Deeming pre-censorship to be necessary, the Supreme Court in S. Rangarajan v P. Jagjivan Ram case ruled that “Movie motivates thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention. It makes its impact simultaneously arousing the visual and aural senses... The focusing of an intense light on a screen with the dramatizing of facts and opinion makes the ideas more effective. The combination of act and speech, sight and sound in semi-darkness of the theatre with elimination of all distracting ideas will have an impact in the minds of spectators.” In an era when an individual is allowed to take major decisions of his life like who to marry, who to vote for, what career to choose etc, why do we need some entity to tell us what should we watch either?
There is a need to strike a balance between absolute freedom and total censorship. Considering the impact that cinema can have on the minds of the viewing public, reasonable restrictions and censorship are required.
In 1983, when the name of the Central Board of Film Censors was changed to the Central Board of Film Certification, this should have pretty much fixed the responsibility of the Board. It only needs to certify the films according to age and intended audience, not censor them.