# I UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [1999] 3 S.C.R. 875
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1999-07-15
- **Bench:** Suja Ta V. Manohar, K. Venka T Aswamy, R.C. Lahoti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/i-union-of-india-and-ors-v-motion-picture-association-and-ors-etc-etc-16899
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

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 filmsLicensing-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 prom

## Text

_Characters 0–39,958 of 58,384. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39958 for what follows._

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 filmsLicensing-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 Court
HELD : 1.1. The social context of any such legislation cannot be
ignored. When a substantially significant population body is illiterate or
does not have easy access to ideas or information, it is important that all
available means of communication, particularly audiovisual communication,
H are utilised not just for entertainment but also for education, information,
-
U.0.1. v. MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION
877
propagation of scientific ideas and the like. The best way by which ideas can A
reach this large body of uneducated people is through the entertainment
channel which is watched by all illiterate and literate alike. To earmark a
small portion of time of this entertainment medium for purpose of showing
scientific, educational or documentary films, or for showing news films has
to be looked at in this context of promotion of dissemination of ideas,
information and knowledge to the masses so that there may be an informed B
debate and decision making on public issues. Clearly, the impugned provisions ,.
are designed to further free speech and expression and not to curtail it. None
of these provisions require the exhibitor to show propaganda film or a film
conveying views which he objects to. In the present case, the contents of the
compulsory films are specified in legislation concerned.(888-G-H; 889-A-C] C
1.2. Undoubtedly the exhibitors, in order to fulfil the conditions of the
licence, are required to enter into an agreement with the Films Division,
Government of India. This is not because of any statutory compulsion but
because of the fact that the Films Division is the only organisation which
produces such short films in sufficient quantities for regular distribution D
to the cinema exhibitors. The requirement for approval of such films is to
ensure that the film, in fact, comply with the requirements specified in the
statute. These provisions, therefore, do not violate Article 19(l)(a) of the
Constitution. They are not in restrain of free speech and expression.
Therefore, Article 19(2) is not attracted. (889-E-F-H; 890-A]
E
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. Union of India, (1986] 1 SCC
133; S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram & Ors., (1989] 2 SCC 574; Indian
Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
[1985] 1 SCC 641; K.A. Abbas v. Union of India & Anr., (1970) 2 SCC 780;
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof Manubhai D. Shah, (1992] 3 F
SCC 637 and Secretary, Ministry of Infromation & Broadcasting, Govt. of
India & Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr., (1995) 2 SCC 161,
relied on.
1.3. In the present case, the restrictions sought to be imposed are G
specific and tailored to fit the public purpose behind the restrictions. The
length of the film to be shown, the duration for which it is to be shown and
the nature of the films which are to be shown, are specified and are designed
to further the public purpose of disseminating information and knowledge
so that the general public can be educated on a number of issues of national
or general importance to enable them to function effectively in the democratic H
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 3 S.C.R.
A framework of this country with adult franchise. These restrictions, therefore,
have to be upheld as reasonable. [891-D-E)
1.4. The reasonableness or otherwise of restrictions on their right to
carry on business will have to be examined in the context of the purpose
sought to be served by imposing such restrictions. The rights of the exhibitors
B under Art. 19(l)(g) are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article
19(6). There is a public purpose in requiring the exhibitors to show such
films. Requiring an entertainment medium like cinema theatre to show for
a short duration of its programme, films which educate and impart information
cannot be considered as an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry
on business. When there is adult franchise without literacy, it becomes all
C the more important that information and ideas reach the adult population.
