PETITIONER:
MINERVA TALKIES, BANGALORE & ORS. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/01/1988
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 526 1988 SCR (2) 511
1988 SCC Supl. 176 JT 1988 (1) 36
1988 SCALE (1)10
CITATOR INFO :
R 1992 SC1519 (4,6)
ACT:
Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Rules framed under
section 19 of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Act of 1964
Whether rule 41-A has been made "for purposes of the Act"
and places unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry
on business of exhibiting cinematograph films in violation
of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.
HEADNOTE:
%
These appeals and writ petitions involved two questions
of law-(i) whether Rule 41-A of the Karnataka Cinemas
(Regulations) Rules (the Rules) framed by the State
Government under section 19 of the Karnataka Cinemas
Regulations Act of 1964 (the Act) had been made "for
purposes of the Act", and (ii) whether Rule 41-A placed
unreasonable restrictions on the appellants' right to carry
on their business of exhibiting cinematograph films, in
violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The appellants/petitioners held licences for exhibiting
cinematograph films in their cinema theatres under the Act
and the Rules in Form prescribed by the Rules. Normally, the
Cinema owners were holding four shows in a day, but later
on, they increased the shows to five in a day starting from
10 a.m. and ending at 12 a.m. This caused a number of
problems. The State Government in exercise of its powers
under section 19 of the Act framed Rule 41-A directing that
no licensee would exhibit more than four cinematograph shows
in a day. The appellants challenged the validity of the Rule
41-A placing restrictions on their right to exhibit
cinematograph films before the High Court by writ petitions.
The appellants contended before the High Court that the
restriction imposed by Rule 41-A on the licensees requiring
them to exhibit more than four shows in a day was beyond the
rule-making power, as the Rule did not carry out the
purposes of the Act, and that the Rule placed unreasonable
restrictions on their fundamental right to carry on the
business of exhibiting cinematograph films.
There was difference of opinion between the two learned
Judges constituting the Bench of the High Court, which heard
the petitions. K.S. Puttaswamy, J. held infer alia that the
impugned rule was ultra
512
vires as it was beyond the rule-making power of the
Government under section 19 of the Act, and that it placed
unreasonable restrictions on the appellants' right to carry
on their business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution. Narayan Rai Kudoor, J. upheld the validity of
the Rule, holding that the impugned Rule carried out the
purposes of the Act, viz., the regulation of the exhibition
of cinematograph films, and the restriction placed by it was
reasonable. Since there was difference of opinion between
the two learned Judges, the matter was placed before M. Rama
Jois, J., who agreed with the opinion of N.R. Kudoor, J.,
holding that the State Government had the power to frame the
Rule and the Rule did not place any unreasonable restriction
on the appellants' right to carry on business of exhibiting
cinematograph films, and that it was not utlra vires the Act
and did not violate appellants' fundamental rights under
Article 19 of the Constitution. Consequently, all the writ
petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the decision of the
High Court, the appellants filed appeals in this Court. Some
of the aggrieved cinema owners filed writ petitions in this
Court, challenging the validity of Rule 41-A.
Dismissing the appeals and the writ petitions, the
Court,
^
HELD: The question whether Rule 41-A was validly framed
to carry out the purposes of the Act could be determined on
the analysis of the provisions of Act. The title of the Act
and the preamble clearly indicate that the main purpose of
the Act is to regulate the exhibition of the cinematograph
films in places in respect of which a licence for that
purpose may be issued. The extent of control and regulation
is evidenced by the provisions of the Act. The ultimate
purpose of these provisions is to ensure safety and
convenience of the general public visiting the licensed
premises for witnessing the cinematograph films exhibited
therein. [518D,H; 519A-B; 520F]
Section 19 of the Act confers power on the State
Government to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of
the Act. The preamble and the provisions of the Act provide
for the regulation of the exhibition of the cinematograph
films, which is the primary object of the Act. The Act
confers wide powers on the State Government for the
regulation of the exhibition of the cinematograph films
which include power to regulate hours during which
cinematograph films may be exhibited, the seating
arrangements for the members of the public, and any other
allied matters pertaining to public safety, health,
sanitation and incidental matters. Rule 41-A which limits
the numbers of shows in a day, regulates the exhibition of
the cinematograph films and carries out the
513
purposes of the Act. It was, therefore, referable to
the State Government's general power under section 19(1) of
the Act. Rule 41-A was further referable to clauses (a) and
(d) of section 19(2) of the Act. Clause (a) confers power on
the State Government to frame rules prescribing terms,
conditions and restrictions subject to which a licence may
be granted. The State Government may lay down conditions and
impose restrictions prescribing hours during which the films
might be exhibited and also the number of shows in the
licensed premises. Clause (d) confers power on the State
Government to frame rules regulating the exhibition of
cinematograph films for the purpose of securing public
safety. Any rule regulating the exhibition of the
cinematograph films if reasonably connected with public
safety would be justified under the said provision. Rule 41-
A adds a condition to the licence that exhibition of films
would be limited to four shows in a day. No licensee could
claim to have unrestricted right to exhibit cinematograph
films for all the 24 hours of the day. Such a claim would be
against public interest. The restriction to limit the number
of shows to four in a day placed by rule 41-A was regulatory
in nature which clearly carried out purposes of the Act.
