{"id":43363,"date":"2011-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011"},"modified":"2015-12-22T13:09:32","modified_gmt":"2015-12-22T07:39:32","slug":"ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave<\/div>\n
                                                                                            REPORTABLE\n\n\n                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                   WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 345 OF 2011\n\n\n\n\n\nM\/S PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTIONS & ANR                 Petitioner(s)\n\n\n\n\n                                            Versus\n\n\n\n\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                          Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
1.        This  writ   petition   is   filed  by   the   petitioners   praying   for   the <\/p>\n
reliefs specifically set out in the prayer portion of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
One of the reliefs that is sought for in this writ petition is to strike <\/p>\n
down the provision of Section 6 (1) of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) <\/p>\n
Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) being allegedly ultra vires to <\/p>\n
the   Constitution   of   India.     The   other   relief   that   is   sought   for   is   to <\/p>\n
quash   and   set   aside   the   decisions   taken   by   the   respondents, <\/p>\n
namely State of Punjab, State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Uttar <\/p>\n
Pradesh   suspending   the   screening   of   the   film   ‘Aarakshan’   in   their <\/p>\n
respective States for a specified period.\n<\/p>\n
                                          Page 1 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
2.          Notice   was   issued   on   this   writ   petition   making   the   same <\/p>\n
returnable   today   so   as   to   enable   the   three   State   Governments   to <\/p>\n
submit   their   reply\/counter   affidavit.     However,   at   the   stage   of <\/p>\n
issuing notice itself, we were informed by the counsel appearing for <\/p>\n
the State of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh that so far as their States <\/p>\n
are   concerned,   they   had   withdrawn   the   order   of   suspension   of <\/p>\n
screening of the film ‘Aarakshan’.\n<\/p>\n
3.          The counsel appearing for the State of Punjab and the State <\/p>\n
of Andhra Pradesh are present in the Court.  Today also they stand <\/p>\n
by   the   same   statement   which   they   had   made   on   the   last   date, <\/p>\n
meaning   thereby,   that   they   had   lifted   the   orders   of   suspension   of <\/p>\n
screening   of   the   film   in   their   respective   States.     Therefore,   to   our <\/p>\n
understanding, the aforesaid film is being screened in the aforesaid <\/p>\n
two States also as on this date.   This petition, therefore, has been <\/p>\n
rendered   infructuous   so   far   as   the   States   of   Andhra   Pradesh   and <\/p>\n
Punjab are concerned.\n<\/p>\n
4.          The   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh   has   filed   the   counter   affidavit <\/p>\n
opposing   the   prayer   in   the   writ   petition   which   is   on   record.     We <\/p>\n
have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties extensively <\/p>\n
today.\n<\/p>\n
                                         Page 2 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
5.       Mr.   Harish   Salve,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
petitioners   has   not   pressed   the   prayer   so   far   as   constitutional <\/p>\n
validity   of   Section   6   of   the   Act   is   concerned.     However,   on   his <\/p>\n
submission, we are keeping the said issue open to be agitated in an <\/p>\n
appropriate   case   in   future,   if   necessary.     He,   however,   has <\/p>\n
challenged   the   legality   of   the   decision   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh <\/p>\n
Government suspending the screening of the film ‘Aarakshan’ in the <\/p>\n
entire   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh.     According   to   him,   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
exercise   of   power   of   suspension   of   the   screening   of   the   film <\/p>\n
amounts   to   exercising   the   power   of   pre-censorship   which   is   being <\/p>\n
exercised by the Government, although no such power vested on it.\n<\/p>\n
According   to   him,   the   said   power   of   censorship   is   vested   in   the <\/p>\n
Central Board of Film  Certification,  (hereinafter  referred  to as “the <\/p>\n
Board”)   and   in   the   Central   Government   as   provided   for   in   the <\/p>\n
provisions   made   in   The   Cinematograph   Act,   1952.     He   has   also <\/p>\n
submitted   that   the   power   that   is   sought   to   be   exercised   in   the <\/p>\n
present   case   under   Section   6(1)   of   the   Act   is   also   without <\/p>\n
