http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: R.   M. SESHADRI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TANJORE,AND ANOTHER.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/10/1954

BENCH: HASAN, GHULAM BENCH: HASAN, GHULAM MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ) MUKHERJEA, B.K. DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BOSE, VIVIAN

CITATION:  1954 AIR  747            1955 SCR  686  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1967 SC 829  (6)  RF         1978 SC1457  (62)

ACT:      Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(g)-Cinematograph  Act (II of 1918), s. 8-Owner of cinema theatre -Granted  license -Conditions -Restrictions-Whether reasonable

HEADNOTE:     The  appellant, the owner of a permanent cinema  theatre in  the  Tanjore  District, was granted  a  license  by  the District Magistrate, Tanjore, subject to certain  conditions imposed  by him in pursuance of 2 notifications (G. 0.  Mis. 1054,  Home,  dated 28th March, 1948, and G.  O.  Mis.  3422 dated  15th September, 1948) issued by the State  of  Madras purporting to act in exercise of powers conferred by s. 8 of the Cinematograph Act (II of 1918).     The impugned conditions inter alia were as follows:-     "  4(a) The licensee shall exhibit at  each  performance one  or  more  approved films of such length  and  for  such length of time, as the Provincial Government or the  Central Government may, by general or special order, direct. 687      special condition 3.-The licensee should exhibit at the commencement of each performance not less than 2,000 feet of one or more approved films."     Held, that condition No. 4(a) and special condition  No. 3,  imposed  unreasonable restrictions on the right  of  the licensee  to  carry on his business and were -void  as  they infringed the fundamental right of the appellant  guaranteed to him under Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 192  of 1952.    Appeal under article 132(1) of the Constitution of  India from the Judgment and Order dated 24th August, 1951, of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Madras  High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.  5744 of 1951. Appellant in person.      C.   K.  Daphtary,  Solicitor-General  for  India   (R. Ganapathy  Iyer  and  P.  G.  Gokhale,  with  him)  for  the respondent.      C.   K.  Daphtary,  Solicitor-General for  India  (P.A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the Intervener (Union of India).      1954.   October  1.  The  Judgment  of  the  Court  was delivered by      GHULAM  HASAN  J.-The  appellant  is  the  owner  of  a permanent   cinema  theatre  called  Sri   Brahannayaki   in Tiruthuraipundi,  Tanjore District, and held a licence  from the  District  Magistrate, Tanjore, in respect of  the  same with  effect  from September 5,1950, to September  4,  1951. The  licence  is  granted  for one year at  a  time  and  is renewable  from  year  to  year.   He  objected  to  certain conditions   in   the  licence  imposed  by   the   District Magistrate, Tanjore, in pursuance of 2 notifications (G.  O. Mis. 1054, Home, dated 28th March, 1948, and G.   O.    Mis. 3422,  dated  15th September, 1948) issued by the  State  of Madras purporting to act in exercise of powers conferred  by section  8 of the Cinematograph Act of 1918.   The  impugned conditions may conveniently be set out here:     "4(a) The licensee shall exhibit at each performance one or more approved films of such length and for such length of time, as the Provincial 688 Government  or  the Central Government may,  by  general  or special order, direct.     (b)  The licensee shall comply with such  directions  as the  Provincial Government may by general or  special  order give  as  to  the manner in which approved  films  shall  be exhibited in the course of any performance."      Explanation:-"  Approved Films" means  a  cinematograph film  approved  for  the purpose of this  condition  by  the Provincial Government or the Central Government.     Special condition 3.-The licensee should exhibit at  the commencement of each performance not less than 2,000 feet of one or more approved films."    The  appellant  moved  the High Court  of  Judicature  at Madras under article 226 of the Constitution for an’  order- or direction to the District Magistrate, Tanjore, to  delete the  said  conditions from his licence and to the  State  of Madras  to  rescind  the notifications issued  by  it.   His contention  was  that  the conditions imposed  by  the  said notifications  are ultra vires and beyond the powers of  the licensing authority and that they are void inasmuch as  they contravened  his  freedom  of speech  and  expression  under article 19(1)(a) and his right to carry on trade or business under  article  19(1)  (g) of the  Constitution.   Both  the contentions  were rejected, the High Court holding that  the conditions imposed were reasonable and were in the interests of the general public.  The High Court granted leave to appeal to this Court.      The appellant who argued the appeal in person raised  2 main contentions.  He argued firstly, that the notifications and  conditions are beyond the competence of the  Government of Madras and the District Magistrate, and secondly, that in any event the conditions do not, as being outside the  scope of the Cinematograph Act, amount to reasonable  restrictions imposed in the interest of the general public.     We are of opinion that this appeal can be disposed of on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