[520G-H;521A-F]
The provisions of the Act have laid down the policy for
regulating the exhibition of the cinematograph films in the
licensed premises and also for regulating the construction
of the building, auditorium, galleries, balconies,
projection rooms, seating accommodation and other allied
matters related to public health and safety, etc., and all
other matters relating to the exhibition of films. Validity
of none of the other rules has been challenged by the
appellants/petitioners although those provisions placed a
number of restrictions on their right of exhibiting
cinematograph films. The restrictions placed by Rule 41-A
are similar to the restrictions already placed on their
right to exhibit cinematograph films. It is incidental to
the general power of regulating the exhibition of
cinematograph films, and it is connected with the regulation
of the exhibition of the cinematograph films.[522C-D,H;523A]
The question arises whether rule 41-A placed
unreasonable restrictions on the appellants' right to carry
on business of exhibiting cinematograph films in violation
of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, The
appellants/petitioners have not challenged the validity of
the Act. Therefore, they claim no unrestricted right to
exhibit cinematograph films. They have been carrying on the
business exhibiting films under a licence in form which
contained the terms and conditions prescribed by the Act and
the Rules framed therunder. Rule 41-A added one more
condition to it, requiring the licensee not to exhibit more
than four
514
shows in a day. The freedom to practise any profession, or
to carry on any occupation, trade or business, guaranteed by
Article 19(1)(g), is not absolute, it is subject to clause
(6) of Article 19, which permits imposition of reasonable
restrictions by law, if it is necessary in the interest of
the general public. Any law imposing reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g)
would be valid if it is in the interest of the general
public. Restriction contemplated in Article 19(6) may in
certain circumstances extend to total prohibition, as held
by this Court in Narender Kumar v. Union of India, [1960] 2
SCR 375. The. material placed before the State Government as
also this Court, clearly demonstrated the necessity for
curtailing the holding of five shows to four to remove the
public grievance, as the representation filed on behalf of
the public highlighted the hazards to public safety and the
inconvenience caused to the members of the public visiting
the cinema halls. Rule 41-A was framed to meet the public
need and to secure public safety by placing minimum possible
restrictions on the licensees. The Court found no merit in
the contentions of the appellants/petitioners that Rule 41-A
was neither necessary nor reasonable as the purpose for
which it was framed could have been achieved if the relevant
authorities carried out their duties in making inspections
and securing the compliance of the existing rules, and that
the impugned Rule did not prescribe the duration of four
shows or the intervals between them and each one of the
reasons set out by the State to justify the impugned Rules,
could be fully achieved by the enforcement of the existing
Rules.[523B-E;525A-C]
In holding five shows, the licensees did not exhibit
approved documentaries and slides and adequate measures
could not be taken to ensure public safety and health. The
Court had no doubt that the existing Rules could not meet
the situation and the State Government was justified in
framing Rule 41-A placing limit on the
appellants'/petitioners' right to exhibit cinematograph
films to four shows which was in the public interest. The
appellants/petitioners had no unrestricted fundamental right
to carry on business of exhibiting cinematograph films.
Their right to carry on business was regulated by the
provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. These
provisions were necessary to ensure public safety. Public
health and other allied matters. The Rule 41-A does not
prohibit exhibition of the cinematograph films, instead, it
regulates it by providing that instead of five shows only
four shows should be exhibited in a day. The Rule does not
take away the licensees' right to carry on business of
exhibiting cinematograph films; it merely regulates it. No
rule or law could be declared unreasonable merely because
there was reduction in the income of a on account of the
regulation of the business. Rule 41-A does not place any
unreason-
515
able restriction on the appellants'/petitioners' fundamental
right guaranteed to them under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution. It carries out the purpose of the Act in
regulating the exhibition of the cinematograph films in the
licensed premises. Rule 41-A is inter vires the Act. [525G-
H;526C,527A-B]
The Court was in agreement with the majority opinion of
the High Court.
Narender Kumar v. Union of India, [1960] 2 SCR 375,
referred to.
Shelvarajan v. State of Mysore, [1963] 1 Mysore Law
Journal 28, disapproved.
Vishnu Talkies v. State of Bihar, AIR 1975 Patna 26 and
D.K . V. Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1984
A.P. 75, approved.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 54 to
73A of 1985 etc.
From the Judgment and order dated 9.10.1984 of the
Karnataka High Court in W.P. Nos. 16170, 16171, 16172,
16173, 13198, 15052, 16283, 16285-86, 16331, 16334, 16335,
16597, 16598, 17116, 17612 of 1981, 39414 of 1982, 17183 of
1981, 42082 of 1982, 3833 of 1983 and 15053 of 1981
A.K. Sen. Padmanabha Mahle, Miss C.K. Sucharita, N.D.B.
