Judgment

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 lengths of time, as the Provincial 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 commencement of each performance not less than 2,000 feet of one or more approved films."

2. The appellant moved the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Art. 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 virus and beyond the powers of the licensing authority and that they are void inasmuch as they contravened his freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1) (a) and his right to carry on trade or business under Art. 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 interest of the general public. The High Court granted leave to appeal to this Court.

3. 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.

4. We are of opinion that this appeal can be disposed of on the second ground. It may be stated that the Madras Cinematograph Rules, 1933, were amended by the notification G. O. Mis. 1054, Home, dated 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 Art. 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