2000 (11) TMI 458 - SC - Central Excise

Constitutional validity of Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5D, 6(1) and 7(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 Held that - We fall to understand the apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel that there may be a law and order situation. 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. It is for the concerned State Government to see that the law and order is maintained. In any democratic Society there are bound to be divergent views. Merely because a small section of the society has a different view, from that as taken by the Tribunal, and choose to express their views by unlawful means would be no ground for the Executive to review or revise a decision of the Tribunal. In such a case, the clear duty of the Government is to ensure that law and order is maintained by taking appropriate actions against persons who choose to breach the law. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Constitutional validity of provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 challenged - Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5D, 6(1), and 7(1) - Establishment of an Appellate Tribunal - Retention of powers by the Central Government under Section 6(1) - Separation of powers and judicial functions - Review and revision of decisions by the Executive - Law and order situation post-clearance of films by the Board or Tribunal.

Analysis:

The judgment dealt with the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 challenged in a writ petition. The challenge was against Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5D, 6(1), and 7(1). The impugned judgment upheld the constitutionality of Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5D, and 7(1), while declaring portions of Section 6(1) as unconstitutional, leading to their striking down.

In a previous case, the establishment of an Appellate Tribunal was discussed, emphasizing the need for an independent body to handle appeals concerning films. The Tribunal, comprising experts, was set up to assess the impact of films on the public. However, Section 6(1) of the Act allowed the Central Government to retain powers to review and make orders concerning film-related proceedings, despite the Tribunal's existence.

The Court rejected the argument that the Government needed the power to review decisions due to potential law and order issues post-film clearance. It emphasized the separation of powers, stating that once the Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body, made a decision, it should be final and binding on the Executive. Allowing the Executive to review or revise such decisions would undermine the rule of law and judicial functions.

The judgment highlighted that in a democratic society, diverse opinions are inevitable, and the responsibility to maintain law and order post-clearance lies with the State Government. The Court dismissed the notion that potential unrest justified Executive intervention in Tribunal decisions, emphasizing the need for the Government to uphold the rule of law and take action against unlawful behavior.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the decisions of the expert Tribunal should be respected and not subject to Executive review. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding the rule of law and maintaining the separation of powers, concluding that the appeal held no merit and should be dismissed without costs.