M/S. PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTION AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                        (2011) 10 S.C.R. 496


A         M/S. PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTION AND ANR.
                                   v.
                    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
               (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 345 of 2011)
                          AUGUST 19, 2011
B
               [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                      ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

          Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955: s.6(1) -
C   Suspension of exhibition of the film - Certificate issued by
    Central Board of Film Certification for screening the Film
    'Aarakshan' - Order of suspension of exhibition of the film by
    the State of UP. uls.6(1) on the ground that the exhibition of
    the film if allowed would cause an adverse effect on the law
D   and order situation in the State - Held: The power vested in
    s. 6 could be exercised by the State when a film which is being
    publicly exhibited could cause a breach of peace - Such an
    extra-ordinary power cannot be exercised with regard to a film
    which is yet to be exhibited openly and publicly in a particular
E   State - The word 'suspension' envisages something
    functional or something which is being shown or is running -
    Therefore, the power as vested uls. 6 could not have been
    exercised by the State of UP. in view of the fact that the said
    film was not being exhibited publicly in the theatre halls in UP.
F   - Consequently, at the stage, when the film was not screened
    or exhibited in the theatre halls publicly and for public
    viewing, neither an opinion could be formed nor any decision
    could be taken that there was a likelihood of breach of peace
    by exercising power purported u/s. 6 of the Act -The contention
G   that the film already is being exhibited in the State of UP. as
    a High· Level committee has seen the film cannot be
    accepted as the expression specifically uses the word 'publicly
    exhibited' meaning thereby that it is being exhibited all over
    and for public viewing in the State - Besides the contention

H                                 496
 PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTION AND ANR. v. UNION                 497
            OF INDIA AND ORS.
of the State of U.P. that some of the scenes of the film could   A
create a breach of peace or could have an adverse effect on
the law and order situation cannot be accepted as this film
was screened in all other States of India peacefully and
smoothly and in fact some of the States, where this film was
screened, were also similarly sensitive States as that of the    B
State of U. P. - Aarakshanl Reservation is also one of the
social issues and in a vibrant democracy like Indian
democracy, public discussions and debate on social issues
are required and are necessary for smooth functioning of a
healthy democracy - Once the Board has cleared the film for      c
public viewing, screening of the same cannot be prohibited
in the manner as sought to be done by the State in the instant
case - The decision of the State Government suspending the
screening of the film 'Aarakshan' in the State of U.P. is set
aside.                                                           D
    Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa (2001) 1 SCC 582:
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 117 - relied on.

    S. Rangaranjan v. P. Jagjivan Ram & Ors. (1989) 2 SCC
574: 1989 (2) SCR 204 - referred to.                             E

                     Case Law reference:
    1989 (2) SCR 204             referred to         Para 19
    2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 117 relied on                Para 21     F
    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition {Civil) No.
345 of 2011.
    Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
    Harish N. Salve, Amit Naik, Madhu Chaudhary, Mahesh          G
Agarwal, Rishi Agarwal, E.C. Agrawala, Neeha Nagpal,
Harshvardhan Jha for the Petitioners.
    A.S. Chandiok, ASG, U.U. Lalit, Satish Chandra Mishra,
Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG, R.K. Rathore, Ruchir Mishra, Sanjeev     H
    498     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A   Kumar Saxena, S.S. Rawat, D.S. Mahra, G.N. Reddy, C.
    Kannan, Kavita Wadia, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Manoj Kr.
    Dwivedi, Ashutosh Sharma, Abhinav Shrivastava for the
    Respondents.
          The following order of the Court was delivered
B
                                  ORDER
        1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners praying for
  the reliefs specifically set out in the prayer portion of the writ
  petition. One of the reliefs that is sought for in this writ petition
C is to strike down the provision of Section 6 (1) of the U.P.
  Cinemas (Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")
  being allegedly ultra vires to the Constitution of India. The other
  relief that is sought for is to quash and set aside the decisions
  taken by the respondents, namely State of Punjab, State of
D Andhra Pradesh and State of Uttar Pradesh suspending the
  screening of the film 'Aarakshan' in their respective States for
  a specified period.
