UNION OF INDIAversusK.M. SHANKARAPPA

                             UNION OF INDIA                                         A
                                       11.

                           K.M. SHANKARAPPA

                           NOVEMBER 28, 2000

                 [V.N. KHARE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]                                 B


     Cinematograph Act, 1952-Sections 5D; 6(1)-Constitutional validity
of-Held, it is not constitutionally valid as the Government cannot sit in an
appeal or review a judicial order passed by the Tribunal.
                                                                                    c
      Before introduction of section SD to the Cinematograph Act, l 9S2, an
appeal from a decision of the Board could be made to Central Government.
An Appellate Tribunal was constituted by introducing section SD pursuant to
the decision in K.A. Abbasv. UnionoflndiaAlR, (1971) S.C. 481. The tribunal
was an expert body which had been set up. Besides, it has been set up for the       D
purposes of considering amongst other things, the effect of films on the public.
However, Government still sought to retain review and/or revision powers over
the decisions of the Tribunal through enactment of Section 6(1) in the Act.

      Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the
constitutional validity of section 3(1), 4(1), SD, 6(1) and 7(1) of the Act. High   E
Court held Sections 3(1), 4(1), SD, and 7(1) to be constitutionally valid, the
High Court held portions of Sections 6(1) to be unconstitutional.

      In appeal to this Court, Union oflndia contended that the review and/or
revision of the order of the Tribunal by the Central Government is necessary
because on certain occasions, it was found that after the film has been cleared     F
by the Board or by the Tribunal, there had been public resentment to the film
which led to law and order situations. The Government further contended that
under the Constitution there is no strict separation of power and that judicial
functions could also be discharged by the Central Government by way of
conferment of revisional powers.
                                                                                    G
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1 Government has chosen to establish a quasi-judicial body,
which has been given the powers, inter alia, to decide the effect of film on the
public. Once a quasi-judicial body like the Appellate Tribunal, consisting of
                                                                                    H
                                      117
    118                       SUPREME CQURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   a retired judge of a High Court or a person qualified to be a judge of High
    Court and other experts in the field, gives its decision, that decision would be
    final and binding so far as the Executive and the Government are concerned.
    To permit the Executive to review and/or revise that decisions would amount
    to interference ·.vith the exercise of judicial functions by a quasi-judicial Board.
B   It would amount to subjecting the decision of a quasi-judicial body to the
    scrutiny of the Executive. Under the Constitution the position is reverse. The
    Executive has to obey judicial orders. Thus, Section 6(1) of the Cinematograph
    Act, 1952 is a travesty of the rule of law, which is one of the basic structures
    of the Constitution. [120-G-H; 121-Al

C        1.2. The Legislature may, in certain cases, overrule or nullify the
   judicial or executive decision by enacting an appropriate legislation. However,
   without enacting an appropriate legislation, the Executive or the Legislature
 . cannot set at naught a judicial order. The Executive cannot sit in an appeal or
   review a judicial order. The Appellate Tribunal consists of experts and decides
   matters quasi-judicially. A Secretary and/or Minister cannot sit in appeal or
D revision over those decisions. At the highest, the Government may apply to
   the Tribunal itself for review, if circumstances so warrant. But the
   Government would be bound by the ultimate decision of the Tribunal. [121-C)

          1.3. Once an Expert Body has consiqered the impact of the film on the
E   pubic and has cleared the film, it is no excuse to say that there may be a law
    and order situation. It is for the concerned State Government to see that the
    law and order is maintained. In any democratic society there are bound to be
    divergent views. Merely because a small section of the society has a different
    view from that as taken by the Tribunal, and choose to express their views by
    unlawful means would be no ground for the Executive to review or revise a
F   decision of the Tribunal. In such a case, the clear duty of the Government is
    to ensure that law and order is maintained by taking appropriate action against
    persons who choose to breach the law. [121-El

          K.A. Abbas v. Union of India AIR, (1971) SC 481, referred to.

G
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3106 of 1991.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.1990 of the High Court of
    Karnataka, Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 1979.

H         N.N. Goswami, K.K. Dhawan for S.N. Terdql for the Appellant.
               U.O.l. v. K.M. SHANKARAPPA [VARIAVA, J.]                        119

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                      A
     V ARIA VA, J. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 2nd April, I 990
in Writ Petition No. 4335 of 1979.

       The Respondent (herein) had challenged the virus of certain provisions
of the Cinematograph Act, I 952 (hereinafter called the said Act) as amended          B
by Act No. 49 of I 98 I. In the Writ Petition the challenge was to the
c-0nstitutional validity of Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5D, 6(1) and 7(1). By the impugned
Judgment Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5D and 7(1).were held to be constitutionally
valid. However, portions of Section 6(1) have been held to be unconstitutional
and those portions have been struck down.

