PETITIONER:
R. M. SESHADRI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TANJORE,AND ANOTHER.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
01/10/1954
BENCH:
HASAN, GHULAM
BENCH:
HASAN, GHULAM
MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ)
MUKHERJEA, B.K.
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
BOSE, VIVIAN
CITATION:
1954 AIR 747 1955 SCR 686
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1967 SC 829 (6)
RF 1978 SC1457 (62)
ACT:
Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(g)-Cinematograph Act
(II of 1918), s. 8-Owner of cinema theatre -Granted license
-Conditions -Restrictions-Whether reasonable
HEADNOTE:
The appellant, the owner of a permanent cinema theatre
in the Tanjore District, was granted a license by the
District Magistrate, Tanjore, subject to certain conditions
imposed by him in pursuance of 2 notifications (G. 0. Mis.
1054, Home, dated 28th March, 1948, and G. O. Mis. 3422
dated 15th September, 1948) issued by the State of Madras
purporting to act in exercise of powers conferred by s. 8 of
the Cinematograph Act (II of 1918).
The impugned conditions inter alia were as follows:-
" 4(a) The licensee shall exhibit at each performance
one or more approved films of such length and for such
length of time, as the Provincial Government or the Central
Government may, by general or special order, direct.
687
special condition 3.-The licensee should exhibit at the
commencement of each performance not less than 2,000 feet of
one or more approved films."
Held, that condition No. 4(a) and special condition No.
3, imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right of the
licensee to carry on his business and were -void as they
infringed the fundamental right of the appellant guaranteed
to him under Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 192 of
1952.
Appeal under article 132(1) of the Constitution of India
from the Judgment and Order dated 24th August, 1951, of the
Madras High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5744
of 1951.
Appellant in person.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (R.
Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the
respondent.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (P.A.
Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the Intervener (Union
of India).
1954. October 1. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
GHULAM HASAN J.-The appellant is the owner of a
permanent cinema theatre called Sri Brahannayaki in
Tiruthuraipundi, Tanjore District, and held a licence from
the District Magistrate, Tanjore, in respect of the same
with effect from September 5,1950, to September 4, 1951.
The licence is granted for one year at a time and is
renewable from year to year. He objected to certain
conditions in the licence imposed by the District
Magistrate, Tanjore, in pursuance of 2 notifications (G. O.
Mis. 1054, Home, dated 28th March, 1948, and G. O. Mis.
3422, dated 15th September, 1948) issued by the State of
Madras purporting to act in exercise of powers conferred by
section 8 of the Cinematograph Act of 1918. The impugned
conditions may conveniently be set out here:
“4(a) The licensee shall exhibit at each performance one
or more approved films of such length and for such length of
time, as the Provincial
688
Government or the Central Government may, by general or
special order, direct.
(b) The licensee shall comply with such directions as
the Provincial Government may by general or special order
give as to the manner in which approved films shall be
exhibited in the course of any performance.”
Explanation:-” Approved Films” means a cinematograph
film approved for the purpose of this condition by the
Provincial Government or the
Central Government.
Special condition 3.-The licensee should exhibit at the
commencement of each performance not less than 2,000 feet of
one or more approved films.”
The appellant moved the High Court of Judicature at
Madras under article 226 of the Constitution for an’ order-
or direction to the District Magistrate, Tanjore, to delete
the said conditions from his licence and to the State of
Madras to rescind the notifications issued by it. His
contention was that the conditions imposed by the said
notifications are ultra vires and beyond the powers of the
licensing authority and that they are void inasmuch as they
contravened his freedom of speech and expression under
article 19(1)(a) and his right to carry on trade or business
under article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. Both the
contentions were rejected, the High Court holding that the
conditions imposed were reasonable and were in the interests
of the general public. The High Court granted leave to
appeal to this Court.
The appellant who argued the appeal in person raised 2
main contentions. He argued firstly, that the notifications
and conditions are beyond the competence of the Government
of Madras and the District Magistrate, and secondly, that in
any event the conditions do not, as being outside the scope
of the Cinematograph Act, amount to reasonable restrictions
imposed in the interest of the general public.
