# R. M. S-.hadri v. District Magistrate, Tanjore

- **Citation:** [1955] 1 S.C.R. 686
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1955
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 192 of 1952
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r-m-s-hadri-v-district-magistrate-tanjore-378
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

19:;4
In re Hira Lal
Dixit.
Das .7.
19:;4
October I.
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
not shrink from exercising it and imposing punishment
even by way of imprisonment, in cases where a mere
fine may not be adequate.
After anxious consideration
we have come to the
conclusion that in all the circumstances of this case it
is a fit case where
the power of the Court should be
exercised and that it is necessary to impose the punishment of imprisonment.
People must
know that they
cannot with impunity hinder or obstruct or attempt to
hinder or. obstruct the due course of administration of
justice.' We, therefore, find respondent, Hira Lal Dixit,
guilty of contempt
of
Court, make the Rule absolute
as
against him and direct that he be arrested and
committed
to civil
prison
to
undergo
simple
imprisonment for a fortnight.
He must also pay the
costs, if any, incurred by the Union of India.
Order accordingly.
R. M. SESHADRI
ti.
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TANJORE,
AND ANOTHER.
[MEHR
CHAND
MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs,
VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASSAN JJ.]
Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(g) -Cinematograph Act (II of
1918), s, 8-0wner of cinema theatre-Granted license-Conditions
-Restrictions-Whether reasonable.
The appellant, the owner of a permanent cinema theatre in the
Tanjore District, was granted a license by the District Magistrate,
Tanjore, subject to certain conditions imposed by him in pursuance
of 2 notifications (G. 0. Mis. 1054, Home, dated 28th March, 1948,
and G. 0. Mis. 3422 dated 15th September, 1948) issued by the
State of Madras purporting to act iQ exercise of powers conferred
by s. 8 of the Cinematograph Act (II of 1918).
The impugned conditions inter alia were as follows :-
"4( a) The licensee shall exhibit
at each
performance one or
more approved films of such length and for such length of time, as
the Provincial
Government or the Central Government may, by
general or special order, direct.
, .
•
•
•
-
-
$.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
687
Special
condition
3.-The licensee should
exhibit at
the
· commencement of each performance not less than 2,000 feet of
ope or more approved films."
Held, that condition No. 4(a) and special condition
No.
3,
imposed
unreasonable
restrictions on the right of the licensee to
carry on his business
and
were void
as they infringed
the
fundamental right of the appellant guaranteed to him under
Art.
19( 1) (g) of the Constitution.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 192 of 1952.
Appeal under article 132(1) of the Constitution of
India from the
Judgment and Order dated 24th August,
1951, of the Madras High Court in Civil Miscellaneous
Petition No. 5744 of 1951.
Appellant in person.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General
for
India (R.
Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the
respondent.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (P. A.
Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the Intervener
(Union of India).
1954. October 1. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
GHULAM HASAN J.-The appellant is the owner of
a permanent cinema theatre called Sri
Brahannayaki
in Tiruthuraipundi, Tanjore District, and held a licence
from the
District
Magistrate, Tanjore, in respect of the
same with effect from
September 5, 1950, to September
4, 1951.
The licence is granted for one year at a time
and is renewable from year to yrar. He objected to
certain conditions in the licence imposed by the District
Magistrate,
Tanjore, in pursuance
of 2 notifications
(G. 0. Mis. 1054, Home, dated 28th March, 1948, and
G. 0. Mis. 3422, dated 15th September, 1948) issued by
the
State of
Madras
purporting to act in exercise of
powers conferred by section 8 of the Cinematograph
Act of 1918.
The impugned
conditions may conveniently be set out here :
"4(a)
The
licensee
shall
exhibit
at
each
performance one or more approved films of such length
and
for such length
of
time,
as
the
Provincial
· 6-88 S. C. India/59
1954
R. M. S-.hadri
v.
District
Magistrate,
Tanjore.
1954
R. M. Stjhadri
v.
District
Magis1fate,
Taru

## Text

19:;4
In re Hira Lal
Dixit.
Das .7.
19:;4
October I.
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
not shrink from exercising it and imposing punishment
even by way of imprisonment, in cases where a mere
fine may not be adequate.
After anxious consideration
we have come to the
conclusion that in all the circumstances of this case it
is a fit case where
the power of the Court should be
exercised and that it is necessary to impose the punishment of imprisonment.
People must
know that they
cannot with impunity hinder or obstruct or attempt to
hinder or. obstruct the due course of administration of
justice.' We, therefore, find respondent, Hira Lal Dixit,
guilty of contempt
of
Court, make the Rule absolute
as
against him and direct that he be arrested and
committed
to civil
prison
to
undergo
simple
imprisonment for a fortnight.
He must also pay the
costs, if any, incurred by the Union of India.
Order accordingly.
R. M. SESHADRI
ti.
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TANJORE,
AND ANOTHER.
[MEHR
CHAND
MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs,
VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASSAN JJ.]
Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(g) -Cinematograph Act (II of
1918), s, 8-0wner of cinema theatre-Granted license-Conditions
-Restrictions-Whether reasonable.
