IMPORTANT POINT
Once an expert body has considered the impact of the film on the public and has cleared the film, it is no excuse to say that there may be a law and order situation and that it is for the State Government concerned to see that the law and order situation is maintained and that in any democratic society there are bound to be divergent views.

Headnote:U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act- Section 6 (1)-Constitutional Validity of-Writ petition seeking quashing and setting aside of decisions taken by respondents, State of Uttar Pradesh suspending the screening of film ‘Aarakshan’ in their respective States for a specified period- A bare perusal of Section 6 of Act would make it crystal-clear that power vested therein could be exercised by State under said provision when a film which is being publicly exhibited could likely cause a breach of peace- Only in such circumstance and event, an order could be passed suspending the exhibition of the film- When it is said that a film is being publicly exhibited, it definitely pre-supposes a meaning that the film is being exhibited for public and in doing so if it is found to likely to cause breach of peace then in that event such a power could be exercised by the State Government- Such an extra-ordinary power cannot be exercised with regard to a film which is yet to be exhibited openly and publicly in a particular State-Hence power as vested under Section 6 of the Act could not have been exercised by State of Uttar Pradesh in view of the fact that said film was not being exhibited publicly in the theatre halls in U.P.- Consequently, at this stage, when the film was not screened or exhibited in the theatre halls publicly and for public viewing, neither an opinion could be formed nor any decision could be taken that there was a likelihood of breach of peace by exercising power purported under Section 6 of the Act- Once the Board had cleared the film for public viewing, screening of the same could not be prohibited in the manner as sought to be done by the State in the instant case –Impugned decision of State Government suspending the screening of the film ‘Aarakshan’ in the State of Uttar Pradesh set aside and quashed –Writ petition partly allowed. (Paras 14, 15, 22 to 25)
       Facts of the Case :
        Present Writ petition had been filed seeking quashing and setting aside of decisions taken by respondents, State of Uttar Pradesh suspending the screening of film ‘Aarakshan’ in their respective States for a specified period.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Court held that A bare perusal of Section 6 of Act would make it crystal-clear that power vested therein could be exercised by State under said provision when a film which is being publicly exhibited could likely cause a breach of peace. Only in such circumstance and event, an order could be passed suspending the exhibition of the film. When it is said that a film is being publicly exhibited, it definitely pre-supposes a meaning that the film is being exhibited for public and in doing so if it is found to likely to cause breach of peace then in that event such a power could be exercised by the State Government. Such an extra-ordinary power cannot be exercised with regard to a film which is yet to be exhibited openly and publicly in a particular State.Hence power as vested under Section 6 of the Act could not have been exercised by State of Uttar Pradesh in view of the fact that said film was not being exhibited publicly in the theatre halls in U.P.. Consequently, at this stage, when the film was not screened or exhibited in the theatre halls publicly and for public viewing, neither an opinion could be formed nor any decision could be taken that there was a likelihood of breach of peace by exercising power purported under Section 6 of the Act. Once the Board had cleared the film for public viewing, screening of the same could not be prohibited in the manner as sought to be done by the State in the instant case .Impugned decision of State Government suspending the screening of the film ‘Aarakshan’ in the State of Uttar Pradesh was set aside and quashed .Writ petition was partly allowed.

ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying for the reliefs specifically set out in the prayer portion of the writ petition. One of the reliefs that is sought for in this writ petition is to strike down the provision of Section 6 (1) of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) being allegedly ultra vires to the Constitution of India. The other relief that is sought for is to quash and set aside the decisions taken by the respondents, namely State of Punjab, State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Uttar Pradesh suspending the screening of the film ‘Aarakshan’ in their respective States for a specified period.

2. Notice was issued on this writ petition making the same returnable today so as to enable the three State Governments to submit their reply/counter affidavit. However, at the stage of issuing notice itself, we were informed by the counsel appearing for the State of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh that so far as their States are concerned, they had withdrawn the order of suspension of screening of the film ‘Aarakshan’.

3. The counsel appearing for the State of Punjab and the State of Andhra Pradesh are present in the Court. Today also they stand by the same statement which they had made on the last date, meaning thereby, that they had lifted the orders of suspension of screening of the film in their respective States. Therefore, to our understanding, the aforesaid film is being screened in the aforesaid two States also as on this date. This petition, therefore, has been rendered infructuous so far as the States of Andhra Pradesh and Punjab are concerned.

4. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed the counter affidavit opposing the prayer in the writ petition which is on record. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties extensively today.

5. Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has not pressed the prayer so far as constitutional validity of Section 6 of the Act is concerned. However, on his submission, we are keeping the said issue open to be agitated in an appropriate case in future, if necessary. He, however, has challenged the legality of the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government suspending the screening of the film ‘Aarakshan’ in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh. According to him, the aforesaid exercise of power of suspension of the screening of the film amounts to exercising the power of pre-censorship which is being exercised by the Government, although no such power vested on it. According to him, the said power of censorship is vested in the Central Board of Film Certification, (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) and in the Central Government as provided for in the provisions made in The Cinematograph Act, 1952. He has also submitted that the power that is sought to be exercised in the present case under Section 6(1) of the Act is also without jurisdiction as such power could be exercised only when a film is being screened and shown in the public hall and also when a contingency of the nature as mentioned in the said Section arises. He submits that on satisfying the preconditions and only in such a situation a power is vested in the State Government to suspend the screening of the film for a specified period. He also submits that the aforesaid decision of the State Government is in violation of the provisions of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same is required to be struck down and quashed.

6. We have also heard Mr. Chandiok, learned Additional Solicitor General, who submits that after a certificate has been issued to a particular film by the Censor Board, the said film could be screened in the entire country and the order which is passed by the State Government is not envisaged as it practically prohibits screening of the film in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh.

7. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh has, however, taken us through th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 793

2011 (6) Supreme 109SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.M/s Prakash Jha Productions & Anr — Petitioner(s)versusUnion of India & Ors. — Respondent(s)Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 345 of 2011Decided on : 19-8-2011

Cases Referred (1)

2011 (6) Supreme 109
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
M/s Prakash Jha Productions & Anr — Petitioner(s)
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 345 of 2011
Decided on : 19-8-2011