Back
1984 Supreme(Mad) 226
Madras High Court
RAMANUJAM,RATNAM
Entertaining Enterprises, Madras - Appellant
Versus
State of T.N. - Respondent
Decided On : 06/21/1984
V. P. Raman and K. K. Venugopal, respectively for Mrs. Jayanthi Natarajan, P. Chsdambaram and S. Navaneethan, for
Petitioners; Advocate General for Govt. Pleader for Respondents.
The legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact laws regulating the exhibition of films on television screens through video cassette recorders falls within Entry 33 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, which deals with 'cinemas'.
Headnote:
TAMIL NADU EXHIBITION OF FILMS ON TELEVISION SCREEN THROUGH VIDEO CASSETTE RECORDERS (REGULATION) ACT, 1984 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE - CINEMAS - ENTERTAINMENT - COPYRIGHT - INCIDENTAL ENCROACHMENT - COLOURABLE EXERCISE OF POWER - SECTIONS 9(2) AND 10(2) - ULTRA VIRES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are running video libraries, challenged the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders (Regulation) Act, 1984 (Act 7 of 1984) and the Rules framed thereunder on the grounds that the Act is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, violates their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and that Sections 9(2) and 10(2) of the Act are ultra vires.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature as it falls within Entry 33 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, which deals with 'cinemas'. The Court also held that the Act does not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as the restrictions imposed by the Act are reasonable and in the public interest.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature? 2. Whether the Act violates the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution? 3. Whether Sections 9(2) and 10(2) of the Act are ultra vires?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Act is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature as it falls within Entry 33 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, which deals with 'cinemas'. The Court observed that the expression 'cinemas' in Entry 33 should be given a wide meaning to include video cassette recorders and television sets used for the exhibition of films. 2. The Court held that the Act does not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as the restrictions imposed by the Act are reasonable and in the public interest. The Court observed that the Act is a valid exercise of the State's power to regulate trade and commerce and that the restrictions imposed by the Act are necessary to protect public morals and order. 3. The Court held that Sections 9(2) and 10(2) of the Act are ultra vires as they are beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The Court observed that Section 9(2), which requires a video library to obtain a letter of consent from the owner of the copyright in the film, is an encroachment on the exclusive power of the Parliament to legislate on copyright under Entry 49 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution. The Court also held that Section 10(2), which requires a video library to obtain a certificate from the Board of Film Censors for each film hired out, is invalid as the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph Certification Rules, 1983 do not provide for the certification of video films for private exhibition.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions to the extent that Sections 9(2) and 10(2) of the Act were struck down as being invalid and ultra vires. The Court also granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
RAMANUJAM, J. :- Since the writ appeals arise out of the interim orders passed in the interlocutory applications filed in the writ petitions, they need not be dealt with separately, as we are disposing of the writ petitions themselves. Since the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the filing of the writ petitions are substantially the same, it is not necessary to deal with the facts in each of the writ petitions and it will suffice to deal with the facts in Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1984. The first petitioner in that case is Entertaining Enterprises carrying on the business of running a video cassette library in Door No. 310, Mount Road, Madras-600 018. The object of the petitioners' business is to make available on a fixed hire, video cassettes to its members to enable the members to view these cassettes in the Privacy of their homes, through a video cassette player attached to a television unit. The first petitioner has with him pre-recorded cassettes which he hires out to the members of his library and these cassettes are returned by the hirers after viewing them in their homes. The 1st petitioner has with him several such pre-recorded cassettes and the other petitioners are also having varying number of such pre-recorded cassettes for the common purpose of being lent to their members on payment of fixed hire charges. The said business of hiring out video cassettes is of comparatively recent origin. As a result of the growth of the
video industry, the growth of the video viewing public in India is in keeping with the growth of video viewing all over the civilised world. It is said that the Union of India has also been encouraging the viewing of video cassettes in homes through such machines and the Government, in keeping with the policy, has also drastically reduced the import duty on these units. On a rough estimate, there are nearly five lakhs of video cassette units, throughout the country and about one lakh units in the State of Tamil Nadu alone. As it is neither economically practicable nor otherwise possible, any person owning a video player cannot be expected to own sufficient number of cassettes by making idle and wasteful investment in the purchase of several hundreds of video cassettes for their own use. It is here the video cassette libraries come into the picture and these video libraries invest money in purchasing cassettes and in hiring recorded cassettes to their members. The petitioners claim to be running the said video libraries for the past few years to the entire satisfaction of the public and without creating any problems.
2. While so, the Government of the State of Tamil Nadu introduced the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders (Regulation) Ordinance No. 2 of 1984. The said Ordinance seeks to provide for the regulation of exhibition of films through video cassette records. It provides for regulating the exhibition of films by requiring licences to be taken out by an intended exhibitor. The Ordinance excludes exhibition of films for domestic purposes to the members of one's family belonging to the household. Section 4 of the Ordinance requires persons like the petitioners to take out a licence to run a video library. The Licensing authority is required to have regard to the interests of the general public before granting or refusing the licence to keep a video library. Section 9 of the Ordinance requires every person giving an exhibition of films on television screen through a video cassette recorder to keep and produce on demand a letter of consent for each of the films exhibited from the first owner of the copyright of the cinematograph film or from his assignee. This section appears to cover even exhibition of cassettes for domestic purposes and to the members of the household. Every video library is also required to keep such letters of consent in respect of each film. Section 10 of the Ordinance provides for certification of films for exh
