http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

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