Raju, M. Rangaswamy, K.R. Nagaraja, B. Krishna Prasad, Miss
Malini Poduval and R.B. Datar for the Appellants.
B.R.L. Iyenger, M. Veerappa and Navin Singh for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SINGH, J. These appeals and writ petitions involve two
questions of law; (i) whether Rule 41-A of the Karnataka
Cinemas (Regulations) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the
Rules) framed by the State Government under Section 19 of
the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act
23 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been
made “for purposes of the Act”, and (ii) whether Rule 41-A
places unreasonable restrictions on the appellants’ right to
516
carry on their business of exhibiting cinematograph films in
violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The appellants/petitioners hold licences for exhibiting
cinematograph films in their cinema theatres under the Act
and the Rules in Form prescribed by the Rules. The Rules and
conditions contained in the Licence (Form F) do not
prescribe any restriction on the number of shows of films
which a licensee can exhibit in his theatre. Condition No.
11 of the licence, however, provides that: “No cinematograph
exhibition shall continue after such time not later than
1.00 a.m.” Normally, the cinema owners were holding four
shows but later on, they increased it to five shows in a day
starting from 10 a.m. to 12 noon, 12 noon to 3 p.m., 3 p.m.
to 6 p.m. 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. 9 p.m. to 12 a.m. Thus the
cinematograph films were being exhibited continuously from
10 a.m. to mid-night, which caused a number of problems. The
State Government in exercise of its power under Section 19
of the Act framed Rule 41-A directing that no licensee shall
exhibit more than four cinematograph shows in a day. Rule 4
1-A is as under:
“41-A. Number of shows permissible in a day: No
licensee shall exhibit more than four
cinematograph shows in a day. “
In pursuance of Rule 41-A the appellants were directed
to exhibit cinematograph films for four shows only in a day.
The appellants challenged validity of the aforesaid rule
placing restriction on their right to exhibit cinematograph
films before the High Court of Karnataka by means of writ
petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The
appellants contended before the High Court that the
restriction imposed by Rule 41-A on the licensees requiring
them not to exhibit more than four shows in a day was beyond
the rule making power, as the Rule did not carry out the
purposes of the Act. It was further contended that the Rule
placed unreasonable restriction on their fundamental right
to carry on the business of exhibiting cinematograph films.
The respondent State submitted before the High Court that
the State Government realised that on account of exhibition
of five shows in a day, in a cinema theatre, it was not
possible for the licensees to keep the theatres hygienically
clean and reports were received that for want of time the
licensees were not exhibiting approved films and slides
required under the provisions of the Act. The State
Government found that exhibition of five shows in a day was
not conducive to the health of the cine-goers and therefore
it framed Rule 41-A limiting the shows. It was contended
that the rule was
517
intended for the regulation of the exhibition of
cinematograph films in the licensed premises, and was within
the scope and purposes of the Act. It was further pleaded
before the High Court that the impugned Rule 41-A was not
violative of Article 19 of the Constitution as it placed a
reasonable restriction in the interest of general public as
contemplated by Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
A Division Bench of the High Court heard the parties at
length, but there was difference of opinion between the two
learned Judges constituting the Bench of the High Court.
K.S. Puttaswamy J. held that the impugned rule was ultra
vires as it was beyond the rule making power of the
Government under Section 19 of the Act. He further held that
the rule placed unreasonable restrictions on the appellants’
right to carry on their business guaranteed to them under
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The learned Judge held
that the restriction placed by the Rule 41-A was neither in
the interests of the general public nor it was reasonable.
Narayan Rai Kudoor; J. in a separate judgment upheld the
validity of the Rule holding that the impugned Rule carried
out the purposes of the Act, namely, the regulation of the
exhibition of cinematograph films and the restriction placed
by it was reasonable and in the interests of the general
public. Since there was difference of opinion between the
two learned Judges the matter was placed before M. Rama
Jois, J., who agreed with the opinion expressed by N.R.
Kudoor J. Rama Jois J. held that the State Government had
power to frame Rule 41-A under Section 19 of the Act and the
Rule did not place any unreasonable restriction on the
appellants’ right to carry on business of exhibiting
cinematograph films. The learned Judge ruled that the
impugned Rule was not ultra vires the Act and it did not
violate appellants’ fundamental rights under Article 19 of
the Constitution. In view of the majority opinion, all the
writ petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the decision of
the High Court the appellants have challenged the
correctness of the High Court Judgment in these appeals.
Some of the aggrieved cinema owners have also filed writ
petitions before this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution challenging validity of Rule 41-A. The appeals
and writ petitions raise common questions of law, and they
are being disposed of by a common order.
Mr. A.K. Sen, learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners contended that the provisions of the
Act do not confer any power on the State Government to
regulate the number of shows, and the restrictions imposed
by the impugned Rule 41-A limiting the number of shows to
four did not fall within the purview of Section 19 of the
Act.