[892-E-G)
1.5. Looking to the purpose for which films are shown, the expense
incurred also cannot be considered as unreasonable. The Films Division
incurs an expenditure of more than Rs. 12 crores per year only for taking
D out adequate prints, while their recovery in form of rental is only Rs. 7 to
8 crores per year. Therefore, the Films Division is charging a very small
amount considering the expenditure outlay in producing and distributing
these films. In these facts and circumstances, the rental of one per cent
cannot be considered as excessive. (893-H; 894-A-B)
E
F
1.6. The Film Division has a distribution network spread throughout
the country to serve 13000 cinema theatres. It has ten distribution branches
throughout the country. The Film Division packs the films, seals them and
sends them by train to the cities, towns, and villages wherever the cinema
theatres are located. Therefore, there is no special inconvenience caused to
the exhibitors for securing these films. The arrangements for supply and
distribution which have been in existence unchallenged for the last 30 years
until the present proceedings were instituted cannot be considered as
unsatisfactory or unreasonable. (894-C-D]
1. 7. The charge termed in the agreement as rental for the films covers
G charges for preparing the prints of the films for distribution, and for packing
them for delivery. These are clearly services.rendered by the Film Division
for which it is paid one per cent of the net collection as a rental. The total
cost for preparing prints, packing them and distributing them is higher than
the total recovery made by the Film Division by way of rental from all the
exhibitors. There is a clear nexus between the services rendered and the
H payment to be made. The payment, therefore, is in a nature of a fee rather
U.0.1. v. MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION
879
than a tax though there may not be an exact quid pro quo. This is clearly A
an agreed fee charged for rendering services. It cannot be viewed as a
compulsory exaction or a tax. There is a statutory obligation which is cast
on the exhibitors to exhibit certain films. To carry out this statutory obligation,
if the exhibitors enter into an agreement with the Films Division and agree
to pay a certain amount of rental for procuring the films from the Film
Division to comply with the statutory obligations, the levy must, since it is B
correlated with the Films Division discharging certain obligations under the
contract, be viewed, at the highest, as a fee and not as a tax. It is an agreed
payment, and is not unreasonable. [895-A-B; F-Hl
District Council of the Jowai Autonomous Distt., Jowai v. Dwet Singh C
Rymbai etc., AIR (1986) 1930; Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments,
Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sir Shirur Mutt, AIR (1954)
SC 282 and Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar
Jyantikumar Pasawalla & Ors., AIR (1992) SC 2083, relied on.
1.8. Conditions 15 and 22 of the licence do not overlap, but refer to D
different sizes and types of short films, shorter films or lantern slides. The
High Court was, therefore, not right in holding that Condition No. 15 is
redundant since it is covered by Condition No. 22. Both conditions, however,
must be read in the light of Section 12(4) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
and only films and lantern slides which fall within the description of such
films under Section 12(4) can be so required to be shown. [896-F-G)
E
R.M Seshadri v. The District Magistrate, Tanjore & Anr., [1955) 1 SCR
686; Chief Commissioner, Ajmer v. Brij Niwas Das, [1963] 2 SCR 145 and
Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. v. State of Karnantaka & Ors., [1988)
Suppl. sec 176, relied on.
F
Neal R. Wooley, Etc_. v. George Maynard, [1977] 430 US 705 and Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, (1997)
512 US 622, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3766-67 of G
1999 Etc. Etc.
From the Judgment and order dated 31.8.95 of the Delhi High Court in
C.W.P. No. 4408 and 4703of1993.
R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, N.N. Goswami, Dr. R.K. Dhawan, H
....
880
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 3 S.C.R.
A V.A. Mohta, S.K. Dholakia, (A.K. Goel, Additional Advocate Genera[ for State
ofU.P.), S.K. Dwivedi, A. Subba Rao, Hemant Sharma, (S.W.A. Qadri), B.V.
Bairam Das, Ashok Jain, Umesh Kumar Bohre, pradeep Aggarwal, Sushi! K,
Jain, Pradeep Misra, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Vijay Kumar, H.K. Puri, Ujjawal
Banerjee and Rathin Das for the appearing parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MS. SUJAT A V. MANO HAR, J. Delay condoned.
Leave granted in special leave petitions.
C
This group of appeals is filed by the Union of India, the State of West
Bengal and the State of Uttar Pradesh against a judgment and order dated
31.8.1995 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 4408 and 4703of1993; while
the writ petition is filed by the Eastern India Motion Picture Association
against the Union of India and others. This group of appeals and the writ
petition taise a common question of law as to the validity of certain provisions
D of(l) the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act. 1954 and a notification No.
