LexM/S. PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTION AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
(2011) 10 S.C.R. 496
M/S. PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTION AND ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 345 of 2011)
AUGUST 19, 2011
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955: s.6(1) -
C Suspension of exhibition of the film - Certificate issued by
Central Board of Film Certification for screening the Film
'Aarakshan' - Order of suspension of exhibition of the film by
the State of UP. uls.6(1) on the ground that the exhibition of
the film if allowed would cause an adverse effect on the law
D and order situation in the State - Held: The power vested in
s. 6 could be exercised by the State when a film which is being
publicly exhibited could cause a breach of peace - 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
E State -
The word 'suspension' envisages something
functional or something which is being shown or is running -
Therefore, the power as vested uls. 6 could not have been
exercised by the State of UP. in view of the fact that the said
film was not being exhibited publicly in the theatre halls in UP.
F - Consequently, at the 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 u/s. 6 of the Act -The contention
G that the film already is being exhibited in the State of UP. as
a High· Level committee has seen the film cannot be
accepted as the expression specifically uses the word 'publicly
exhibited' meaning thereby that it is being exhibited all over
and for public viewing in the State - Besides the contention
H
496
PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTION AND ANR. v. UNION
497
OF INDIA AND ORS.
of the State of U.P. that some of the scenes of the film could A
create a breach of peace or could have an adverse effect on
the law and order situation cannot be accepted as this film
was screened in all other States of India peacefully and
smoothly and in fact some of the States, where this film was
screened, were also similarly sensitive States as that of the
B
State of U. P. - Aarakshanl Reservation is also one of the
social issues and in a vibrant democracy like Indian
democracy, public discussions and debate on social issues
are required and are necessary for smooth functioning of a
healthy democracy - Once the Board has cleared the film for c
public viewing, screening of the same cannot be prohibited
in the manner as sought to be done by the State in the instant
case - The decision of the State Government suspending the
screening of the film 'Aarakshan' in the State of U.P. is set
aside.
Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa (2001) 1 SCC 582:
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 117 - relied on.
S. Rangaranjan v. P. Jagjivan Ram & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC
574: 1989 (2) SCR 204 - referred to.
Case Law reference:
1989 (2) SCR 204
referred to
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 117 relied on
Para 19
Para 21
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition {Civil) No.
345 of 2011.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
D
E
F
Harish N. Salve, Amit Naik, Madhu Chaudhary, Mahesh
G
Agarwal, Rishi Agarwal, E.C. Agrawala, Neeha Nagpal,
Harshvardhan Jha for the Petitioners.
A.S. Chandiok, ASG, U.U. Lalit, Satish Chandra Mishra,
Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG, R.K. Rathore, Ruchir Mishra, Sanjeev
H
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 10 S.C.R.
A Kumar Saxena, S.S. Rawat, D.S. Mahra, G.N. Reddy, C.
B
Kannan, Kavita Wadia, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Manoj Kr.
Dwivedi, Ashutosh Sharma, Abhinav Shrivastava for the
Respondents.
The following order of the Court was delivered
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
C 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
D 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 Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.