UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 875 · Decided: 15-07-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I ... 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JULY 15, 1999 
[SUJA TA V. MANOHAR, K. VENKA T ASWAMY 
AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India-Arts 19(/)(a), 19(2),-:-Freedom of speech and 
expression-Scope-Requirement to show short film, educational, scientific, 
documentary film or a film carrying news or current events, along with other C 
films-Whether showing of compulsory films is violative of rights of exhibitors 
under Art 19(/)(a) of the Constitution-Held, No-Cinematograph Act, 1952; 
West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act. 1964, notification No. 7277-F dated 
20-9-1957 issued thereunder; U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955; Delhi 
Cinematograph Rules, 1981. 
Constitution of India-Art I9(1)(g), 19(6)-Freedom to carry 
profession-Exhibiting cinematograph films in cinema theatres-Lincensing 
D 
of cinema halls-Requirement to exhibit short Films, educational, scientific, 
documentary film, or news film carrying current events, along with other 
films-Whether violative of rights of exhibitions under Art 19(/)(g) of the E 
Constitution-Held No. 
Cinematograph Act, 1952-West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 
1954-U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, I955-Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 
I981-Constitutional validity to-Exhibition of cinematograph films-
Licensing-Requirement to exhibit a scientific, educational or documentary F 
film or news film-Whether violates fundamental right to free speech and 
expression and right to profession of the exhibitors-Held, No-Constitutional 
validity of the provisions upheld 
The respondents, Associations of organisations engaged in the business 
of distribution and exhibition of motion pictures in the area of Delhi, U.P. G 
and in West Bengal challenged the validity of certain provisions of the West 
Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 and a notification No. 7277-F dated 
20-9-1957 issued thereunder; the Cinematograph Act, 1952; the U.P. Cinemas 
(Regulation) Act, 1955 and the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981. According 
to the impugned provisions of these legislation, in each cinema theatre the H 
875 
876 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
e~hibitor of films is required to show a short film which may be educational 
or scientific, a documentary film, or a film carrying news or current events, 
along with the other films. The duration of such films is limited and only 
a small proportion of this total viewing time is devoted to the showing of such 
films. Each exhibitor is required to enter into an agreement with the Films 
B Division for the supply of such films for exhibition and the exhibitor is 
required to pay to the films Division a rental amounting to 1 % of his net 
weekly collection for the supply of the films. The respondents challenged 
these provisions as violative of their rights under Art 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) 
of the Constitution. The exhibitors alleged that the condition in the licence 
requiring them to show these films even for a short duration is now 
C economically onerous and violates their right to carry on their chosen 
business under Art. 19(1)(g); that the charge of one percent on the net 
recoveries is a compulsory exaction in the form of a tax; and that a 'must 
carry' provision in a statute, rule or regulation, is equally an infringement 
of the right of free speech, except to the extent permitted under Art 19(2) 
D of the Constitution. The High Court upholding the statutory provisions, held 
that the condition in the agreement for charging a rental for the supply is 
unconstitutional, directing the Films Division to supply such films to each 
exhibitor at his place of exhibition and that no charges should be levied for 
the supply of these films. Condition 15 of the licence issued under the 
Cinematograph Act was struck down as redundant The High Court declined 
E to consider the validity of the provisions under Art 19(1)(a), there being no 
averments to that effect. 
These appeals had been filed by the Union oflndia and the writ petition 
was filed by the exhibitors against the findings recorded by the High Court 
The questions raised for consideration were whether the purpose of 
F compulsory show in the impugned provisions is to promote the fundamental 
freedom of speech and expression and dissemination of ideas, or whether it 
is to restrain this freedom; and whether the expense incurred in showing 
these films is high or unreasonable. 
G 
Allowing the appeals while dismissing the writ petition, this Co

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