7277-F dated 20.9.1957 issued thereunder, (2) the Cinematograph Act, 1952, (3)
the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and (4) the Delhi Cinematograph
Rules, 1981.
E
The respondents in the appeals are Associations of organisations
engaged in the business of distribution and exhibition of motion pictures in
the area of Delhi and U.P. commonly known as the Delhi"Uttar Pradesh Circuit
and in West Bengal.
In part III of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 which applies only to the
F Union Territories including Delhi, Section 12 imposes certain restrictions on
the powers of the licensing authority to grant a licence for the exhibition of
cinematograph films. Section 12 Sub-section (4) provides as follows :-
G
H
The Cinematograph Act :
"12(4): The Central Government may, from time to.time, issue directions
to licenses generally and to any licensee in particular for the purpose
of regulating the exhibition of any film or class of films, so that
scientific films, films intended for educational purposes, films dealing
with news and current events, documentary films or indigenous films
secure an adequate opportunity of being exhibited, and where any
such directions have been issued those directions shall be deemed to
U.0.1. v. MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION [MRS. SUJA TA V. MANO HAR, J ) 88}
--
be additional conditions and restrictions subject to which the licence A
had been granted."
(underlining ours)
Under Section 16 which also fonns a part of Part III of the Cinematograph
Act, 1952, the Central Government is empowered by notification in the official
gazette, to make rules, inter alia, "(a) prescribing the tenns, conditions and B
restrictions, if any, subject to which licences may be granted under this Part."
Pursuant to the rule-making power so granted, rules have been framed by the
Central Government known as the Delhi Cinematograph Rules of l 981. Under
these rules various conditions for the grant of a licence to exhibit a
cinematograph film are stipulated. Conditions 15 and 22 are as follows :
c
"Condition No. I 5 : The licensee shall, when and so often as the
Administrator may require, exhibit free of charge or on such tenns as
regards remuneration as the Administrator may detennine, films and
lantern slides provided by the Administrator;
Provided that the licensee shall not be required to exhibit at one D
entertainment films or lantern slides the exhibition of which will take
more than fifteen minutes in all or to exhibit films or alides unless they
are delivered to him at least twenty four hours before the entertainment
at which they are to be shown is due to begin.
E
Condition No. 22 : The licensee shall cause to be exhibited at each
perfonnance given at the licensed place one or more approved films,
~
the total length of which may not be exceeding 600m (2000 feet) of
approved films of 3 5 m.m. size or the corresponding footage of approved
films of 16m.m. size, and shall comply with any direction which the
Administrator or the licensing authority may give by general or special F
order as to the manner in which the approved films shall be exhibited
in the course of any perfonnance.
Explanation I : "Approved film" means cinematograph film approved
by the Central Government.
G
--
Explanation 2 : For the purpose of computing the corresponding
footage of films of 16m.m. size, in relation to films of35m.m. size, 120m.
(400 feet) of films of 16m.m. size shall be deemed to be equivalent to
-$
300 m. (1000 feet) of films of35m.m. size."
Under Notification No. XXXM{l 6)/81 dated I Ith January, 1982 issued H
'
-i
... '
'
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999) 3 S.C.R.
A under Section 5(4) of the Uttar pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955,
directions have been issued to the licensees which are as follows :
B
c
D
E
F
G
Directions :
"1. The licensees shall so arrange the exhibition of cinematograph
films that approved films are exhibited at every performance open to
the public. The ratio of approved films to be exhibited at such
performances shall in relation to other films be one to five or the
nearest approximation thereto.
· Definition-For the purposes of these directions, an "approved"
film means (i) a film produced in India and approved by the Central
Government after considering the recommendations of the Film
Advisory Board, Bombay, to be scientific films, films intended for
educational purposes, films dealing with news and current events or
documentary films, (ii) Indian News Reviews produced in India and
approved by the Central
Government after considering the
recommendations of the Chief Producer, Films Division, Bombay, to be
films dealing with news and current events.
