DIRECTORATE OF FILM FESTIVALS AND ORS. versus GAURAV ASHWIN JAIN AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 7 · Decided: 11-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.• 
DIRECTORATE OF FILM FESTIVALS AND ORS. 
A 
- ' 
v. 
GA URA V ASHWIN JAIN AND ORS. 
APRIL 11, 2007 
[TARUNCHATTERJEEANDR.V.RAVEENDRAN,JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India-Article 14 & 19(J)(a)---Cinematograph Act, 
\_ 
19S2-Sections 4, SA, SB & 9-Regulations providing requirement of 
certification of films by Central Board of Film Certification for entry to c 
National Film Awards and exempting such requirement for films produced by 
Film Institutes and films entered by Doordarshan-Writ Petition by film 
makers challenging the requirement of certification was allowed by High 
Court-Correctness of-Held, Government's policy to restrict entry for 
National Film Awards only to those films certified by the Board for public 
exhibition is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution D 
and therefore constitutional-Wisdom or soundness of such policy decision 
cannot be subject to judicial review-Purpose and object of Film Festivals 
and National Film Awards are different and hence, cannot be a basis for 
seeking similar exemption of certification-Exemption of requirement of 
certification for films produced by Film Institutes and entries made by E 
Doordarshan is illegal under the Act but a similar illegal exemption cannot 
be claimed without challenging such exemption. 
Appellant-Directorate of Film Festivals under the Ministry of 
Information and Broadcasting organiz.es National Film Awatds ever year. The 
awards are given to feature films as also non-feature films. Respondents, who F 
were documentary film makers, intended to enter the Non-Feature Films 
.... 
·i 
category for the National Awards for a particular year but were aggrieved 
with eligibility requirements prescribed by the Directorate, for non-feature · 
films, in Regulation lO(e) of the National Film Awards Regulations that the 
films should have been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification. 
Regulation lO(d) stipulated similar requirements for feature films. The G 
respondents filed Writ Petition before High Court seeking declaration that 
Regulation lO(d) and (e) of the National Film Awards Regulations were violative 
)-
of Article 14 and 19(1Xa) of the Constitution. The respondents contended that 
as the entries for National Film Awards did not involve any public exhibition 
7 
H 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 5 S.C.R. 
A and were viewed only by a select jury, there was no need for certification by 
the Board under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and hence restricting the 
i -
entry to only films certified by the Board is an unreasonable restriction on 
the fundamental right of the film makers violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the 
Constitution; that if the films could be entered in Film Festivals without 
B 
certification from the Board, there is no reason why they should not be so 
entered for the National Film Awards; and that by exempting films prod,uced 
by Film Institutes and entries made by Doordarshan from the requirement of 
certification by the Board while insisting on such certification by the Board 
in the case of other films for entry for the National Film Awards is 
-'-
discriminatory violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court 
c allowed the Writ Petition. Hence the appeal before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The right of a film maker to make and exhibit his film is a 
part of his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under 
D Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution oflndia. A film is a medium for expressing 
and communicating ideas, thoughts, messages, information, feelings and 
emotions. It may be intended either for public exhibition or purely for private 
use. The requirement under sections 4 and SA of the Cinematograph Act, 
1952 relating to certification by the Central Board of Film Certification, where 
E 
the film is intended for public exhibition, by applying the guidance principles 
set out in section 58, is a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the said 
right of speech and expression contemplated under Article 19(2) and therefore 
constitutional. [Para 13] [17-G-H; 18-A] 
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, AIR (1971) SC 481; S. Rangarajan v. P. 
F Jagjivan Ram, [1989] 2 SCC 574 and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. 
Manubhai D. Shah, [1992] 3 SCC 637, referred to. 
·-
)-
1.2. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is well defined. 
Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate authorities examining the 
correctness, suitability and app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.