the  second  ground.   It  may be  stated  that  the  Madras Cinematograph Rules, 1933, were amended by the  notification G. O. Mis. 1054, Home, dated 689 March,  28,  1948, in exercise of the  powers  conferred  by section 8 of the Cinematograph Act, 1918 (Central Act II  of 1918), and in place of condition 4 of the licence in Form A, the  impugned conditions were inserted.  Section 8  empowers the  State  Government  to make rules  for  the  purpose  of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act.  The  object of  the Act as stated in the preamble is to make  provisions for  regulating"  exhibitions under the  Cinematograph  Act. Without  going into the question whether it is  within  the’ contemplation of the Act that educational and  instructional films  should  be shown and whether the holder of  a  cinema licence  may be compelled to exhibit such films  as  falling within the scope of the Act, the question which still arises for consideration is whether the impugned conditions  amount to  "reasonable restrictions" within the meaning of  article 19(6).   Approved  ’films are those films which  are  either produced by the Government or are purchased from the private producers.   As  the private producers do  not  possess  any machinery for marketing their films the Government purchases them  from such producers and charges hire from  the  cinema licensees for showing such films.  Condition 4(a) compels  a licensee to exhibit at each performance one or more approved films  of  such length and for such length of  time  as  the Provincial  Government  or Central  Government  may  direct. Neither  the length of the film nor the period of  time  for which it may be shown is specified in the condition and  the Government  is  vested  with an  unregulated  discretion  to compel  a  licensee to exhibit a film of any length  at  its discretion  which may consume the whole or the greater  part of  the  time  for which each  performance  is  given.   The exhibition of a film generally takes 2 hours and a  quarter. Now  if  there  is nothing to guide the  discretion  of  the Government it is open to it to require the licensee to  show approved films of such great length as may exhaust the whole of  the  time or the major portion of it intended  for  each performance.  The fact that the length of the time for which the approved films may be shown is also unspecified leads to the same conclusion, in other 690 words,  the Government may compel a licensee to  exhibit  an approved  film, say for an hour and a half or even 2  hours. As the condition stands, there can be no doubt that there is no  principle  to  guide  the  licensing  authority  and   a condition  such as the above may lead to the loss  or  total extinction  of the business itself.  A condition couched  in such  wide  language is bound to operate  harshly  upon  the cinema  business  and  cannot be regarded  as  a  reasonable restriction.  It savours more of the nature of an imposition than  a restriction.  It is significant that  the  condition does not profess to lay down that the approved films must be of an educational or instructional character for the purpose of  social  or  public welfare.  We  think  therefore,  that condition  4(a)  as  it  stands at  present  amounts  to  an unreasonable  restriction  on the right of the  licensee  to carry  on his business and must be declared void as  against the  fundamental  right  of  the  appellant  under   article 19(1)(g).     Among  the  special conditions, condition  No.  3  which requires the licensee to exhibit at the commencement of each performance  not less than 2,000 feet of one or more of  the approved films is open to similar objection.  This condition

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

lays  down  the minimum length of the film to  be  shown  as 2,000  feet and gives no indication of the maximum.  We  are informed that the showing of a film of 2,000 feet will  take about 20 minutes.  This will work out to about 1/7th of  the total time of each performance if it is taken to last for 2- 1/4  hours.   Whether  a  maximum of  2,000  feet  would  be reasonable  is a matter we need not consider but as this  is mentioned  as the minimum it is obvious that the  Government may  compel  the  licensee to exhibit a film  of  10,000  or 12,000  feet which in effect will amount to pushing  out  of the  film  intended to be shown by the licensee  during  the time  allotted.   Here again no maximum  limit  having  been imposed  it follows that the discretion of the authority  is unrestrained   and   unfettered   and  must   lead   to   an unjustifiable interference with the right of the licensee to carry  on  his  business.  We  hold,  therefore,  that  this condition  is  equally obnoxious and must  be  deleted.   We accordingly allow the appeal and hold 691 that  condition 4(a)  and special condition 3  expressed  as they  are  at present are void and have no legal  effect  as against the fundamental right of the appellant under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.      We  express  no  opinion  upon  the  first   contention advanced by the appellant.  The appellant will get his costs from the respondent in this Court and in the Court below.                          Appeal allowed.