I
2. Nothin8 contained in these directions shall b~ construed as requiring
licensee-
(a)
to exhibit at any performance more than (2000 feet) approximately
610 metres ofapproved films of 35m.m. size or the corresponding
length of approved films of 16 m.m. size; or
(b) to exhibit any approved film for more than two weeks
continuously; or
(c)
to re-exhibit any approved film which has been shown for two
continuous weeks; or
(d) to exhibit approved films to the full extent indicated hereinbefore
in the event of sufficient number or length of approved films not
being available for the time being.
3. For the purpose of computing the corresponding length of films of
16m.m. size in relation to films of 35 m.m. size, approximately 122
metres (400 feet) of 16m.m. film shall be deemed to be equivalent to
approximately 305 metres (1000 feet) of 35m.m. films."
H
Under Section 5(3) of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954,
-
. ..,-
-
..
...
--
\
-
U.0.1. v. MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 883
it is provided as follows :
"5(3): The State Government may from time to time, issue directions
to licensees generally or in the opinion of the State Government
circumstances so justify, to any licensee in particular, for the purpose
A
of regulating, the exhibition of any film or class of films and in
particular the exhibition of scientific films, films intended for educational B
purposes, films, dealing with news and current events, documentary
films or films produced in India, and where any such directions have
been issued, those directions shall be deemed to be additional
conditions and _restrictions subject to which the licence has been
granted."
By a Notification No. 7277-F dated 20.9.1957 issued by the West Bengal
Government under Section 5(3) of the above Act. The State Government has
given certain directions for the issue of licenses for the exhibition of films.
These are as follows :
"Directions : A licensee shall so regulate the public exhibition of
films by .means of a cinematograph that, at every such exhibition,
there shall be exhibited notified films of such length as bears to the
length of other films exhibited approximately the ratio of one to five
(a) to exhibit at any such public exhibition more than 2,000 ft. of
notified films of35 m.m. size or 800 ft. ofnotified films of 16m.m. size;
or
(b) to exhibit any notified films for more than two weeks continuously;
or
( c) to re-exhibit any notified film which has been shown for two
continuous weeks; or
( d) to exhibit notified films beyond the limit upto which notified films
c
D
E
F
are available for exhibition for the time being, or to exhibit any notified G
films when such films are not available for the time being.
Provided further that of the total time taken in the exhibition of
notified films at every such exhibition, not less than half shall be
.allotted to the exhibition of films approved by the Central Government
after considering the recommendations of the Films Advisory Board, H
884
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999) 3 S.C.R.
A
Bombay, if films of the latter description are available.
Explanation : In these directions "notified film" means a film which is
produced in India in which is-
(i) a scientific films, or
B
(ii) a film intended for educational purpose, or
c
D
(iii) a film dealing with news and current events, or
(iv) a documentary film,
certified or exempted from certification, as the case may be, under Part
II of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (XXX:VII of 1952), which is notified
by the State government in the "Calcutta Gazette" for exhibition for
the purpose of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the West Bengal
Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 (West Bengal Act XXXIX of 1954);
Provided that any of the films as referred to above, which is
approved by the Central Government after considering the
recommendations of the Film Advisory Board, Bombay, shall be deemed
to be a notified film for the purpose of this notification."
All these provisions are similar in nature, and have been in force for
E some decades. They are hereinafter referred to as the "impugned provisions".
Thus, under Section 12(4) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 the Central
Government may issue directions to the licensees that scientific films, films
intended for educational purposes, films dealing with news and current events,
documentary films- or indigenous films have to be exhibited by the licensee
along with the other films which the licensee is exhibiting. The length and the
F duration of such films is regulated by conditions 15 and 22 of the licence
which require only a film of a short length being thus shown along with the
other films. Similarly, under the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954
also Section 5(3) requires an identical class of films which are required to be
shown along with the other films which· the respondents exhibit in their
G cinema theatres. The notification of 20th of September, 1957 specifies the
duration of such films and its length, making it clear that the length of such
films which are required to be exhibited will not exceed the ratio of 1:5. The
length of these films is also specified. The licence conditions refer to "approved
filll}S" or "notified films" which are defined.