       2. Notice was issued on this writ petition making the same
  returnable today so as to enable the three State Governments
E to submit their reply/counter affidavit. However, at the stage of
  issuing notice itself, we were informed by the counsel
  appearing for the State of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh that so
  far as their States are concerned, they had withdrawn the order
  of suspension of screening of the film 'Aarakshan'.
F      3. The counsel appearing for the State of Punjab and the
  State of Andhra Pradesh are present in the Court. Today also
  they stand by the same statement which they had made on the
  last date, meaning thereby, that they had lifted the orders of
  suspension of screening of the film in their respective States.
G Therefore, to our understanding, the aforesaid film is being
  screened in the aforesaid two States also as on this date. This
  petition, therefore, has been rendered infructuous so far as the
  States of Andhra Pradesh and Punjab are concerned.
          4. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed the counter affidavit
H
  PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTION AND ANR. v. UNION 499
             OF INDIA AND ORS.
 opposing the prayer in the writ petition which is on record. We · A
 have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties .·. ·
.extensively today.                           ·
      5. Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioners has not pressed the prayer so far as
constitutional validity of Section 6 of the Act is concerned. B
However, on his submission, we are keeping the said issue
open to be agitated in an appropriate case in future, if
necessary. He, however, has challenged the legality of the
decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government suspending the
screening of the film 'Aarakshan' in the entire State of Uttar C
Pradesh. According to him, the aforesaid exercise of power
of suspension of the screening of the film amounts to exercising
the power of pre-censorship which is being exercised by the
Government, although no such power vested on it. According
to him, the said power of censorship is vested in the Central D ·
Board of Film Certification, (hereinafter referred to as "the
Soard") and in the Central Government as provided for in the ··
provisions made in The Cinematograph Act, 1952. He has also
submitted that the power that is sought to be exercised in the
present case under Section 6(1) of the Act is also without E
jurisdiction as such power could be exercised only when a film
is being screened and shown in the public hall and also when
a contingency of the nature as mentioned in the said Section
arises. He submits that on satisfying the preconditions and only
in such a situation a power is vested in the State Government F
to suspend the screening of the film for a specified period. He
also submits that the aforesaid decision of the State
Government is in violation of the provisions of Article 19(1) of
the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same is required
to be struck down and quashed.
                                                                   G
     6. We have also heard Mr. Chandiok, learned Additional
                                                                   . I
Solicitor General, who submits that after a certificate has been
issued to a particular film by the Censor Board, the said film
could be screened in the entire country and the order which is
passed by the State Government is not envisaged as it              H
    500     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A practically prohibits screening of the film in the entire State of
  Uttar Pradesh.
       7; Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the
  State of Uttar Pradesh has, however, taken us through the
  contents of the counter-affidavit in support of his contention that
B the prayer in writ petition cannot be granted by this Court. He
  has submitted that a very high-level Committee has seen the
  film and thereafter has given an opinion, according to which if
  and when the concerned film is shown there is likelihood of
  breach of peace and also breach of law and order situation and,
C therefore, the aforesaid decision of suspending the screening
  of the film "Aarakshan" in Uttar Pradesh, which has been taken
  in order to preserve and upkeep the law and order situation in
  the State should be upheld.
       8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions of the
D counsel appearing for the parties, we have gone through the
  pleadings of the parties alongwith the documents relied upon
  as also the decisions which are referred to and relied upon.
      9. We have also perused the provisions of Section 6 of
E the Act which is practically the foundation and basis of the
  present case. Section 6(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Cinemas
  (Regulation) Act, 1955 reads as follows:
          "6. Power to the State Government or District Magistrate        1



          to suspend exhibition of films in certain cases - (1) The
F         State Government, in respect of the whole of the State of
          Uttar Pradesh or any part thereof, and the District
          Magistrate in respect of the district within his jurisdiction
          may, if it or he, as the case may be, is of opinion that any
          film which is being publicly exhibited, is likely to cause a
G         breach of the peace, by order, suspend the exhibition of
          the films and thereupon the films shall not during such
          suspension be exhibited in the State, part or the district
          concerned, notwithstanding the certificate granted under
          the Cintmatograph Act, 1952."
H         10. Upon going through the records, we find that the film
  PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTION AND ANR. v. UNION                     501
             OF INDIA AND ORS.