jurisdiction   as   such   power   could   be   exercised   only   when   a   film   is <\/p>\n
being   screened   and   shown   in   the   public   hall   and   also   when   a <\/p>\n
contingency of the nature as mentioned in the said Section arises.\n<\/p>\n
He submits that on satisfying the preconditions and only in such a <\/p>\n
                                       Page 3 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
situation a power is vested in the State Government to suspend the <\/p>\n
screening   of   the   film   for   a   specified   period.     He   also   submits   that <\/p>\n
the aforesaid decision of the State Government is in violation of the <\/p>\n
provisions   of   Article   19(1)   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and, <\/p>\n
therefore, the same is required to be struck down and quashed.\n<\/p>\n
6.        We   have   also   heard   Mr.   Chandiok,   learned   Additional <\/p>\n
Solicitor   General,   who   submits   that   after   a   certificate   has   been <\/p>\n
issued to a particular film by the Censor Board, the said film could <\/p>\n
be screened in the entire country and the order which is passed by <\/p>\n
the   State   Government   is   not   envisaged   as   it   practically   prohibits <\/p>\n
screening of the film in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
7.        Mr.   U.U.   Lalit,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
State of Uttar Pradesh has, however, taken us through the contents <\/p>\n
of the counter-affidavit in support of his contention that the prayer <\/p>\n
in writ petition cannot be granted by this Court.  He has submitted <\/p>\n
that a very   high-level Committee has seen the film and thereafter <\/p>\n
has given an opinion, according to which if and when the concerned <\/p>\n
film is shown there is likelihood of breach of peace and also breach <\/p>\n
of law and order situation and, therefore, the aforesaid decision of <\/p>\n
suspending the screening of the film “Aarakshan” in Uttar Pradesh, <\/p>\n
                                         Page 4 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
which has been taken in order to preserve and upkeep the law and <\/p>\n
order situation in the State should be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
8.       In   order   to   appreciate   the   aforesaid   contentions   of   the <\/p>\n
counsel   appearing   for   the   parties,   we   have   gone   through   the <\/p>\n
pleadings   of   the   parties   alongwith   the   documents   relied   upon   as <\/p>\n
also the decisions which are referred to and relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
9.       We have also perused the provisions of Section 6 of the Act <\/p>\n
which   is   practically   the   foundation   and   basis   of   the   present   case.\n<\/p>\n
Section   6(1)   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh   Cinemas   (Regulation)   Act,   1955 <\/p>\n
reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “6.       Power to the State Government or District  <\/p>\n
        Magistrate   to   suspend   exhibition   of   films   in  <\/p>\n
        certain   cases   –   (1)   The   State   Government,   in  <\/p>\n
        respect of the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh  <\/p>\n
        or   any   part   thereof,   and   the   District   Magistrate  <\/p>\n
        in   respect   of   the   district   within   his   jurisdiction  <\/p>\n
        may, if it or he, as the case may be, is of opinion  <\/p>\n
        that any film which is being publicly exhibited, is  <\/p>\n
        likely   to   cause   a   breach   of   the   peace,   by   order,  <\/p>\n
        suspend the exhibition of the films and thereupon  <\/p>\n
        the   films   shall   not   during   such   suspension   be  <\/p>\n
        exhibited   in   the   State,   part   or   the   district  <\/p>\n
        concerned,   notwithstanding                the      certificate  <\/p>\n
        granted under the Cintmatograph Act, 1952.” <\/p>\n
10.      Upon   going   through   the   records,   we   find   that   the   film <\/p>\n
‘Aarakashan’   was   submitted   to   the   Central   Board   of   Film <\/p>\n
                                         Page 5 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
Certification   on   12.07.2011   for   certification.                 Upon   such <\/p>\n
submission   of   the   film,   the   Chairperson   of   the   Board,   in   terms   of <\/p>\n
the provisions of the Act and the Rules, invited the legal expert and <\/p>\n
another expert who is related to dalit movement to watch the film at <\/p>\n
the time when the Examining Committee was previewing the film.\n<\/p>\n
11.      The Chairperson also saw to it that all the four members of <\/p>\n
the   Examining   Committee   are   members   belonging   to   scheduled <\/p>\n
casts\/scheduled tribes and OBC category.  The said members of the <\/p>\n
Examining Committee along with the legal expert as also the expert <\/p>\n