      It must be mentioned that, in the case of K. A. Abbas v. Union of India,        C
reported in AIR (1971) S.C. 481, the validity of certain provisions of the said
Act had been challenged, inter a/ia, on the ground that an appeal from a
decision of the Board should lie to a Court or to an independent Tribunal and
not to the Central Government. The Solicitor General made a statement that
the Government would appropriately amend the Act to set up a Tribunal. This           D
Court commented as follows:

        "We express our satisfaction that the Central Government will cease
        to perform curial functions through one of its Secretaries in this
        sensitive field involving the fundamental right of speech and
        expression. Experts sitting as a Tribunal and deciding matters quasi-         E
        judicially inspire more confidence than a Secretary and therefore, it is
        better that the appeal should lie to a court or Tribunal."
       It is pursuant to this statement and in keeping with the opinion expressed
by this cdurt that the Tribunal was established. Section SC of the said Act
now provided for an appeal to a Tribunal. Section 50 now provided that the            p
Government is to constitute an Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal is to consist
of a Chairman and not more than four other members. The Chairman of the
Tribunal is to be a person who is a retired Judge of a High Court, or a person
who is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court. The other members should
be such persons who are qualified to judge the effect of the film on the public.
 I hus the Tribunal is an expert body which has been set up for the purposes          G
of considering, amongst other things, the effect of the films on the public.
I lowever the Government still sought to retain powers by enacting Section
6(1 ).
     For a better understanding of the question under consideration, it
would be appropriate to set out Section 6(1 ). It reads as follows:                   H
    120                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A           "6(1 ): Notwithstanding anything contained in this part, the Central
            Government may, of its own motion, at any stage, call for the record
            of any proceeding in relation to any film which is pending before, or
            has been decided by, the Board, or as the case may be, decided by
            the Tribunal (but for including any proceeding in respect of any
            matter which is pending before the Tribunal) and after such inquiry,
B           into the matter as it considers necessary, make such order in relation
            there to as it thinks fit, and the Board shall dispose of the matter in
            conformity with such order:

                Provided that no such order shall be made prejudicially affecting
            any person applying for a certificate or to whom a certificate has been
c           granted, as the case may be, ex.cept after giving him an opportunity
            for representing his views in the matter:

                Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall require the
            Central Government to disclose any fact which it considers to be
            against public interest to disclose."
D
    Thus even after establishing the Appellate Tribunal, by means of Section 6( I),
    the Central Government sought to retain with it the power to make such
    orders as it thought fit. In effect wh'at the Government is seeking to do is to
    exercise power of review or revision over the decisions of the Board or the
    Tribunal.
E
           Mr. Goswami sought to submit that it was necessary to retain such a
    power because it has been found that on certain occasions, after the film has
    been cleared by the Board or by the Tribunal, there was public resentment
    to the film and law and order situations arose. He submitted that such a
F   situation would necessitate a review and/or revision of the order passed by
    the Tribunal. He submitted that under our Constitution there was no strict
    separation of powers. He submitted that judicial functions could also be
    discharged by the Central Government by way of conferment of revisional
    powers.

G         We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel. The
    Government has chosen to establish a quasi-judicial body which has been
    given the powers, inter alia, to decide the effect of the film on the public.
    Once a quasi-judicial body like the Appellate Tribunal, consisting of a retired
    Judge of a High Court or a person qualified to be a Judge of a High Court
    and other experts in the field, gives its decision that decision would be final
H   and binding so far as the Executive and the Government is concerned. To
               U.O.I. v. K.M. SHANKARAPPA [VARIAVA, J.]                     121

permit the Executive to review and/or revise that decision would amount to         A
interference with the exercise of judicial functions by a quasi-judicial Board.
It would amount to subjecting the decision of a quasi-judicial body to the
scrutiny of the Executive. Under our Constitution the position is reverse. The
Executive has to obey judicial orders. Thus, Section 6(1) is a travesty of the
rule of law which is one of the basic structures of the Constitution. The          B
Legislature may, in certain cases, overrule or nullify the judicial or executive
decision by enacting an appropriate legislation. However, without enacting an
appropriate legislation, the Executive or the Legislature cannot set at naught
a judicial order. The Executive cannot sit in an appeal or review or revise a
judicial order. The Appellate Tribunal consisting of experts and decides matters
quasi-judicially. A Secretary and/or Minister cannot sit in appeal or revision     C
over those decisions. At the highest, the Government may apply to the
Tribunal itself for a review, if circumstances so warrant. But the Government
would be bound by the ultimate decision of the Tribunal.

      We fail to understand the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel
that there may be a law and order situation. Once an Expert Body has               D
considered the impact of the film on the public and has cleared the film, it is
no excuse to say that there may be a law and order situation. It is for the
concerned State Government to see that the law and order is maintained. In
any democratic society there are bound to be divergent views. Merely because
a small section of the society has a different view, from that as taken by the     E
Tribunal, and choose to express their views by unlawful means would be no
ground for the Executive to review or revise a decision of the Tribunal. In
such a case, the clear duty of the Government is to ensure that law and order
is maintained by taking appropriate actions against persons who choose to
breach the law.
                                                                                   F
      We, therefore, see no substance in the Appeal. The same stands
dismissed. There will, however, be no Order as to costs.

B.S.                                                        Appeal dismissed.