518
He further urged that the restriction placed by Rule 41-A
was unreasonable and violative of appellants fundamental
right to carry on their business under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution. According to the learned counsel the
restriction placed by the Rule was unreasonable because the
mischief it sought to meet by placing the restriction was
not established and its impact was excessive which caused
undue hardship to the cinema owners, as by the reduction of
the number of shows from 5 to 4 there was corresponding
reduction in the income of the cinema owners. Shri B.R.L.
Iyengar, learned counsel for the State of Karnataka,
submitted that the purpose of the Act was to regulate
exhibition of cinematograph films in licensed premises and
the power of regulation of exhibition of cinematograph films
was wide enough embracing the power to limit the number of
shows. He referred to Sections 14 and 19(2)(d) in support of
his submission that the impugned rule 41-A carried out the
purposes of the Act. The learned counsel further urged that
the restriction placed by the impugned Rule was reasonable
and made in the public interest and there was no violation
of appellants right guaranteed by Article 19 of the
Constitution.
The question whether Rule 41-A is validly framed to
carry out the purposes of the Act can be determined on the
analysis of the provisions of the Act. The declared will of
the legislature and the policy and purpose of the Act are
discernable from the title, preamble and the express
provisions of the Act. The legislative will is declared by
the Preamble of the Act which seeks to deal with the subject
of enactment. Generally, preamble to an Act, briefly
indicates the object of the legislation. It may not be
exhaustive, but still it discloses the primary purpose of
the legislation. If the express provisions of the Act are
plain and unambiguous, it is always advisable to find out
the purpose of the legislation from those provisions, but if
the provisions are ambiguous and the courts face the
difficulty in deducing the purpose of the Act from the
express provisions of the Act it is permissible to refer to
the title and preamble of the Act to find out the
legislative object, and the purpose of the Act. In the
instant case the title of the Act is “The Karnataka Cinemas
(Regulation) Act 1964” and its preamble declares that it is
“An Act to provide for regulating exhibition by means of
cinematographs and the licensing of places in which
cinematograph films are exhibited in the State of
Karnataka.” It further provides that “whereas it is
expedient to provide for regulating exhibition by means of
cinematograph and the licensing of places in which
cinematograph films are exhibited in the State of Karnataka
and for other allied matters,” the Act is being enacted. The
title of the Act and the preamble clearly indicate that the
main purpose of the Act is to
519
regulate the exhibition of cinematograph films in places in
respect of which a licence for that purpose may be issued.
The extent of control and regulation is evidenced by the
provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides that no
person shall exhibit cinematograph films in a place except
in accordance with the licence issued under the Act. Section
5 provides for making of application in writing to the
licensing authority for the grant of licence. Section 6
requires the licensing authority to consider matters
specified therein in granting or refusing a licence, with
special reference to the interest of the public generally.
Section 7 provides for limiting the number of places that
can be licensed in any area. Section 8 provides that the
licensing authority shall not grant a licence unless it is
satisfied that-the rules made under the Act have been
substantially complied with and adequate precautions have
been taken in the place in respect of which the licence is
to be granted providing for the safety, convenience and
comfort of the persons attending exhibitions therein.
Section 7 confers power on the licensing authority to limit
the number of places that can be licensed in an area.
Section 10 provides for appeal against the decision under
Sections 5 and 9. Section 11 provides for regulating the
construction or reconstruction of a building for the use of
exhibition of cinematograph films after obtaining the
permission of the licensing authority. Section 12 confers
power on the State Government to issue directions from time
to time to any licensee to exhibit (a) such film or class of
films having scientific or educational value; (b) films
dealing with news and current events; and (c) documentary
films indigenous films, or such other films having special
value to the public. Subsection (2) further provides that
any directions issued by the State Government under Section
(1), shall be deemed to be additional conditions and
restrictions subject to which the licence has been granted.
Section 13 confers power on the licensing authority to issue
directions to any licensee to exhibit in each show such
slides of public interest as may be supplied by that
authority. Section 14 confers power on the State Government
to issue orders and directions of general character in
respect of matters relating to licence subject to the
provisions of the Pact and Rules to licensing authorities,
such orders and directions for the exhibition of
cinematograph films, and every licensing authority is bound
to give effect to such orders and directions. Section 15
confers power on the State Government or the licensing
authority to suspend exhibition of films if it is of opinion
that any film, which is being or is about to be publicly
exhibited is likely to cause a breach of the peace. Section
16 provides for penalties and Section 17 confers power to
revoke or suspend a licence. Section 18 confers power on the
State Government to call for and revise orders passed by the
licensing
520
authority. Section 19 confers power on the State Government
to make rules after previous publication, to carry out the
purposes of the Act. The relevant provisions of Section 19
are as under:
“19. Powers to make rules-(I) The State Government
may, by notification, after publication, make
rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, such rules may
provide for- (a) the particulars to be given in an
application for a licence and the terms,
conditions and restrictions, subject to which a
licence may be granted under this Act and the fees
to be paid in respect of such licence;
. . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. … …… .. . .. . . .. .
