What are the challenges faced by courts when balancing freedom of expression and public order in the context of films like 'Udaipur Files'?

Balancing freedom of expression with public order is a complex task for courts, especially in the context of controversial films like 'Udaipur Files'. The judiciary must protect the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, while also considering reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) to maintain public order, decency, and morality.

• Subjectivity in Assessing Threats: Courts often face difficulty in objectively assessing whether a film poses a genuine threat to public order or if anticipated unrest is exaggerated.
• Vague Standards: The terms 'public order', 'decency', and 'morality' are broad and open to interpretation, making judicial decisions challenging and sometimes inconsistent.
• Precedent vs. Contemporary Context: Courts have to consider past judgments while also adapting to changing social and political climates, which may influence public reactions to films.
• Potential for Misuse: There is a risk that demands for bans or censorship may be used by groups to suppress dissent or unpopular opinions, forcing the court to distinguish between genuine and motivated concerns.
• Role of Certification Authorities: Courts must decide how much weight to give to the decisions of bodies like the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which already reviews films for objectionable content.
• Impact on Filmmakers’ Rights: Restricting a film’s release can affect the creative and commercial rights of filmmakers, so courts must ensure any limitations are proportionate and justified.
• Ensuring Fair Hearing: Courts need to balance the urgency of preventing unrest with the need to hear all parties, including filmmakers, authorities, and petitioners, in a fair manner.