The appellant, the owner of a permanent cinema theatre in the
Tanjore District, was granted a license by the District Magistrate,
Tanjore, subject to certain conditions imposed by him in pursuance
of 2 notifications (G. 0. Mis. 1054, Home, dated 28th March, 1948,
and G. 0. Mis. 3422 dated 15th September, 1948) issued by the
State of Madras purporting to act iQ exercise of powers conferred
by s. 8 of the Cinematograph Act (II of 1918).
The impugned conditions inter alia were as follows :-
"4( a) The licensee shall exhibit
at each
performance one or
more approved films of such length and for such length of time, as
the Provincial
Government or the Central Government may, by
general or special order, direct.
, .
•
•
•
-
-
$.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
687
Special
condition
3.-The licensee should
exhibit at
the
· commencement of each performance not less than 2,000 feet of
ope or more approved films."
Held, that condition No. 4(a) and special condition
No.
3,
imposed
unreasonable
restrictions on the right of the licensee to
carry on his business
and
were void
as they infringed
the
fundamental right of the appellant guaranteed to him under
Art.
19( 1) (g) of the Constitution.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 192 of 1952.
Appeal under article 132(1) of the Constitution of
India from the
Judgment and Order dated 24th August,
1951, of the Madras High Court in Civil Miscellaneous
Petition No. 5744 of 1951.
Appellant in person.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General
for
India (R.
Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the
respondent.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (P. A.
Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the Intervener
(Union of India).
1954. October 1. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
GHULAM HASAN J.-The appellant is the owner of
a permanent cinema theatre called Sri
Brahannayaki
in Tiruthuraipundi, Tanjore District, and held a licence
from the
District
Magistrate, Tanjore, in respect of the
same with effect from
September 5, 1950, to September
4, 1951.
The licence is granted for one year at a time
and is renewable from year to yrar. He objected to
certain conditions in the licence imposed by the District
Magistrate,
Tanjore, in pursuance
of 2 notifications
(G. 0. Mis. 1054, Home, dated 28th March, 1948, and
G. 0. Mis. 3422, dated 15th September, 1948) issued by
the
State of
Madras
purporting to act in exercise of
powers conferred by section 8 of the Cinematograph
Act of 1918.
The impugned
conditions may conveniently be set out here :
"4(a)
The
licensee
shall
exhibit
at
each
performance one or more approved films of such length
and
for such length
of
time,
as
the
Provincial
· 6-88 S. C. India/59
1954
R. M. S-.hadri
v.
District
Magistrate,
Tanjore.
1954
R. M. Stjhadri
v.
District
Magis1fate,
Taruore.
Ghulam Ha.san ].
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
Gov~rnment or
the
Central
Government
may, by
general or special order. direct.
(b) The licensee shall comply with such directions
as
the Provincial
Government
may by general or
special order give as to the manner in which approved
films
shall be exhibited in the course of any performance."
Explanation :-"Approved
Films"
means
a
cinematograph
film approved for the purpose of this
condition
by
the
Provincial
Government or
the
Central Government.
Special
condition 3.-The licensee should exhibit
at the commencement of each performance not less
than 2,000 feet of one or more approved films."
The appellant moved the High Court of Judicature
at Madras under article 226 of the C',onstitution for an
order or direction to the District Magistrate, Taniore,
to delete the
said conditions from his licence and to
the
State of Madras to rescind the notifications
issued
by it. His contention was that the conditions imposed
by the said notifications are ultra vires and beyond the
powers of the licensing authority
and that they are
void inasmuch
as
they
contravened
his freedom of
speech and
expression
under article 19( 1) (a) and his
right to carry on trade or business under article 19(1)
(g) of the Constitution. Both
the
contentions
were
rejected, the High Court holding that the conditions
imposed were reasonable and were in the interests of
the general public. The High Court granted leave to
appeal to this Court.
The appellant who argued the
appeal in person
raised 2 main contentions. He argued firstly, that the
notifications and conditions are beyond the competence
of the
Government of Madras
and the District Magistrate, and secondly, that in any event the conditions
do not, as being outside the scope of the Cinematograph
Act, amount to reasonable restrictions imposed in the
interest of the general public.
We are of opinion that
this appeal can be disposed of on the second ground. It may be stated that
the Madras Cinematograph Rules, 1933, were amended
by the notification
G. 0. Mis.
1054, Home, dated
•
-
-
...
•
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
689
March, 28, 1948, in exercise of the powers conferred by
section 8 of the Cinematograph Act, 1918 (Central Act
II of 1918), and in place of condition 4 of the licence
in Form A. the impugned conditions were inserted.
Section 8 empowers the
State
Government
to make
rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. The object of the Act as stated in
the preamble is
to make provisions
for
regulating
exhibitions under the
Cinematograph
Act.
Without
going into the question whether it is within the contemplation of the Act that educational and instructional films should be shown and whether the holder of
a cinema licence
may be compelled to exhibit such
films as falling within the scope of the Act, the question
which still
arises for
consideration
is
whether the
impugned
conditions
amount
to "reasonable restrictions" within the meaning of article 19(6). Approved
films are those films which are either produced by the
Government
or
are
ourchased from ' the
private
producers.