(d) the regulation of cinematograph exhibitions
for securing public safety;
(e) regulating the means of entrance and exit at
places licensed under this Act; and providing for
prevention of disturbance there at;
(3) Subject to any modification made Section 22,
every rule made under this Act shall have effect
as if enacted in this Act.”
Section 22 provides for placing the rules before each House
of the State Legislature, which has power to modify, amend
or annul the same. The aforesaid provisions of the Act seek
to regulate the exhibition of cinematograph films in a
licensed premises. The ultimate purpose of these provisions
is to ensure safety, and convenience, of the general public
visiting the licensed premises for witnessing the
cinematograph films exhibited therein.
Section 19 of the Act confers power on the State
Government to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of
the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 requires the State
Government to frame rules in respect of the matters
specified in clauses (a) to (h). While Section 19(1) confers
general power on the State Government to make rules to carry
out the purposes of the Act, sub-section (2) specifies
particular matters in respect of which rules may be made.
The power conferred under subsection (2) is not exhaustive
instead it is illustrative and it does not restrict or
affect the general power of the State Government under
521
sub-section ( 1) to make rules for carrying out the purposes
of the Act. A The power conferred by Section 19(1)
contemplates the framing of any rule which may have bearing
on the regulation of exhibition of cinematograph films. The
rule so made must be related to the purposes of the Act. The
preamble and the provisions of the Act provide for the
regulation of the exhibition of cinematograph films which is
the primary purpose of the Act. Under Section 19(1) the
Legislature has conferred wide powers on the State
Government to make rules embracing all the legitimate
activities connected with the exhibition of cinematograph
films which include rules for incidental matters like period
of show, admission to the cinema hall, interval between two
shows including the number of shows which a licensee may
hold in a day. No person has right to exhibit cinematograph
films in a place except under a licence in accordance with
its conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence. The
State Government has general power to issue directions to
any licensee or licensees under Section 12 with regard to
the exhibition of films. Section 14 further confers powers
on the State Government to issue orders and directions of
general character which it may consider necessary in respect
of any matter relating to the exhibition of the
cinematograph films. Such directions issued by the State
Government are binding on the licensee. These directions may
be in the form of rules or instructions directing the
licensee to limit the number of shows if the State
Government considers it necessary to do so, in the public
interest. The Act confers wide powers on the State
Government for the regulation of the exhibition of the
cinematograph films which includes power to regulate hours
during which cinematorgraph films may be exhibited, the
seating arrangements for the members of the public, and any
other allied matters pertaining to public safety, health,
sanitation an(l incidental matters. Rule 41-A which limits
the number of shows in a day regulates the exhibition of the
cinematograph films, and it carries out the purposes of the
Act. It is, therefore, referable to the State Government’s
general power under Section 19(1) of the Act. Rule 41-A is
further referable to clauses (a) and (d) of Section 19(2) of
the Act. Clause (a) confers power on the State Government to
frame rules prescribing terms, conditions and restrictions
subject to which a licence may be granted, in exercise of
that power. The State Government may lay down conditions and
impose restrictions prescribing hours during which films may
be exhibited and also the number of shows in the licensed
premises. Similarly clause (d) confers power on the State
Government to frame rules regulating the exhibition of
cinematograph films for the purpose of securing public
safety. Any rule regulating the exhibition of the
cinematograph films if reasonably connected with public
safety would H
522
be justified under the aforesaid provision. Rule ’11-A adds
a condition to the licence that exhibition of films will be
limited to four shows in a day. No licensee can claim to
have unrestricted right to exhibit cinematorgraph films for
all the 24 hours of the day. Such a claim would obviously be
against public interest. Rights to exhibit cinematograph
films is regulated by the provisions of the Act in the
interest of the general public. The restriction to limit the
number of shows to four in a day placed by Rule 4 I-A is
regulatory in nature which clearly carries out the purposes
of the Act.
The provisions of the Act have laid down the policy tor
regulating the exhibition of cinematograph films, in the
licensed premises, and also for regulating the construction
of building, the auditorium, galleries, balconies,
projection rooms, seating accommodation and other allied
matters related to public health and safety etc. and all
other matters related to exhibition of films. The Act does
not regulate exhibition of films only. Instead, it provides
for regulation of all other allied matters which are
incidental, or necessary to the exhibition of cinematograph
film in a licensed premises. Necessity to provide for
incidental matters to facilitate successful operation of
exhibition of cinematograph film, may arise from time to
time having regard to the prevailing situation and changing
circumstances. The legislature has therefore conferred,
general power on the State Government to frame rules
regulating the incidental matters also. The Rules contain
provisions regulating construction of building, electric
installation, galleries, balconies, fire-safety and other
allied matters. Rule 49 and 50 regulate seating
accommodation inside the hall or the auditorium requiring
the licensee to make provision for entrance, exit, isles and
placement of seats with further provision that there would
be an exit after every sixth row of seats. Rule 50 requires
the licensee to provide for passages, corridors and their
use and ventilation. Rule 54 provides for water closets and
urinals and water facilities. Rule 55 provides for
regulation of ticket booths, reservation of seats and other
incidental matters, so that there may not be over-crowding
near the ticket booths. Rules 77 to 83 contained in Chapter
X of the Rules provide for maintenance of cleanliness and
prevention of over-crowding in the C; cinema hall. lt is not
necessary to refer to the entire set of Rules regulating
matters incidental to the exhibition of cinematograph films.