H
As a result, in each cinema theatre the exhibitor of films is required to
,..
l
U.0.1. v. MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 885
show a film which may be educational or scientific; a documentary film, or a A
film carrying news or current event, along with the other films. The duration
of such film is strictly limited and only a small proportion of the total viewing
time is devoted to the showing of such films.
Since short films in these
categories are normally produce by the films division of the government of
India; each exhibitor is required to enter into an agreement with the films
division for the supply of such films for exhibition . Under the terms and B
condition of the agreement between the exhibitor and the film division; the
exhibitor is required to pay to the films division a rental amounting to l % of
his net weekly collection for the supply of the films. This rental has remained
the same for the past several decaders and is a rental which is fixed as a result
of negotiations with the Films Federation of India.
C
These Impugned provisions have been in force or several decades. The
respondents however; in 1993 challenged these provisions as violative of
their rights under Articles l9(l)(a) and 19 (l) (g) of the constitution. The
Delhi High Court; by the impugned judgment has held that the condition in
the agreement between Films Division and the exhibitor, for charging a rental D
for the supply of the said films is unconstitutional. The Delhi High Court
has also held that the provision by which the exhibitor is required to collect
a film from the Film Division is also onerous and, therefore, invalid. It has
also struck down condition 15 of the licence issued under the Cinematograph
Act; 1952 as redundant. Therefore, while upholding the statutory provisions, E
the court has directed that such films should be supplied by the Films
Division to each exhibitor at his place of exhibition and that no charges
should be levied for the supply of these films. Aggrieved by these finding,
the present app~als have been filed. The writ petition which is filed by the
Eastern India Motion pictures Association, has challenged the validity of the
same provision under Article 19(1) (a) of the constitution, since the Delhi F
High Court declined to consider the validity of these provisions under Article
19 (l) (a), without any averments to that effect.
The exhibitors contend that the above provisions which compel them
to show' a scientific, educational or documentary film or a news film, even for G
a short duration of fifteen to twenty minutes per show, violate their fundamental
rights to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
They also contend that Article 19(2) which permits a reasonable restraint on
this freedom on the grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, security
of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or
morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an H
886
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1999} 3 S.C.R.
A offence, does not cover this kind of compulsion to show educational, scientific
and documentary films or other kinds of films specified in the above provisions.
Undoubtedly, free speech is the foundation of a democratic society. A
free exchange of ideas, dissemination of information without restraints,
dissemination of knowledge, airing of differing view points, debating and
B forming one shown views and expressing them, are the basic indicia of a free
society. This freedom alone makes it possible for people to formulate their
own views and opinions on a proper basis and to exercise their social,
economic and political rights in a free society in an informed manner. Restraints
on this right, therefore, have been jealously watched by the courts. Article
C 19(2) spells out the various grounds on which this right to free speech and
expression can be restrained. Thus in Express Newspapers pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
v. Union of India & Ors., [1986] 1 SCC 133 (at page 195), this Court stressed
that, "Freedom of thought and expression, and the freedom of the press are
not only valuable freedoms in themselves but are basic to a democratic form
of Government which proceeds on the theory that the problems of the
D Government can be solved by the free exchange of thought and by public
discussion of the various issues facing the nation .......... This right is one of
the pillars of individual liberty freedom of speech, which our constitution has
always unfailingly guarded ........ however precious and cherished the freedom
of speech is under Article 19(l)(a), this freedom is not absolute and unlimited
E at all times and all circumstances but is subject to the restrictions contained
in Article 19(2)." In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and Ors., [1989] 2 SCC
574 (at page 592), this Court again observed: "The democracy is a government
by the people via open discussion. The democratic form of government itself
demands of its citizens an active and intelligent participation in the affairs of
the community ....... The democracy can neither work nor prosper unless
F people go out to share their views." The importance of freedom of speech and
expression including freedom of the press has been repeatedly stressed by
this Court in a number of decisions (See in this connection (Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and Ors v. Union of India and Ors.,
tl985] 1 SCC 641, K.A. Abbas v. The Union of India and Anr., [1970] 2 SCC
G 780, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof Manubhai D. Shah, [ 1992]
3 sec 637.
In Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India
and Ors., v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Anr., [1995] 2 SCC 161, this
Court, after citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
H went on to state (at page 213), "The freedom of speech and expression
A
-
U.0.I. v. MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.) 887
includes right to acquire information and to disseminate it. Freedom of speech A
and expression is necessary, for self-expression which is an important means
of free conscience and self-fulfilment. It enables people to contribute to
debates on social and moral issues. It is the best way to find a truest model
of anything, since it is only through it that the widest possible range of ideas
can circulate. It is the only vehicle of political discourse so essential to
democracy, Equally important is the role it plays in facilitating artistic and B
scholarly endeavours of all sorts. The right to communicate, therefore,
includes right to communicate through any media that is available whether
print or electronic or audio-visual such as advertisement, movie, article.
speech etc. "
It is contended that just as a restraint on free speech is a violation of
Article 19(1) [except as permitted under article 19(2)] compelled speech, often
known as a "must· carry" provision in a statute, rule or regulation, is equally
c
an infringement of the right to free speech, except to the extent permitted
under Article 19(2). However, whether compelled speech will or will not
amount to a violation of the freedom of speech and expression, will depend D
on the nature of a "must carry" provision. If a "must carry" provision furthers
informed decision-making which is the essence of the right to free speech and
expression, it will not amount to any violation of the fundamental freedom of
speech and expression. If, however, such a provision compels a person to
carry out propaganda or project a partisan or distorted point of view, contrary E
to his wish, it may amount to a restraint on his freedom of speech and
expression. To give an example, at times a statute imposes an obligation to
print certain information in public interest. Any food product must carry on
its package the list of ingredients used in its preparation, or must print its
weight. These are beneficial "must carry" provisions meant to inform the
public about the correct quantity and contents of the product it buys. It F
enables the public to decide on a correct basis whether a particular product
should or should not be used. Cigarettes cartons are required to carry a
statutory warning that cigarette smoking is harmful to health. This is
undoubtedly a "must carry" provision or compelled speech. Nevertheless, it
is meant to further the basic purpose of imparting relevant information which G
will enable a user to make a correct decision as to whether he should smoke
a cigarette or not. Such mandatory provisions although they compel speech
cannot be viewed as a restraint on the freedom of speech and expression.
In Neal R. Wooley, etc. v. George Maynard, [1977] 430 US 705, the
United States Supreme Court considered a New Hampshire state law which H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 3 S.C.R.
A compelled the state motto "Live Free or Die," to be embossed on car licence
plates. A follower of Jehovah's Witnesses objected to carrying the motto on
his car licence plate. The Court held that the state's requirement that noncommercial vehicles licence plates be embossed with the state motto invaded
First Amendment rights and could not be justified as facilitating the
identification of passenger vehicles or as promoting an appreciation of history,
B indi_vidualism, and state pri~e. In the more recent case of Turner Broadcasting
system, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, [1997] 512 US 622, the
US Supreme Court examined Sections 4 and 5 of the Cable Television Consumer
protection and Competition Act of 1992 which required cable operators to
carry the signals of specified numbers based on cable system size of local
C commercial television stations and local non-commercial educational television
stations. On the basis of the material brought on record after remand, the
majority came to the conclusion that the "must carry" provisions were
consistent with the First Amendment, because the purpose of the "must
carry" provision was to preserve the benefits of free over-the-air local
broadcast television, promoting wide-spread dissemination of information
D from a multiplicity of sources and promoting fair competition in the television
programme market. Breyer J. in his partly concurring judgment balanced the
restraints which such a compulsory carriage clause would impose because it
would interfere with the protected interests of the cable operators to choose
their own programming, against an -important First Amendment interest in
E favour of the provision viz. promoting the widest possible dissemination of
information from diverse and antagonistic sources to facilitate public discussion
and informed deliberation. The latter being basic democratic government
purposes which the First Amendment seeks to achieve, they outweighed
objections relating to interference with the cable operators' right to choose
their own programme.
