Smoking for Art’s sake

The statements of Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad that there is nothing wrong with smoking on screen have renewed the well-publicized debate on the portrayal of smoking on screen. “It is entertainment. We cannot do anything which is not practical. Banning smoking and drinking on screen are difficult. Cinema is just to enjoy,” Azad had said..The controversy first arose with Azad’s predecessor, Anbumani Ramadoss bringing in a notification under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2004, which banned outright the depiction of smoking on screen, whether in television or in films. Further, Ramadoss had requested cinema personalities like Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan among others, to refrain from smoking in public or on screen, as it would encourage the millions of viewers who idolized them to pick up the habit. He pointed out that statistics indicate that 52 per cent of youth smoke their first cigarette inspired by their cinema idols..A study published in leading newspapers concluded that India is in the grip of a smoking epidemic that is likely to cause nearly a million deaths a year by 2010, of which more than 50 per cent are likely to be among the poor and illiterate. Mr. Ramadoss highlighted a survey of Indian cinema conducted by the WHO. The report stated that 76 per cent of the movies reviewed between 1991 and 2002 carried the portrayal of tobacco consumption, with an increasing number of characters with positive and glamorous images smoking on screen..Consequent to protests from the film industry as well as the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, exemptions were introduced in the Rules under the Act, which allowed smoking scenes under certain conditions. The exemptions applied to old Indian and foreign films and television programmes aired prior to the notification, documentaries reflecting unambiguously the dangers and dire consequences of tobacco use, live coverage of news, current affairs, etc., which have completely unintentional coverage of use of tobacco products, representation of a real historical figure or a classified well-known character..It was further provided that in the rare cases where depiction may be allowed, such must be supported by strong editorial justification. Films and television programmes depicting smoking scenes were to be mandatorily given an ‘A’ certification. Such films and television programmes were permitted to be telecast at such timings least likely to have viewership among persons below the age of eighteen years. These films were to be accompanied by an anti-tobacco ‘health spot’ at the beginning, middle and end of the film, and in case of a television programme, by an anti-tobacco health scroll during the entire duration of that smoking scene as well as for a reasonable duration before the scene begins and after the scene ended..However, dissatisfaction persisted and noted film producer Mahesh Bhatt felt that the ban on smoking was a “joke taken too far”. He filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the notification. He claimed such policy was violative of the freedom of creative expression. The High Court allowed the petition, and subsequently lifted the ban on smoking on screen. The health ministry has appealed this decision, which is currently pending in the Supreme Court..Mr. Shanti Bhushan, a noted Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court and former Law Minister, feels that the ban is a worthy effort. Acknowledging the influence theatre personalities have on their viewers, he said “In my opinion the ban on smoking is a good idea. Some people who see film stars smoking think it gives them a status symbol, and they end up picking up the habit.”.Mr. Binu Radhakrishnan, managing partner of Kris and Kolloth, a Bangalore based firm, and a specialist in the field of entertainment law, offers a different perspective. “Looking from the entertainment perspective, if it is necessary for the character, it should be allowed.” While he accepts there exists a social responsibility on directors towards youngsters who view smoking as “bling”, he feels that it is the role of the censor board to look into that aspect. “Guys who smoke will smoke,” he adds, an argument which formed the basis of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s judgment, which said “the strength to give it up, however, often should come from within rather than without in the form of any legislations.”.In an appeal filed by the Union of India, the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the order of the Court below. It remains to be seen how the matter will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court..Reference Points:.Writ Petition (C) No.18761 of 2005 and WP (C) No.23716 of 2005, connected with, WP (C) No.7410 of 2006 and WP (C) No.7411 of 2006; before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.