Validity of none of these Rules has been challenged by the
appellants/ petitioners although they place a number of
restrictions of their right of exhibiting cinematograph
films. The restrictions placed by the Rule 41-A is similar
to the restrictions already placed on their right to exhibit
cinematograph films. It is incidental to the general power
of
523
regulating the exhibition Of cinematograph films, and it is
connected with the regulation of exhibition of
cinematorgraph films.
The question arises whether Rule 4 l-A places
unreasonable restrictions on the appellants’ right to carry
on business of exhibiting cinematograph films in violation
of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The
appellants/petitioners have not challenged the validity of
the Act. Therefore they have no unrestricted right to
exhibit cinematograph films. They are carrying on the
business under a licence containing the terms and conditions
prescribed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The
licence issued under Form contains a number of terms and
conditions which a licensee is required to comply with,
including condition No. 11 which provides that no exhibition
of cinematograph film shall continue after 1.00 a.m.. Rule
41-A adds one more condition to it, requiring the licensee
not to exhibit more than four shows in a day. Article
19(1)(g) guarantees freedom to practise any profession, or
to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The freedom
so guaranteed is not absolute. It is subject to clause (6)
of Article 19 which permits imposition of reasonable
restrictions by law, if it is necessary in the interest of
the general public. Any law imposing reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g)
would be valid if it is in the interest of the general
public. Restrictions occuring in Article 19(6) may in
certain circumstances extend to total prohibition as held by
this Court in Narender Kumar v. Union of India, [1960] 2 SCR
375. A law placing restrictions on the citizens’ right to do
business must satisfy two conditions set out in clause (6)
of Article 19, firstly, the restrictions imposed by the law
must be reasonable, and, secondly, the restrictions must be
in the interests of the general public. If these two tests
are satisfied the law placing restriction on the citizens’
right guaranteed under Article 19 must be upheld. While
considering the validity of Rule 41-A it is necessary to
ascertain whether the restrictions placed by the said rule
are reasonable and the same are in the interests of the
general public.
In its return the State Government has stated that a
number of complaints had been received by the State
Government against the licensees exhibiting five shows in a
day. These complaints disclosed that licensees had not been
exhibiting approved films and slides as directed by the
authorities under Sections 12 and 13 for want of time as the
licensees were interested in exhibiting the main film within
the short period at their disposal for completing each show.
On receipt of reports from various authorities the State
Government found that the licensees were not exhibiting the
approved films and slides as required
524
by the existing Rules and directions issued from time to
time. It was also brought to its notice that. the holding of
continuous five shows from 10 a.m. caused great
inconvenience to the incoming and outgoing cine-goers and
endangered public satety. After the end of one show the next
show followed shortly within 15 minutes, and on account of
shortage of time in between the two shows there was little
time left for cleaning the cinema halls and there was also
rush by the cine-goers to occupy the seats. The licensees
generally started exhibiting approved films and slides
before the cine-goers could occupy their seats with the
result they could not have the benefit of the same. The
reports further disclosed that the absence of interval
between the shows resulted in denial of fresh air,
ventilation and cleanliness in the cinema halls. The State
Government was satisfied that these maladies had primarily
arisen on account of five shows being shown in a day. It
accordingly published the draft rule proposing to place the
limit of four shows in a day, and invited objections. A
number of objections were filed before the State Government
to the proposed rule, by the cinema exhibitors and members
of public. In their objections the exhibitors stated that
five shows did not cause any inconvenience to the public and
the restrictions proposed to be placed were not in the
interests of the general public representations were made by
the members of the public, submitted that continuance of
five shows, one after the other from 10 a.m. On a day to 1
a.m. Of the next day were resulting in; (a) heavy rush at
theatres between any two shows as a result of which entering
into and coming out of the theatres had become highly
inconvenient and hazardous. (b) stampede giving room for
pick-pocketing, (c) lack of adequate time to clean the
auditorium and lavatories resulting in unhygienic conditions
(d) lack of time for exchange of fresh air to foul air, (e)
commencement of show even before cine-goers can enter the
auditorium and take their seats. (fl not exhibiting approved
films, news-reels etc. for want of time, (g) switching of
air-conditioners coolers, fans, exhaust fans to save
electricity causing lot of discomfort, and (h) creating
problems of conveyance and traffic jam, over-loading of
buses etc. After considering the objections, the State
Government was satisfied that the restriction as proposed
placing the limit of four shows in a day was necessary in
the interests of the general public. The State Government
thereupon promulgated Rule 41-A placing the limit of four
shows. The material placed before the State Government has
been placed before the Court also. It clearly demonstrates
the necessity for curtailing the holding of five shows to
four shows to remove the public grievance. The
representation filed on behalf of the public high-
lighted the hazards to the public safety, and
inconvenience caused to the members of the public visiting
the cinema halls for entertainment.