As the priv;te producers do not possess
any machinery for marketing their films the Government purchases them from such producers and charges
hire from the cinema licensees for showing such films.
Condition 4(a) compels a li_censee to exhibit at each
performance one or more approved films of such length
and for
such
iength
of
time
as
the Provincial
Government
or
Central
Government
may direct.
Neither the length of the film nor the period of
time for
which it may be shown is specified in the
condition and
the
Government
is vested
with an
unregulated discretion to compel a licensee to
exhibit
a film of any length at its discretion which may consume the whole or the greater part of the time for
which each performance is given. The exhibition of a
film
generally takes 2 hours and a quarter.
Now if
there is nothing to guide the discretion of the Government it is open to it to require the licensee to show
approved films of such great length as may exhaust the
whole of the time or the major portion of it intended
for each performance.
The fact that the length of the
time for which the approved films may be shown is
also unspecified leads to the same conclusion, in other
1954
R. M. Seshodri
v.
District
Magistrate,
Tanjore.
Ghulam Hasan J.
1954
-R. M. Stshadri
v.
DiJtrict
Magistrate,
Tanjori.
Ghulam Hasan].
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955J
words, the Government may
compel a licensee to
exhibit an approved film, say for an hour and a half
or even 2 hours. As the condition stands, there can
be no doubt that there _is no principle to guide the
licensing
authority and a condition such as the above
may lead to the loss or total extinction of the business
itself. A condition couched in such wide language is
bound to operate harshly
upon
the cinema business
and cannot
be
regarded as a reasonable
restncuon.
It savours more of the nature of an
imposition than a
restnction.
It is significant that the condition does
not profess to lay down that the approved films must
be of an educational or instructional character for the
purpose of social or public welfare.
We think, therefore, that condition 4 (a) as it stands at present amounts
to an unreasonable
restriction on the
right of the
licensee to carry on his business and must be declared
void as against the fundamental right of the appellant
under article 19(1) (g).
Among the special conditions, condition No. 3 which
requires the
licensee to exhibit
at the commencement
of each performance not less than 2,000 feet of one or
more of the approved films is open to similar objection.
This condition lays down the minimum
length of the
film to be shown as 2,000 feet
and gives no indication
of the maximum.
We are informed that the showing
of a film of 2,000 feet will take about 20 minutes.
This
will work out to about I/7th of the total time of each
performance if it is taken to last for 2! hours. Whether a
maximum of 2,000 feet would be resonable is a matter
we need not consider but as this is mentioned as the
minimum it is obvious that the Government may compel
the licensee to exhibit a film of 10,000 or 12,000
feet which in effect will amount to pushing out of the
film intended to be shown by the licensee during the
time allotted. Here again no maximum limit having
been imposed it follows that the discretion of
the
authority is unrestrained and unfettered and must lead
to an unjustificable interference with the right of the
licensee to carry on his business. We hold, therefore,
that
this condition is equally obnoxious and must be
deleted.
We accordingly allow the
appeal and hold
-
•
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
691
that condition 4(a) and special condition 3 expressed
as they are at present are void and have 110 legal effect
as against the fundamental right of the appellant under
article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
We express no opinion upon the first contention
advanced by the appellant. The
appellant
will
get
his costs from the respondent in this Court and in the
Court below.
Appeal allowed.
DHIRUBHA DEVISINGH GOHIL
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
('NITH CONNECTED APPEALS]
[MEHAR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE.
JAGANNADHADAS and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.]
Constitution of India (Fiw Amendment) Act, 1951, Art. 31-B
-Government of lndia
Act, 1935 (25
and 26 Geo. 5 CH. 42),
s. 299-Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition
Act, 1949-(Bombay
Act LXII of 1949)-Whether ultra vires the Constitution.
Held, that the validity
of the
Bombay
T;;iluqdari Tenure
Abolition
Act,
1949 (Bombay Act LXII
of
1949) cannot be
questioned on the
ground that it takes away or abridges the
fundamental
rights conferred
by the
Constitution
of
India
in
view of enactment of art. 31-B
which has
been
inserted
in the
Constitution by the First Amendment thereof in 1951 and
in view of the . Act having been specifically enumerated as item
No. 4 in the Ninth Schedule.
On the language used in art. 31-B of the Constitution of India
the validity of Bombay Act LXII of 1949 cannot also be challenged
under s. 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
The State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh
of Darbhanga and Others ( [ 1952] S.C.R. 889) distinguished.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JuRISDICTION :
Civil
Appeals
Nos. 188, 188(A), 188(B) and 188(E) of 1952.
Appeals under article 133(1)(c) of the Con:ititution
of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 6th
December, 1951. of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in
Civil Applications Nos. 409, 410, 411 and
780 of 1951.
1954
R, M. Seshadri
v •. ,
District
Magistrat•
Tanjore
Ghulam Hasan :J.
Octob.r 11.