related   to   dalit   movement   were   present   during   the   preview   of   the <\/p>\n
film.     The   experts   as   also   the   Examining   Committee   gave   their <\/p>\n
approval   for   grant   of   censorship   certificate   and   screening   of   the <\/p>\n
film.   The   Examining   Committee   decided   to   give   U\/A   certificate   to <\/p>\n
the film  under  the theme category “social”.    However, while taking <\/p>\n
the aforesaid decision, a view was expressed by the members of the <\/p>\n
Examining   Committee   for   deletion   of   the   word   ‘dalit’   from     the <\/p>\n
trailor in reel no. 1, which was deleted by the producer of the film, <\/p>\n
and   the   same   was   treated   as   voluntary   cut.     Thereafter,   the <\/p>\n
certification was granted and a certificate was issued for screening <\/p>\n
of the film.  The said certificate is annexed with the petition.\n<\/p>\n
                                       Page 6 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
12.      Pursuant   to   grant   of   the   aforesaid   certificate,   the   film   is <\/p>\n
being screened all over India except  for the State of Uttar Pradesh <\/p>\n
where it is not being exhibited because of the aforesaid decision of <\/p>\n
the State Government.  The State of Uttar Pradesh has given certain <\/p>\n
reasons in their counter affidavit for the action taken leading to the <\/p>\n
issuance   of   the   order   suspending   the   screening   of   the   film.     They <\/p>\n
have also stated in their counter affidavit that the exhibition of the <\/p>\n
film ‘Aarakshan’ if allowed would definitely cause an adverse effect <\/p>\n
on the law and order situation in the State.\n<\/p>\n
13.      Our attention is also drawn by the counsel appearing for the <\/p>\n
State   of   U.P.   to   paragraph   3   of   the   said   affidavit   wherein   the <\/p>\n
relevant   portion   of   the   report   given   by   the   High   Level   committee <\/p>\n
constituted by the State Government is extracted.  A bare perusal of <\/p>\n
the   same   would   indicate   that   in   the   report   the   High   Level <\/p>\n
Committee   has   suggested   deletion   of   some   portion   from   the   film <\/p>\n
without   which,   according   to   them,   the   film   cannot   be   screened   as <\/p>\n
that may cause an adverse effect on the law and order situation in <\/p>\n
the State.\n<\/p>\n
14.      Before   dealing   with   the   said   contentions,   we   would   like   to <\/p>\n
deal   with   the   provision   of   the   Act   on   the   basis   of   which   the <\/p>\n
                                       Page 7 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
aforesaid decision is taken.  There is no dispute that the impugned <\/p>\n
decision is taken in the purported exercise of power under Section 6 <\/p>\n
of the Act.  A bare perusal of the aforesaid  provision in Section 6 of <\/p>\n
the   Act   would   make   it   crystal-clear   that   the   power   vested   therein <\/p>\n
could   be   exercised   by   the   State   under   the   said   provision   when   a <\/p>\n
film which is being publicly exhibited could likely cause a breach of <\/p>\n
peace.     Only   in   such   circumstance   and   event,   an   order   could   be <\/p>\n
passed suspending the exhibition of the film.\n<\/p>\n
15.       The   expression  ‘being   publicly   exhibited’  and   the   word <\/p>\n
‘suspension’  are   relevant   for   our   purpose   and,   therefore,   we   are <\/p>\n
giving emphasis on the aforesaid expression and the word.     When <\/p>\n
it   is   said   that   a   film   is   being   publicly   exhibited,   it   definitely   pre-\n<\/p>\n
supposes a meaning that the film is being exhibited for public and <\/p>\n
in doing so if it is found to likely to cause breach of peace then in <\/p>\n
that   event   such   a   power   could   be   exercised   by   the   State <\/p>\n
Government.     Such   an   extra-ordinary   power   cannot   be   exercised <\/p>\n
with   regard   to   a   film   which   is   yet   to   be   exhibited   openly   and <\/p>\n
publicly in a particular State.  This view that we have taken is also <\/p>\n
fortified   from   the   use   of   the   word   ‘suspension’  in   the   said   section.\n<\/p>\n
The word `suspension’ envisages something functional or something <\/p>\n
which   is   being   shown   or   is   running.   Suspension   is   always   a <\/p>\n
                                          Page 8 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
temporary phase, which gets obliterated as and when the previous <\/p>\n
position is restored.  Therefore, the power as vested under Section 6 <\/p>\n
of   the   Act   could   not   have   been   exercised   by   the   State   of   Uttar <\/p>\n
Pradesh   in   view   of   the   fact   that   the   said   film   was   not   being <\/p>\n
exhibited publicly in the theatre halls in U.P.  Consequently, at this <\/p>\n
stage, when the film is not screened or exhibited in the theatre halls <\/p>\n