F
Although the First Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution is not
subject to reasonable restraint as in Article 19(2), the raison de'tre of a
constitutional guarantee of free speech is the same. We have to examine
whether the purpose of compulsory speech in the impugned provisions is to
G promote the fundamental freedom of speech and expression and dissemination
of ideas, or whether it is to restrain this freedom, the social context of any
such legislation cannot be ignored. When a substantially significant population
body is illiterate or does not have easy access to ideas or information, it is
important that all available means of communication, particularly audiovisual
communication, are utilised not just for entertainment but also for education,
H information, propagation of scientific ideas and the like. The best way by
(
-·
U.O.l. v. MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 889
which ideas can reach this large body of uneducated people is through the A
entertainment channel which is watched by all-literate and illiterate alike. To
earmark a small portion of time of this entertainment medium for the purpose
of showing scientific, educational or documentary films, or for showing news
films has to be looked at in this context of promoting dissemination of ideas,
information and knowledge to the masses so that there may be an informed
debate and decision making on public issues. Clearly, the impugned provisions B
are designed to further free speech and expression and not to curtail it. None
of these statutory provisions require the exhibitor to show a propaganda film
or a film conveying views which he objects to. In fact, the exhibitors have
not raised any objection to the contents of the films which they are required
to show. They, however, contend that one of the important requirements for C
upholding such compulsory speech in the United States is that such speech
should be content-neutral. While in the present case, the contents of the
compulsory films are specified in the legislation concerned. In the context of
Article 19( 1) what we have to examine is whether the categories of films so
required to be carried promote dissemination of information and education or
whether they are meant to be propaganda or false or biased information. The D
statute quite clearly specifies the kinds of films which promote dissemination
of knowledge and information.
Undoubtedly, the exhibitors, in order to fulfil the conditions of the
licence, are required to enter into an agreement with the Films Division, E
Government of India. This is not because of any statutory compulsion but
because of the fact that the Films Division is the only organisation which
produces such short films on sufficient quantities for regular distribution to
the cinema exhibitors. The requirement of approval of such films is to ensure
that the films, in fact, comply with the requirements specified in the statute.
None of the provisions referred to make it mandatory for the exhibitors to F
procure such films only from the Films Division. The reason why they do so
is because of a lack of adequate alternative sources.
The exhibitors contend that before their licence is renewed, it is
necessary for them to obtain a "no objection" certificate from the Films G
Division. The purpose of this is to ensure that the ~tatutory requirements
have been complied with by the licensee in the previous 'Year. If, however, any
licensee is in a position to procure such approved films from any other
source, there is nothing in the statutes which prohibits him from doing so.
These provisions, therefore, do not violate Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
They are not in restraint of free speech and expression. Therefore, Article H
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999) 3 S.C.R.
A 19(2) is not attracted.
The main challenge of the exhibitors to these provisions is, however,
under Article 19( 1 )(g) of the Constitution. In fact, this was the only challenge
before the Delhi High Court. The basic purpose of the impugned laws which
deal with licensing of cinema halls, and prescribing conditions subject to
B which such licences can be granted, is to regulate the business activity of -
the exhibitors of cinematograph films. Obtaining a licence for running such
cinema theatres is for the purpose of regulating this business. This purpose
has a direct nexus with Articles 19(1 )(g) and 19( 6) of the Constitution. The
source oflegislation under this head can be traced to Entry 33 of List II which
C entitles the States to legislate on "theatres and dramatic performances; cinemas
subject to the provisions of Entry 60 of List l, sports, entertainments and
amusements." That is why State Laws have been framed for regulating the
terms and conditions on which a licence for exhibiting films at cinema theatres
can be obtained. part III of the cinematograph Act, 1952 which applies to
Union Territories is also in the exercise of the legislative powers under Entry
D 33 of List IL Since Delhi was a Union Territory and is now National Capital
Territory since 1991 by virtue of the Constitution 69th Amendment Act, 1991,
Parliament has the power to legislate under this Entry also. [see Article 246(4)
and the relevant provisions of Article 239(AA)]. Entry 60 List I on the other
han~ deals with "sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition." Censorship
E provisions, for example, would come under Entry 60 of List I and these would
directly relate to Article 19(1) (a) and Article 19(2) of the Constitution.