525
Rule 41-A was framed to meet the public need, and to secure
public safety by placing minimum possible restrictions on
the licensees.
Mr. Sen appearing for the appellants/petitioners urged
that Rule 4 I-A was neither necessary nor reasonable as the
purpose for which the Rule 4 I-A was framed could have been
achieved if the relevant authorities carried out their
duties in making inspections and securing the compliance of
the existing Rules. He urged that the impugned Rule does not
prescribe the duration of four shows or the intervals
between them and each of one of the reasons set out by the
State to justify the impugned Rules, could be fully achieved
by the enforcement of the existing Rules. We find no merit
in these submissions. Indisputably, the licensees had only
15 hours in a day for the exhibition of films as condition
number l l of the licence prohibits exhibition of films
beyond I a.m. Ordinarily, no show of cinema takes place
earlier to 10 a.m. If five shows are permitted within a span
of 15 hours commencing from 10 a.m. Of a day to I a.m. Of
the next day, it would be impossible to find reasonable time
to comply with the requirement of cleanliness and exhibition
approved films and slides. The appellants’/petitioners’ I
own case is that one show of cinematograph film consumes two
to two and a half hours’ time. They further admit that
approved documentary films and slides are exhibited for
about ten minutes, and in addition to that the licensees
exhibit slides and commercial shots for about ten minutes
and there is an interval of ten minutes in the middle of
each show. It is further admitted that on the conclusion of
one show there was interval of fifteen minutes before the
commencement of the next show. Thus according to the
appellants/petitioners own case one show takes about three
hours an i if fifteen minutes interval between one show and
other is credited, the total period of time required for
five shows would come to sixteen hours. The
appellants/petitioners have been commencing their first show
at l() a.m. and they assert that they have been completing
five shows before I a.m. the next day in accordance with the
conditions of the licence. The licensees had fifteen hours
at their disposal for holding five shows from 10 a.m. to I
a.m. the next day but in actual practice they require at
least sixteen hours minimum time for holding five shows. lt
was therefore physically impossible to comply with the Rules
and the licensees were bound to rush through, to complete
five shows by I a.m. These facts are eloquent enough to
demonstrate that in holding five shows the licensees could
not exhibit approved documentaries and slides and adequate
measures could not be taken to ensure public safety and
health. If five shows are held continuously from 10 a.m. to
l a.m. the next day with an interval of fifteen minutes
between one show and the other, there would be acute H
526
shortage of time for exhibiting approved films and slides
and the licensee would certainly be in hurry to exhibit the
main film. In fifteen minutes interval, it was not possible
to get the hall cleaned or to allow fresh air set in, as
during that period cine goers would rush in to take their
seats for witnessing the next show. If your shows are held
in a day there will be no shortage of time and the licensees
would have sufficient time to comply with the various
statutory obligations as prescribed by the Act and Rules to
ensure public safety, health and convenience.. In this view
we have no doubt in our mind that the existing Rules could
not meet the situation and the State Government was
justified in framing Rule 41-A which serves public interest.
As regards the grievance that the State Government has not
prescribed any time gap between the shows it has been
asserted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
State that the Government intended to issue further detailed
directions regulating the time gap between the shows and
also for curtailment of noon show or the mid-night show but
before these directions could be issued the validity of Rule
41-A was challenged and no further action could be taken in
the matter. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
Government stated before us that further instructions in the
matter would be issued by the State Government. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances as discussed earlier
we have no doubt in our mind that the restriction placed by
Rule 41-A placing limit on the appellants’/petitioners’
right to exhibit cinematograph films to four shows is in the
public interest.
The appellants’/petitioners’ contention that
restriction under Rule 41-A is unreasonable is founded on
the premise that Rule 41-A is not regulatory in nature
instead it totally prohibits exhibition of cinematograph
films for one show and its impact is excessive as it reduces
appellants’/petitioners’ income to the extent of one-fifth.