'Aarakashan' was submitted to the Central Board of Film               A
Certification on 12.07 .2011 for certification. Upon such
submission of the film, the Chairperson of the Board, in terms
of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, invited the legal
expert and another expert who is related to dalit movement to
watch the film at the time when the Examining Committee was           B
previewing the film.
       11. The Chairperson also saw to it that all the four
 members of the Examining Committee are members belonging
 to scheduled casts/scheduled tribes and OBC category. The
 said members of the Examining Committee along with the legal         C
 expert as also the expert related to dalit movement were
 present during the preview of the film. The experts as also the
 Examining Committee gave their approval for grant of
 censorship certificate and screening of the film. The Examining
 Committee decided to give U/A certificate to the film under the      D
 theme category "social". However, while taking the aforesaid
 decision, a view was expressed by the members of the
 Examining Committee for deletion of the word 'dalit' from the
 trailer in reel no. 1, which was deleted by the producer of the
 film, and the same was treated as voluntary cut. Thereafter,         E
 the certification was granted and a certificate was issued for
 screening of the film. The said certificate is annexed with the
 petition.
       12. Pursuant to grant of the aforesaid certificate, the film
  is being screened all over India except for the State of Uttar      F
  Pradesh where it is not being exhibited because of the
  aforesaid decision of the State Government. The State of Uttar
  Pradesh has given certain reasons in their counter affidavit for
  the action taken leading to the issuance of the order suspending
: the screening of the film. They have also stated in their counter   G
' affidavit that the exhibition of the film 'Aarakshan' if allowed
  would definitely cause an adverse effect on the law and order
  situation in the State.
       13. Our attention is also drawn by the counsel appearing
 for the State of U.P. to paragraph 3 of the said affidavit wherein   H
    502     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A the relevant portion of the report given by the High Level
  committee constituted by the State Government is extracted.
  A bare perusal of the same would indicate that in the report
  the High Level Committee has suggested deletion of some ·
  portion from the film without which, according to them, the film
B cannot be screened as that may cause an adverse effect on
  the law and order situation in the State.
       14. Before dealing with the said contentions, we would like            •
  to deal with the provision of the Act on the basis of which the
  aforesaid decision is taken. There is no dispute that the
C impugned decision is taken in the purported exercise of power
  under Section 6 of the Act. A bare perusal of the aforesaid
  provision in Section 6 of the Act would make it crystal-clear that
  the power vested therein could be exercised by the State under
  the said provision when a film which is being publicly exhibited
D could likely cause a breach of peace. Only in such
  circumstance and event, an order could be passed suspending
  the exhibition of the film.
          15. The expression 'being publicly exhibitecf and the word
     'suspension' are relevant for our purpose and, therefore, we are
E giving emphasis on the aforesaid expression and the word.
     When it is said that a film is being publicly exhibited, it definitely
     pre-supposes a meaning that the film is being exhibited for
     public and in doing so if it is found to likely to cause breach of
     peace then in that event such a power could be exercised by
F the State Government. Such an extra-ordinary power cannot
     be exercised with regard to a film which is yet to be exhibited
     openly and publicly in a particular State. This view that we have
     taken is also fortified from the use of the word 'suspension' in
     the said section. The word 'suspension' envisages something
G functional or something which is being shown or is running.
     Suspension is always a temporary phase, which gets
     obliterated as and when the previous position is restored.
  ·. Therefore, the power as veSted under Section 6 of the Act could
 · · not have been exercised by the State of Uttar Pradesh in view
H of the fact that the said film was not being exhibited publicly in
 PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTION AND ANR. v. UNION                      503
            OF INDIA AND ORS.
the theatre halls in U.P. Consequently, at this stage, when the       A
film is not screened or exhibited in the theatre halls publicly and
for public viewing, neither an opinion could be formed nor any
decision could be taken that there is a likelihood of breach of
peace by exercising power' purported under Section 6 of the
~-                                                                    B
      16. The counsel appearing for the State has also submitted
that in fact the film already is being exhibited in the State of
Uttar Pradesh as a High Level committee has seen the film.
