression Exchange]] (IFEX).
*[https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/war-over-words/67185C1EB741EA6917CD1A8B0096B49E Devika Sethi, War over Words: Censorship in India, 1930-60 (Cambridge University Press, 2019)].

{{India topics}}
{{Social issues in India}}
{{Asia topic|Censorship in}}
{{Censorship}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Censorship in India}}
[[Category:Censorship in India| ]]
[[Category:Politics of India]]