We are of opinion that this appeal can be disposed of on
the second ground. It may be stated that the Madras
Cinematograph Rules, 1933, were amended by the notification
G. O. Mis. 1054, Home, dated
689
March, 28, 1948, in exercise of the powers conferred by
section 8 of the Cinematograph Act, 1918 (Central Act II of
1918), and in place of condition 4 of the licence in Form A,
the impugned conditions were inserted. Section 8 empowers
the State Government to make rules for the purpose of
carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. The object
of the Act as stated in the preamble is to make provisions
for regulating” exhibitions under the Cinematograph Act.
Without going into the question whether it is within the’
contemplation of the Act that educational and instructional
films should be shown and whether the holder of a cinema
licence may be compelled to exhibit such films as falling
within the scope of the Act, the question which still arises
for consideration is whether the impugned conditions amount
to “reasonable restrictions” within the meaning of article
19(6). Approved ‘films are those films which are either
produced by the Government or are purchased from the private
producers. As the private producers do not possess any
machinery for marketing their films the Government purchases
them from such producers and charges hire from the cinema
licensees for showing such films. Condition 4(a) compels a
licensee to exhibit at each performance one or more approved
films of such length and for such length of time as the
Provincial Government or Central Government may direct.
Neither the length of the film nor the period of time for
which it may be shown is specified in the condition and the
Government is vested with an unregulated discretion to
compel a licensee to exhibit a film of any length at its
discretion which may consume the whole or the greater part
of the time for which each performance is given. The
exhibition of a film generally takes 2 hours and a quarter.
Now if there is nothing to guide the discretion of the
Government it is open to it to require the licensee to show
approved films of such great length as may exhaust the whole
of the time or the major portion of it intended for each
performance. The fact that the length of the time for which
the approved films may be shown is also unspecified leads to
the same conclusion, in other
690
words, the Government may compel a licensee to exhibit an
approved film, say for an hour and a half or even 2 hours.
As the condition stands, there can be no doubt that there is
no principle to guide the licensing authority and a
condition such as the above may lead to the loss or total
extinction of the business itself. A condition couched in
such wide language is bound to operate harshly upon the
cinema business and cannot be regarded as a reasonable
restriction. It savours more of the nature of an imposition
than a restriction. It is significant that the condition
does not profess to lay down that the approved films must be
of an educational or instructional character for the purpose
of social or public welfare. We think therefore, that
condition 4(a) as it stands at present amounts to an
unreasonable restriction on the right of the licensee to
carry on his business and must be declared void as against
the fundamental right of the appellant under article
19(1)(g).
Among the special conditions, condition No. 3 which
requires the licensee to exhibit at the commencement of each
performance not less than 2,000 feet of one or more of the
approved films is open to similar objection. This condition
lays down the minimum length of the film to be shown as
2,000 feet and gives no indication of the maximum. We are
informed that the showing of a film of 2,000 feet will take
about 20 minutes. This will work out to about 1/7th of the
total time of each performance if it is taken to last for 2-
1/4 hours. Whether a maximum of 2,000 feet would be
reasonable is a matter we need not consider but as this is
mentioned as the minimum it is obvious that the Government
may compel the licensee to exhibit a film of 10,000 or
12,000 feet which in effect will amount to pushing out of
the film intended to be shown by the licensee during the
time allotted. Here again no maximum limit having been
imposed it follows that the discretion of the authority is
unrestrained and unfettered and must lead to an
unjustifiable interference with the right of the licensee to
carry on his business. We hold, therefore, that this
condition is equally obnoxious and must be deleted. We
accordingly allow the appeal and hold
691
that condition 4(a) and special condition 3 expressed as
they are at present are void and have no legal effect as
against the fundamental right of the appellant under article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
We express no opinion upon the first contention
advanced by the appellant. The appellant will get his costs
from the respondent in this Court and in the Court below.
Appeal allowed.