publicly and for public viewing, neither an opinion could be formed <\/p>\n
nor any decision could be taken that there is a likelihood of breach <\/p>\n
of peace by exercising power purported under Section 6 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
16.       The counsel appearing for the State has also submitted that <\/p>\n
in   fact   the   film   already   is   being   exhibited   in   the   State   of   Uttar <\/p>\n
Pradesh  as a  High  Level  committee  has seen  the  film.     We  cannot <\/p>\n
accept the aforesaid position as the expression specifically uses the <\/p>\n
word  ‘publicly exhibited’  meaning thereby that it is  being  exhibited <\/p>\n
all over and publicly for public viewing in the State.\n<\/p>\n
17.       Besides, the contention of the State of U.P. that some of the <\/p>\n
scenes of the film could create a breach of peace or could have an <\/p>\n
adverse effect on the law and order situation cannot be accepted as <\/p>\n
this film is being screened in all other States of India peacefully and <\/p>\n
smoothly   and   in   fact   some   of   the   States,   where   this   film   is   being <\/p>\n
                                        Page 9 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
screened, are also similarly sensitive States  as that of the State of <\/p>\n
U.P.   In   such   States   the   film   is   being   screened   without   any <\/p>\n
obstruction   or   difficulty   and   without   any   disturbance   of   law   and <\/p>\n
order situation.\n<\/p>\n
18.       So far the contention of the counsel appearing for the State <\/p>\n
of Uttar Pradesh that the issue of reservation is a delicate issue and <\/p>\n
is   to   be   handled   carefully   is   concerned,   we   are   of   the   considered <\/p>\n
opinion   that   reservation   is   also   one   of   the   social   issues   and   in   a <\/p>\n
vibrant   democracy   like   ours,   public   discussions   and   debate   on <\/p>\n
social issues are required and are necessary for smooth functioning <\/p>\n
of a healthy democracy.  Such discussions on social issues bring in <\/p>\n
awareness which is required for effective working of the democracy.\n<\/p>\n
In fact, when there is public discussion and there is some dissent <\/p>\n
on   these   issues,   an   informed   and   better   decision   could   be   taken <\/p>\n
which becomes a positive view and helps the society to grow.\n<\/p>\n
19.       We may, at this stage, appropriately refer to the decisions of <\/p>\n
this Court in the case of S.\n<\/p>\n
                                     Rangaranjan   Vs.   P.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  Jagjivan Ram &  <\/p>\n
Ors.  reported   in   (1989)   2   SCC   574.     In   paragraph   36   of   the   said <\/p>\n
judgment, this Court has stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
             “36.       The democracy is a government by the  <\/p>\n
                                        Page 10 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
                people   via   open   discussion.     The   democratic  <\/p>\n
                form of government itself demands its citizens  <\/p>\n
                an   active   and   intelligent   participation   in   the  <\/p>\n
                affairs   of   the   community.               The   public  <\/p>\n
                discussion   with   people’s   participation   is   a  <\/p>\n
                basic   feature   and   a   rational   process   of  <\/p>\n
                democracy   which   distinguishes   it   from   all  <\/p>\n
                other   forms   of   government.     The   democracy  <\/p>\n
                can neither work nor prosper unless people go  <\/p>\n
                out   to   share   their   views.     The   truth   is   that  <\/p>\n
                public   discussion   on   issues   relating   to  <\/p>\n
                administration   has   positive   value.     What  <\/p>\n
                Walter   Lippman   said   in   another   context   is  <\/p>\n
                relevant here:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                                 When men act on the principle of  <\/p>\n
                       intelligence,   they   go   out   to   find   the  <\/p>\n
                       facts….   When   they   ignore   it,   they   go  <\/p>\n
                       inside   themselves   and   find   out   what   is  <\/p>\n
                       there.     They   elaborate   their   prejudice  <\/p>\n
                       instead of increasing their knowledge”. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
20.          In   paragraph   35,   this   Court   has   also   stated   that  in   a  <\/p>\n
democracy   it   is   not   necessary   that   everyone   should   sing   the   same  <\/p>\n
song.  Freedom of expression is the rule and it is generally taken for  <\/p>\n
granted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
21.          Reference could also  be made to  the  decision  of  this Court <\/p>\n
in    Union
