A law that imposes prior censorship on dramatic performances without providing clear guidelines and procedural safeguards is unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

1. This writ petition raises an important constitutional question as to whether the Tamil Nadu Dramatic Performances Act, 1954 (Tamil Nadu Act 33 of 1954) is constitutionally valid? and whether it is liable to be struck down as it infringes Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution?

2. The petitioner is a Writer and Journalist. He is also having a Theatre Group called "Pareeksha" established in the year 1976. The said Theatre group have put up several plays both in Theatre as well as street plays. The contention of the petitioner was that whenever he puts a play in the theatre, the script of the play has to get prior clearance from the Commissioner of Police if it is performed in the city of Chennai, who determines whether there is anything objectionable in the content of the plays. As a result of the said restriction, managers of the theatre halls require the petitioner to get permission from the Commissioner of Police. The office of the Commissioner of Police (third respondent) normally ask two copies of the script to be submitted to their office three weeks in advance before the date of performance of any play or drama. On submission of the script, the third respondent office, on satisfying themselves that there was nothing objectionable in the play, grant the approval or licence to stage the play. Normally, such permissions are granted only a day before the play. Vesting such a discretion at the hands of the third respondent, who is neither an artist or aesthetic sensibility to judge whether the play is objectionable, is clearly uncalled for. The petitioner had arranged to put up a play by name "Kamala" based on a book written by an eminent Marathi playwright Vijay Tendulkar. An approval from the third respondent office was never given even three hours before the schedule time of play. The petitioner was asked to cut several dialogues from the script of the play which the third respondent felt objectionable, though in normal situation, no reasonable man would have termed any part of the play as obscene or tinged with any political overtones. If the petitioner did not accept the dictates of the official respondent, then it will result in cancellation of the performance. Therefore, they were forced to compromise on their artistic freedom and had accepted such cuts. The play was performed starting from 8.00 p.m., instead of 6.30 p.m. None of the city auditoriums are giving permission to put any play without prior censorship of the script by the police. Censoring was normally done by the person in the rank of the Inspector of Police, who is neither artistic or literary skills to judge the script. To the knowledge of the petitioner, Tamil Nadu is the only State where the police is empowered to censor the script of the play or drama.

3. The Tamil Nadu Dramatic Performance Act, 1954 is a relic of colonial rule in India, who had promulgated the Dramatic Performance Act, 1876 to regulate the threatre scene in India. The Act outlined the restrictions that public performances of a play, pantomime or any other drama would have to adhere to. If the Government judged any play to be of a scandalous nature or disrupting social values or felt that it might excite feelings of disaffection against the Government established by law or that it would corrupt persons, the said performance would stand prohibited. If any person who was served with such prohibitory order, refused to comply with the same, then such person or group is liable to be punished. The penalty for disobedience of the terms of the Act was either imprisonment for a term extending three months or fine or both in some cases. The Act conferred upon the government the right to receive information, by which right, the persons as empowered by the Act can demand for production of all such plays for verification that whose content might violate one or many terms of the Act. The police was granted permission to enter, arrest and seize any persons, scenery, costumes, articles w