9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Constitutionality of Section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders (Regulation) Act, 1984. 2. Constitutionality and workability of Section 10(2) of the same Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Constitutionality of Section 9(2) The High Court struck down Section 9(2) of the Act, which required every person keeping a Video Library licensed under the Act to produce a letter of consent from the first owner of the copyright or its assignee whenever demanded by an authorized officer. The High Court concluded that this provision was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature as it encroached upon the subject of 'copyright,' which falls under List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The High Court stated, "Section 9(2) is not a mere incidental encroachment on the entry 'Copyright' falling in List 1, but it amounts to an addition to the provisions of the Copyright Act and therefore it falls outside the permitted limit of encroachment and as such it should be taken to be ultra vires." The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this conclusion. It held that the requirement for a letter of consent from the copyright holder or assignee was an ancillary provision necessary for regulating the business of video films, which falls under the subject of 'cinema' in List II (State List). The Court noted, "The fact that the provisions in the Act make the non-possessing of the letter of consent from the holder of copyright of the film or assignee thereof for doing business in such films makes it a cognizable offence or an offence punishable, can be no ground for holding that the State Legislature in requiring the keeping of a consent letter from the copyright holder or his assignee for doing business in the film which is necessary for carrying on such business lawfully can be said to make the State Legislature to lose the legislative competence which it had on the subject of 'cinema' in List-II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution." The Supreme Court thus concluded that Section 9(2) was constitutionally valid as it was an ancillary provision on the subject of 'cinema,' which lay within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. 2. Constitutionality and Workability of Section 10(2) The High Court also struck down Section 10(2) of the Act, which prohibited any person licensed under the Act for keeping a Video Library from selling, letting to hire, distributing, exchanging, or putting into circulation any film that had not been certified as suitable for public exhibition by the authority constituted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The High Court reasoned that this requirement was invalid and unworkable because the Cinematograph Certification Rules, 1983, did not contemplate the certification of video films for private exhibition. The High Court stated, "A video film for their own use and not for public show or exhibition cannot approach the Censor Board for a Certificate, for, the owner of the library does not intend to use the video tapes for public exhibition." The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed. It held that Section 10(2), when properly construed, applied only to films intended for public exhibition. The Court noted, "The heading of section 10, as could be seen therefrom, indicates that the provision in the sub-sections thereunder are intended to apply to only licensees who want to exhibit certified films." The Court further clarified, "The legislative intendment in imposing such restriction on the Video Library or a person keeping a Video Library cannot be anything other than imposing it in respect of films which are intended for public exhibition." Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that Section 10(2) was constitutionally valid and workable, as it applied only to films meant for public exhibition. Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that both Section 9(2) and Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders (Regulation) Act, 1984, were constitutionally valid. The writ petitions in the High Court were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
|
