UNION OF INDIA versus K.M. SHANKARAPPA

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 28-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
11. 
K.M. SHANKARAPPA 
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Cinematograph Act, 1952-Sections 5D; 6(1)-Constitutional validity 
of-Held, it is not constitutionally valid as the Government cannot sit in an 
appeal or review a judicial order passed by the Tribunal. 
Before introduction of section SD to the Cinematograph Act, l 9S2, an 
appeal from a decision of the Board could be made to Central Government. 
An Appellate Tribunal was constituted by introducing section SD pursuant to 
the decision in K.A. Abbasv. UnionoflndiaAlR, (1971) S.C. 481. The tribunal 
was an expert body which had been set up. Besides, it has been set up for the 
purposes of considering amongst other things, the effect of films on the public. 
However, Government still sought to retain review and/or revision powers over 
the decisions of the Tribunal through enactment of Section 6(1) in the Act. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the 
constitutional validity of section 3(1), 4(1), SD, 6(1) and 7(1) of the Act. High 
E 
Court held Sections 3(1), 4(1), SD, and 7(1) to be constitutionally valid, the 
High Court held portions of Sections 6(1) to be unconstitutional. 
In appeal to this Court, Union oflndia contended that the review and/or 
revision of the order of the Tribunal by the Central Government is necessary 
because on certain occasions, it was found that after the film has been cleared 
F 
by the Board or by the Tribunal, there had been public resentment to the film 
which led to law and order situations. The Government further contended that 
under the Constitution there is no strict separation of power and that judicial 
functions could also be discharged by the Central Government by way of 
conferment of revisional powers. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Government has chosen to establish a quasi-judicial body, 
which has been given the powers, inter alia, to decide the effect of film on the 
public. Once a quasi-judicial body like the Appellate Tribunal, consisting of 
117 
G 
H 
118 
SUPREME CQURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A a retired judge of a High Court or a person qualified to be a judge of High 
Court and other experts in the field, gives its decision, that decision would be 
final and binding so far as the Executive and the Government are concerned. 
To permit the Executive to review and/or revise that decisions would amount 
to interference ·.vith the exercise of judicial functions by a quasi-judicial Board. 
B It would amount to subjecting the decision of a quasi-judicial body to the 
scrutiny of the Executive. Under the Constitution the position is reverse. The 
Executive has to obey judicial orders. Thus, Section 6(1) of the Cinematograph 
Act, 1952 is a travesty of the rule of law, which is one of the basic structures 
of the Constitution. [120-G-H; 121-Al 
C 
1.2. The Legislature may, in certain cases, overrule or nullify the 
D 
judicial or executive decision by enacting an appropriate legislation. However, 
without enacting an appropriate legislation, the Executive or the Legislature 
. cannot set at naught a judicial order. The Executive cannot sit in an appeal or 
review a judicial order. The Appellate Tribunal consists of experts and decides 
matters quasi-judicially. A Secretary and/or Minister cannot sit in appeal or 
revision over those decisions. At the highest, the Government may apply to 
the Tribunal itself for review, if circumstances so warrant. But the 
Government would be bound by the ultimate decision of the Tribunal. [121-C) 
1.3. Once an Expert Body has consiqered the impact of the film on the 
E pubic 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 
F 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 action against 
persons who choose to breach the law. [121-El 
G 
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India AIR, (1971) SC 481, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3106 of 1991. 
From the Judgment and O

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