The appellants/petitioners have no unrestricted fundamental
right to carry on business of exhibiting cinematograph
films. Their right to carry on business is regulated by the
provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. These
provisions are necessary to ensure public safety, public
health and other allied matters. As already discussed Rule
41-A has placed limit on the number of shows which a
licensee can hold in a day. The Rule does not prohibit
exhibition of cinematograph films instead it regulates it by
providing that instead of five shows only four shows should
be exhibited in a day. In Narender Kumar v. Union of India,
this Court held that a law made in the public interest
prohibiting a business would be valid as the ‘prohibition’
is only a kind of ‘restriction’. The expression
“restriction” includes “prohibition” also. Rule 41-A.
however, does not take away the licensees’ right to carry on
527
business of exhibiting cinematograph films. It merely
regulates it. No rule or law can be declared to be
unreasonable merely because there is reduction in the income
of a citizen on account of the regulation of the business.
In our opinion, Rule 41-A does not place any unreasonable
restriction on the appellants’/petitioners’ fundamental
right guaranteed to them under Article 19( l)(g) of the
Constitution.
Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners place
reliance on a decision on the Mysore High Court in
Shelvarajen v. State of Mysore. [ 1963 ] I Mysore Law
Journal 28 in support of his contention that Rule 41-A does
not regulate the exhibition of cinematograph films instead
it is prohibitory in nature and the restriction so placed is
not in the interests of the general public. Puttaswamy, J.
also relied upon on the aforesaid decision of the Mysore
High Court in upholding the appellants’ contention. In
Shelvarajen v. State of Mysore the petitioner was exhibitor
of travelling cinema show. His application for renewal of
licence for a further period of four months had been
rejected by the licensing authority on the ground that under
Rule 67 of the Hyderabad Cinemas Rules 1953 framed under the
Hyderabad Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1952 no licence for a
travelling cinema show could be issued more than once during
the same year for the same place. The petitioner therein
challenged the validity of Rule 67 of the Hyderabad Cinema
Rules 1953 on the ground that the Rule did not carry into
effect the provisions of the Act and also on the ground that
the Rule violated fundamental right guaranteed by Article
19( I)(g) of the Constitution. The High Court struck-down
Rule 67 on the ground of it being made in excess of
statutory power conferred on the State Government. The High
Court held that the Act contained no prohibition against
making of an application for licence more than once and it
did not confer power for refusing to entertain of
considering the application merely on the ground that during
the same year, the applicant had been once granted licence
for that purpose. We do not agree with the view taken by the
Bench, in that case. as in our opinion Rule 67 regulated the
grant of licence in respect of travelling cinemas. We do not
consider it necessary to pursue the matter further as in the
instant case Rule 41-A carries out the purposes of the Act
in regulating the exhibition of cinematograph films in
licensed premises. In Vishnu Talkies v. State of Bihar, AIR
1975 Patna . A Division Bench of the Patna High Court
considered the validity of Condition 8-B of the licence
which required a licensee to hold only four shows in a day
and it further directed that no other show in any
circumstances without obtaining the prior permission of the
licensing authority would be
528
allowed. The validity of condition No. 8-B was challenged on
the ground that it was excessive and beyond the purview on
the provisions of the Act and that it placed unreasonable
restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioners
therein to carry on their business. A Division Bench of the
Patna High Court after analysing the provisions of the Bihar
Cinema (Regulation) Act, held that the condition imposed in
the licence was sustainable in view of Section 5(2) of the
Bihar Act. Section 5(2) of the Bihar Act conferred power on
the licensing authority to grant licence under the Act on
such terms and conditions and subject to such restriction as
it may determine. Condition No. 8-B was prescribed by the
State Government in exercise of its powers under Section
S(2) of the Bihar Act. I he Bench held that the restriction
placed, was in the public interest which was reasonable and
therefore it was saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
We are in agreement with the view taken by the Patna High
Court.
In D.K.V. Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh. AIR
1984 A.P. 75 validity of Rule 12(3) of Andhra Pradesh
Cinemas (regulation) Rules 1970 fixing maximum rate of
admission to different classes in a cinema hall for
witnessing the cinematograph films was challenged on the
ground that the rule was beyond the purview of the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act
1955 and that it placed unreasonable restriction on the
fundamental right of the petitioners therein in violation of
Article 19 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected both the contentions. The
Court held that since the purpose of Andhra Pradesh Cinemas
(Regulation) Act was to regulate the exhibition of
cinematograph films the State Government could frame rules
to carry out those purposes. The Court observed that the
power to regulate includes the power to restrain, which
embraces limitations and restrictions on all incidental
matters connected with the right to trade or business under
the existing licence. Rule 12(3) regulated entry to
different classes to the cinema hall and it was within the
rule making power of the State Government to frame such
rule. The court further held that fixing limit of rate of
admission was an absolute necessity in the interest of the
general public and the restriction so placed was reasonable
and in public interest. On these findings the court upheld
the validity of the rule. We are in agreement with the view
taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
In the result, we are of the opinion that Rule 41-A is
intra vires the Act as it carries out the purposes of the
Act and it does not place
529
any unreasonable restriction in violation of Article
19(1)(g) of the A Constitution. We are in agreement with the
majority opinion of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal
as well as the writ petitions are dismissed with costs.
S. L. Appeals & Petitions dismissed.
530