9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to conditions in cinema license imposed by District Magistrate under Cinematograph Act, 1918 - Ultra vires and unreasonable restrictions violating fundamental rights under Constitution. Analysis: The appellant, owner of a cinema theatre, challenged conditions in the license imposed by the District Magistrate under the Cinematograph Act, 1918. The conditions required the licensee to exhibit approved films as directed by the Government, without specifying film length or showing time. The appellant contended that the conditions violated his freedom of speech and right to carry on business under the Constitution. The High Court upheld the conditions as reasonable in the public interest, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellant raised two main contentions before the Supreme Court. Firstly, he argued that the notifications and conditions exceeded the authority of the Government of Madras and the District Magistrate. Secondly, he contended that the conditions did not amount to reasonable restrictions under the Cinematograph Act. The Court decided to address the appeal based on the second ground, focusing on the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the impugned conditions. The Court examined the impugned conditions in detail. Condition 4(a) compelled the licensee to exhibit approved films without specifying film length or showing time, granting unregulated discretion to the Government. The Court noted that such a broad condition could lead to the loss or extinction of the cinema business, as it lacked guiding principles and could be used oppressively. Therefore, the Court declared condition 4(a) as an unreasonable restriction violating the appellant's right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Similarly, special condition 3 mandated the exhibition of a minimum of 2,000 feet of approved films without indicating a maximum limit. The Court found this condition objectionable as it allowed unfettered authority to compel the licensee to exhibit films of excessive length, interfering unjustifiably with the licensee's business rights. Consequently, the Court held special condition 3 as void and ineffective against the appellant's fundamental rights. The Court refrained from opining on the appellant's first contention and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal. The Court directed the deletion of condition 4(a) and special condition 3 from the license. The appellant was awarded costs from the respondent in both the Supreme Court and the Court below, concluding the judgment.
|