\n                  of   India   Vs.  K.M.   Shankarappa  reported   in   (2001)   1 <\/p>\n
SCC   582.     In   the   said   case   constitutional   validity   of   Sections   3,   4 <\/p>\n
and   other   Sections   of   the   Cinematograph   Act,   1958   were <\/p>\n
challenged.     In   paragraph   8   of   the   said   judgment,   this   Court   has <\/p>\n
                                           Page 11 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
stated   that  once   an   expert   body   has   considered  the   impact   of   the <\/p>\n
film  on  the   public  and has  cleared   the  film,   it  is  no  excuse  to  say <\/p>\n
that   there   may   be   a   law   and   order   situation   and   that   it   is   for   the <\/p>\n
State Government concerned to see that the law and order situation <\/p>\n
is maintained and that in any democratic society there are bound to <\/p>\n
be divergent views.\n<\/p>\n
22.       In the present case, the Examining Committee of the Board <\/p>\n
had   seen   the   film   along   with   the   experts   and   only   after   all   the <\/p>\n
members   of   the   Committee   as   also   the   two   experts   gave   positive <\/p>\n
views on the screening of the film, thereafter only the certificate was <\/p>\n
granted. Therefore, since the expert body has already found that the <\/p>\n
aforesaid   film   could   be   screened   all   over   the   country,   we   find   the <\/p>\n
opinion   of   the   High   Level   committee   for   deletion   of   some   of   the <\/p>\n
scenes\/words   from   the   film   amounted   to   exercising   power   of   pre-\n<\/p>\n
censorship,   which   power   is   not   available   either   to   any   high-level <\/p>\n
expert   committee   of   the   State   or   to   the   State   Government.   It <\/p>\n
appears   that   the   State   Government   through   the   High   Level <\/p>\n
Committee sought to sit over and override the decision of the Board <\/p>\n
by   proposing   deletion   of   some   portion   of   the   film,   which   power   is <\/p>\n
not vested at all with the State.\n<\/p>\n
                                          Page 12 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
23.        It is for the State to maintain law and order situation in the <\/p>\n
State   and,   therefore,   the   State   shall   maintain   it   effectively   and <\/p>\n
potentially.  Once the Board has cleared the film for public viewing, <\/p>\n
screening   of   the   same   cannot   be   prohibited   in   the   manner   as <\/p>\n
sought to be done by the State in the present case.  As held in K.M <\/p>\n
Sankarapaa (Supra) it is the responsibility of the State Government <\/p>\n
to maintain law and order.\n<\/p>\n
24.        Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, <\/p>\n
we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the   present   writ   petition   is <\/p>\n
required   to   be   partly   allowed   in   terms   of   the   observations   made <\/p>\n
herein.\n<\/p>\n
25.        We, therefore, set aside and quash the decision of the State <\/p>\n
Government suspending the screening of the film ‘Aarakshan’ in the <\/p>\n
State of Uttar Pradesh in the light of the observations made and we <\/p>\n
partly allow the petition to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n
                                          …………………………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)<\/p>\n
                                            Page 13 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   ………………………………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 (ANIL R. DAVE)<\/p>\n
New Delhi<\/p>\n
August 19, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                    Page 14 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011 Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 345 OF 2011 M\/S PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTIONS & ANR Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43363","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-22T07:39:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-22T07:39:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2743,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-22T07:39:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-22T07:39:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-22T07:39:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011"},"wordCount":2743,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011","name":"M\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-22T07:39:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-prakash-jha-productions-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43363","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43363"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43363\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43363"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43363"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43363"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}