Cinematograph Act, 1952

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Licensing) and others concerning the construction of a cinema building. The issue arose after an amendment to the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981, which replaced the MCD with the Delhi Development …

The producer S. Rangarajan sought a ‘U’ certificate for his Tamil film “Ore Oru Gramathile” which was initially refused, then granted after review by two Revising Committees. The Madras High Court later revoked the certificate on grounds that the film was biased, could incite caste‑based unrest and violated several gui…

The petitioner, Manohar Lal Sharma, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a direction that the film "Padmavati" not be exhibited abroad without a certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and that the CBI register an FIR against the film's producers under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Ac…

The petition challenged the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, particularly Section 6(1) which allowed the Central Government to call for records of proceedings before the Board or Tribunal and to make orders revising their decisions. The High Court upheld most provisions but …

The appellants, film producers of "Satyan, Shivam, Sundaram", were summoned by a Metropolitan Magistrate under sections 292, 293 and 34 of the IPC after a complaint alleging obscenity. They challenged the summons before the Delhi High Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the High Court treated th…

The documentary "Father, Son and Holy War" produced by Anand Patwardhan, dealing with oppression of women, masculinity, and communal violence, was submitted to Doordarshan for telecast in 1995. Doordarshan refused, citing an internal circular that barred the telecast of any film certified "A" by the Central Board of Fi…

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H.S. Panwar under IPC sections 304‑A, 337, 338 read with s.36 and s.14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 for the Uphaar cinema fire. The issue before the Court was the appropriate quantum of sentence, given the statutory maximum of two years’ rigor…

The petitioners, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and Doordarshan, appealed against High Court orders directing LIC to publish a rejoinder to a criticism of its premium policy in its magazine and directing Doordarshan to telecast a documentary on the Bhopal gas disaster. The issues were whether a State‑owned c…

The State of Andhra Pradesh prosecuted N. Venkatramana, a video shop owner, for possessing 90 video cassettes that lacked the statutory particulars required under Section 52-A of the Copyright Act, 1957. The trial court convicted him under Section 63, imposing six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000, a sentence…

The appellant, a former Deputy Commissioner of Police and licensing officer, ordered the removal of extra seats in the Uphaar cinema in 1979‑80 following a revocation of a prior notification. After the 1997 fire that killed 59 people, the CBI filed a closure report finding no criminal act by the appellant, which the ma…

The petitioners, producers of the film "Aarakshan", challenged the Uttar Pradesh Government's order suspending the film's exhibition under Section 6(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, arguing that the power to suspend could be exercised only when a film is already being publicly exhibited and that …

The South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 9(2) and 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders (Regulation) Act, 1984, arguing that the State legislature lacked competence because the provisions dealt with copyright…

The petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to stop the further telecast of the TV serial "Tamas", alleging that its content would incite communal violence and violate Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution as well as Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and IPC sections 153A/153B. The serial, based on Bhisham Sa…

The Union of India and the States of West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh challenged provisions in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and related state regulations that require cinema exhibitors to show short scientific, educational, documentary or news films and to pay a 1% rental fee to the Films Division. The exhibitors argued th…

The producer of the film "Satyam Shivam Sundaram" was prosecuted under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged obscenity after a complaint was filed. The film had been granted an "A" certificate for public exhibition by the Central Board of Film Censors under Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The prod…

The appellants operated video parlours that exhibited pre‑recorded films using VCR/VCP and a TV projector onto a separate 100‑120 inch screen, with seating capacities exceeding fifty. The Punjab Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Players (Regulation) Rules, 1989 limited licences to premises…

The appellants operated video parlours in Haryana, exhibiting pre‑recorded films through VCRs/VCPs without obtaining licences under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952. They sought a writ from the High Court contending that a VCR does not fall within the definition of "cinematograp…

The appellants operated a video cinema using an ENTEL video projector system that displayed pre‑recorded movies from VCR/VCP on a large separate screen. They obtained licences under the Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1966 (as amended) but a touring cinema licence‑holder challenged the validity of those licence…

Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd and its directors produced the Bengali satirical film *Bhobishyoter Bhoot* which had been certified ‘UA’ by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Four days before its scheduled release, the Joint Commissioner of Police (Intelligence) sent a letter demanding a private screening, all…

Documentary filmmakers sought to enter non‑feature films for the National Film Awards, challenging regulations that required certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and release on film format. They argued that entry did not constitute public exhibition, making certification an unreasonable restr…

The respondent, a cable television network operator registered under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, began transmitting two private video channels and was directed by the District Magistrate of Haridwar to pay a license fee of Rs.11,88,500 under Rule 17(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Cinema (Regulation o…

The case arose from the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire that killed 59 people. Sushil Ansal (the licencee) and his brother Gopal Ansal were convicted under Sections 304‑A, 337, 338 and 36 of the IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, which the Delhi High Court reduced to one year. The Supreme Court, in a two‑ju…

The appellant, a person with arthrogryposis, challenged the portrayal of persons with disabilities in the film ‘Aankh Micholi’, alleging violations of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) and the Cinematograph Act, 1952. He sought the inclusion of disability experts on the Central Board of Film …

Amrit Nahata filed a writ petition challenging sections of the Cinematograph Act and Censorship Rules and seeking certification of his film ‘Kissa Kursee Ka’. The Supreme Court ordered the film’s negatives and prints to be preserved and screened before five judges, but the film was not made available. The Solicitor Gen…

The Uphaar Cinema tragedy in Delhi on 13 June 1997 resulted in 59 deaths and over 100 injuries due to asphyxiation from smoke. The Ansal brothers, as occupiers and licensees of the cinema, were convicted under Sections 304A, 337, 338 read with Section 36 IPC and Section 14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The High Court…

A public interest litigation was filed in the Jammu & Kashmir High Court alleging that cinema halls prohibited movie‑goers from bringing their own food and beverages, forcing them to purchase expensive and possibly unhealthy items. The High Court directed cinema owners not to prohibit outside food, invoking the right t…

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016 and Special Leave Petition (Diary) No. 34629 of 2017 were referred to a Constitution Bench to answer five questions concerning the scope of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the enforceability of fundamental rights against non-State actors. The petitions arose from st…

The Kodungallur Film Society filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions to prevent mob violence against cultural establishments, especially following protests over films like Padmaavat. The Court examined whether the State must implement the guidelines from In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Proper…

The film "Bandit Queen", based on the life of Phoolan Devi, was certified 'A' by the Appellate Tribunal under the Cinematograph Act after it was found to depict the consequences of social evils such as rape and oppression. The petitioner, Bobby Art International, challenged the High Court's order that quashed the certi…

The appellants were convicted for publicly exhibiting obscene blue films to a young audience under Section 292 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act. The trial court sentenced them to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine; the appellate court reduced the imprisonment …