MINERVA TALKIES, BANGALORE & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 511 · Decided: 06-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MINERVA TALKIES, BANGALORE & ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
i 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC. 
JANUARY 6, 1988. 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Rules framed under section 19 
of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Act of 1964-Whether rule 4 I-A 
has been made ''for purposes of the Act" and places unreasonable 
restrictions on the right ta carry on business of exhibiting cinematograph 
films in violation of Article 19( 1) (g) of the Constitution. 
c 
~ 
These appeals and writ petitions involved two questions of law-
(i) whether Rule 41-A of the Karuataka Cinemas (Regulations) Rules 
(the Rules) framed by the State Government under section 19 of the 
Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Act of 1964 (the Act) had been made 
"for purposes of the Act", and (ii) whether Rule 41-A placed unreason-
D 
able restrictions on the appellants' right to carry on their business of 
exhibiting cinematograph films, in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the 
Constitution. 
r 
The appellants/petitioners held licences for exhibiting cinemato-
graph films in their cinema theatres under the Act and the Rules in 
E 
Form F prescribed by the Rules. Normally, the Cinema owners were 
1 
holding four shows in a day, bnt later on, they increased the shows to 
five in a day starting.from 10 a.m. and ending at 12 a.m. This caused a 
'---< 
number of problems. The State Government in exercise of its powers 
under section 19 of the Act framed Rule 41-A directing that no licensee 
,. 
would exhibit more than four cinematograph shows in a day. The appel-
F 
!ants challenged the validity of the Rule 41-A placing restrictions on 
their right to exhibit cinematograph films before the High Court by writ 
petitions. The appellants contended before the High Court that the 
restriction imposed by Rule 41-A on the licensees requiring them not to 
exhibit more than four shows in a day was beyond the rule-making 
-· 
power, as the Rule did not carry ont the pnrposes of the Act, and that 
G 
~ 
the Rule placed unreasonable restrictions on their fnndamental right to 
carry on the business of exhibiting cinematograph films. 
There was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges 
constituting the Bench of the High Court, which heard the petitions. 
K.S. Puttaswamy, J. held inter alia that the impugned rule was ultra 
H 
511 
A 
B 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 
vires as it was beyond the rule-making power of the Government under 
section 19 of the Act, and that it placed unreasonable restrictions on the 
appellants' right to carry on their business guaranteed under Article 
19(l)(g) of the Constitution. Narayan Rai Kudoor, J. upheld the valid-
ity of the Rule, holding that the impugned Rule carried out the purposes 
of the Act, viz., the regulation of the exhibition of cinematograph films, 
and the restriction placed by it was reasonable. Since there was differ-
ence of opinion between the two learned Judges, the matter was placed 
before M. Rama Jois, J., who agreed with the opinion of N.R. Kudoor, 
J ., holding that the State Government had the power to frame the Rule 
and the Rule did not place any unreasonable restriction on the appel-
lants' right to carry on business of exhibiting cinematograph films, and 
C 
that it was not ut/ra vires the Act and did not violate appellants' funda-
mental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. Consequently, all 
the writ petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the decision of the High 
Court, the appellants filed appeals in this Court. Some of the aggrieved 
cinema owners filed writ petitions in this Court, challenging the validity 
of Rule 41-A. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals and the writ petitions, the Court, 
HELD : The question whether Rule 41-A was validly framed to 
carry out the purposes of the Act could be determined on the analysis of 
the provisions of Act. The title of the Act and the preamble clearly 
E indicate that the main purpose of the Act is to regulate the exhibition of 
the cinematograph films in places in respect of which a licence for that 
purpose may be issued. The extent of control and regulation is evi-
denced by the provisions of the Act. The ultimate purpose of these 
provisions is to ensure safety and convenience of the general public 
visiting the licensed premises for witnessing the cinematograph films 
F 
exhibited therein. [5180, H; 5!9A-B; 520F] 
Section 19 of the Act confers power on the State Government to 
frame rules for carrying out the purp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.