We cannot accept the aforesaid position as the expression
specifically uses the word 'publicly exhibited' meaning thereby       C
that it is being exhibited all over and publicly for public viewing
in the State.
      17. Besides, the contention of the State of U.P. that some
of the scenes of the film could create a breach of peace or
could have an adverse effect on the law and order situation           D
cannot be accepted as this film is being screened in all other
States of India peacefully and smoothly and in fact some of the
States, where this film is being screened, are also similarly
sensitive States as that of the State ofU.P. In such States the
film is being screened without any obstruction or difficulty and      E
without any disturbance of law and order situation.
     18. So far the contention of the counsel appearing for the
State of Uttar Pradesh that the issue of reservation is a delicate
issue and is to be handled carefully is concerned, we are of
the considered opinion that reservation is also one of the social     F
issues and in a vibrant democracy like ours, public discussions
and debate on social issues are required and are necessary
for smooth functioning of a healthy democracy. Such
discussions on social issues bring in awareness which is
required for effective working of the democracy. In fact, when        G
there is public discussion and there is some dissent on these
issues, an informed and better decision could be taken which
becomes a positive view and helps the society to grow.
     19. We may, at this stage, appropriately refer to the            H
    504     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A decisions of this Court in the case of S. Rangaranjan Vs. P.
  Jagjivan Ram & Ors. reported in (1989) 2 SCC 574. In
  paragraph 36 of the said judgment, this Court has stated thus:-
          "36. The democracy is a government by the people via
          open discussion. The democratic form of government
B         itself demands its citizens an active and intelligent
          participation in the affairs of the community. The public
          discussion with people's participation is a basic feature
          and a rational process of democracy which distinguishes
          it from all other forms of government. The democracy can
c         neither work nor prosper unless people go out to share
          their views. The truth is that public discussion on issues
          relating to administration has positive value. What Walter
          Lippman said in another context is relevant here:
          When men act on the principle of intelligence, they go out
D
          to find the facts .... When they ignore it, they go inside
          themselves and find out what is there. They elaborate their
          prejudice instead of increasing their knowledge".
      20. In paragraph 35, this Court has also stated that in a
E democracy it is not necessary that everyone should sing the
  same song. Freedom of expression is the rule and it is
  generally taken for granted.
       21. Reference could also be made to the decision of this
  Court in Union of India Vs. K.M. Shankarappa reported in
F (2001) 1 sec 582. In the said case constitutional validity of
  Sections 3, 4 and other Sections of the Cinematograph Act,
  1958 were challenged. In paragraph 8 of the said judgment,
  this Court has stated that once an expert body has considered
  the impact of the film on the public and has cleared the film, it
G is no excuse to say that there may be a law and order situation
  and that it is for the State Government concerned to see that
  the law and order situation is maintained and that in any
  democratic society there are bound to be divergent views.
          22. In the present case, the Examining Committee of the
H
 PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTION AND ANR. v. UNION                      505
            OF INDIA AND ORS.
Board had seen the film along with the experts and only after A
all the members of the Committee as also the two experts gave
positive views on the screening of the film, thereafter only the
certificate was granted. Therefore, since the expert body has
already found that the aforesaid film could be screened all over
the country, we find the opinion of the High Level committee B
for deletion of some of the scenes/words from the film
amounted to exercising power of pre-censorship, which power
is not available either to any high-level expert committee of the
State or to the State Government. It appears that the State
Government through the High Level Committee sought to sit c ·
over and override the decision of the Board by proposing
deletion of some portion of the film, which power is not vested .
at all with the State.
     23. It is for the State to maintain law and order situation in
the State and, therefore, the State shall maintain it effectively     D
and potentially. Once the Board has cleared the film for public
viewing, screening of the same cannot be prohibited in the
manner as sought to be done by the State in the present case.
As held in K.M Sankarapaa (Supra) it is the responsibility of
the State Government to maintain law and order.                       E
     24. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ
petition is required to be partly allowed in terms of the
observations made herein.
                                                                      F
     25. We, therefore, set aside and quash the decision of the
State Government suspending the screening of the film
'Aarakshan' in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the light of the
observations made and we partly allow the petition to the
aforesaid extent.
                                                                      G
D.G.                                Writ petition partly allowed.