The main legal point established in the judgment is that re-examination and re-certification of video copies of already certified films is not necessary under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and its rules, and that the double fee prescribed for video films was discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:
CINEMATOGRAPH - CHALLENGE TO RULES - [Cinematograph] - [Cinematograph Act, 1952, Rule 21, Rule 30, Rule 36] - The court discussed the interpretation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and its rules, particularly Rule 21, Rule 30, and Rule 36, in the context of certification and examination of films for public exhibition. The court highlighted the distinction between celluloid films and video films, the necessity of re-examination and re-certification of video copies, and the reasonableness of regulatory provisions for video films. The court also addressed the issue of fees for examination and certification of video films, finding the double fee prescribed for video films to be discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, M/s. Video Master, challenged the order of the respondents requiring them to submit video tapes made from certified films for re-examination and re-certification, as well as the table of fees for examination of video films. They contended that the Cinematograph Act only requires certification for public exhibition and not for private home viewing, and that the fees for video films were arbitrary and discriminatory.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that re-examination and re-certification of video copies of already certified films is not necessary under the Act and Rules, and that the double fee prescribed for video films was discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also acknowledged the regulatory necessity of pasting duplicate copies of certificates on video cassettes and cases, but suggested procedural improvements to address delays and complications.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and its rules, particularly in relation to the certification and examination of video films, as well as the reasonableness of the fees prescribed for video films.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that re-examination and re-certification of video copies of already certified films is not necessary under the Act and Rules, and that the double fee prescribed for video films was discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also suggested procedural improvements to address delays and complications in the authentication of duplicate copies of certificates for video films.
Final Decision: The rule was made partly absolute, with no orders as to costs, and interim orders were to continue for a period of six weeks.

JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---As both these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.

2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5004 of 1984 M/s. Video Master, is a partnership firm carrying on business of buying films for processing and making videogram cassettes, disc, tapes, in relation to feature films, documentaries, educational, art and cultural films for sale and/or for private exhibition on video play back equipment. After acquiring necessary rights the petitioners also market the same under the brand names like Time, Gold Action. The petitioners firm possesses the requisite licence granted by the Government of India to process, transfer and duplicate films on video cassettes. The petitioner-firm is also distributing the pre-recorded video cassette tapes made by Esquire Distributing and Servicing (P) Ltd. It is the case of the petitioner-firm that it has purchased the video rights in certified feature films released in India for public exhibition by the Cinematograph Board for the purpose of processing and distributing the same. The owner of certified films delivers free of change a certified film in 35 mm or 8 mm and in colour, to enable the petitioner to transfer, process, record, copy, duplicate tape etc. on the videogram cassette disc tapes. Thus in substance the petitioner-firm is carrying on business in video films.

3. By the writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order of the respondents requiring them by submit the video tapes made from the certified films for re-examination and re-certification and collecting fees on that count.

4. Shri Chinoy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Cinematograph Act only requires that a film, must be examined and certified before its public exhibition. The said Act does not require that the same movie should be re-examined and re-certified when it is faithfully reproduced on another material i.e. when a movie recorded on celluloid strip is reproduced on video cassette discs or tape and vice verse. He then contended that as per the provisions of the Act, certification is required only for the public exhibition of the film and not for the private home viewing the films on V.C.R. Therefore, by interpretative process authorities cannot import or bring within the scope of the Act something which is wholly outside its purview. He also contended that the provisions of Rule 21 read with the relevant forms cannot be read term form its context. These provisions will have to be read with section 4 of the Act, and so read it is quite clear that the authorities cannot insist on re-examination of the film which is already censored and certified.

5. The petitioners are also challenging the table of fees in para III-A of Rule 36 of the rules. According to the petitioners fixation of different fees for the examination of celluloid film and the video film, is wholly arbitrary and irrational. For no rational reason double fee is charged for examination of the film recorded on video cassette disc tapes. The discrimination between the fee charged has no rational basis or justification. The provision is made only to extract more money from the petitioners and the persons similarly situated, without any rational and reasonable basis. It is the case of the petitioners that the said rule has been framed in mala fide exercise of the powers at the behest of the producers and distributors of the celluloid films. In substance it is the case of the petitioners that the said rule is framed in colourable exercise of powers conferred by section 8 of the Act and is also ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also challenged Rule 36(2) prescribing a fee of Rs. 10/- for duplicate copy of the certificate. According to the petitioners this fee has no reasonable and rational nexus with the services rendered. Therefore, it lacks quid-pro-quo. Henc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1986 Supreme(Bom) 213

Cases Referred (1)