Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AJMER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BRIJ NIWAS DAS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
17/04/1962
BENCH:
AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA
BENCH:
AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA
SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
WANCHOO, K.N.
AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA
CITATION:
1963 AIR 408 1963 SCR (2) 145
ACT:
Cinemotograph Films--Indigenous films--Cultural films--
Exhibition of--Condition of license--Notification--Vires
of--Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Act. 37 of 1952), s. 12(4).
HEADNOTE:
The respondent was an exhibitor of films in a public cinema
theatre. Under the powers conferred by s. 12(4) of the
Cinematograph Act a notification was issued which among
other things provided that a certain Percentage of "approved
film" should be shown at every performance and ,that films
produced in, India and certified by the Central
146
Government as Cultural films will be deemed to be "approved
films". In condition No. 22 of the license,issued to the
respondent the above terms of the notification were substan-
tially reproduced. On the failure of the respondent to pay
a certain amount to the Ministry of Information for the
supply of "approved films" the Ministry threatened to stop
further supply of "approved films" to the respondent. There
upon he filed a writ in the High Court by which he challen-
ged the vires of s. 12(4‘), the notification and the
conditions in the license. The main contention was that s.
12(4) comprised two categories of films, namely, "cultural
films" and "indigenous films" and that the two categories
were alternative. Therefore it was urged that since
condition No. 22 required that cultural films also should be
produced in India the condition was bad. The High Court
upheld the validity of the section but struck down the
conditions. The appellant appealed to this court on a
certificate of fitness granted by the High Court.
The sole question before the Supreme Court was whether the
notification and condition No. 22 were valid within the
terms of s. 12(4).
Held, that the words "indigenous films" are general and
unqualified in their contents and must include in their
ordinary and accepted sense cultural as well as other films.
To read the words "indigenous films" as meaning "indigenous
films" other than cultural films would be to cut down the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
plain and ordinary sense of the words and to import into the
enactment words which are not there. The court would
proceed on the basis that the Legislature meant precisely
what it said. The words ’produced in India’ in the impugned
notification and condition No. 22 are not to be read as
qualification annexed to the first category of films but
referable to the second category and would be perfectly
intra vires under s. 12(4).
The notification in so far as it requires that cultural
films should have been produced in India is within s. 12(4)
and condition No. 22 which has been framed in accordance
therewith is valid.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 310 of 1961.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 14, 1958, of
the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur
147
Bench) at Jaipur Writ Application No. 237 of 1956.
S. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, S. K.
Kapur and P. D. Menon, for the appellents and Interveners.
The respondent did not appear.
1962. April 17. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J.-This is an appeal against the Judgment
of the High Court of Rajasthan, on a Certificate granted by
that Court under Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution. The
respondent carries on the business of exhibiting films in
premises called the Royal Talkies at Beawar under licences
granted by the appropriate authorities under the
Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) hereinafter referred to
me the Act’. ’Acting in exercise of the powers conferred by
s. 12 (4) of the Act, the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer issued
on November 23, 1954, a notification which, omitting what is
not material, is as follows
"(1) The licensee shall so regulate the
exhibition of Cinematograph films that at
every performances open to the public,
approved films are exhibited, the approved
films to be exhibited in relation to other
films at every such performance being in the
same proportion as one is to five or the
Dearest lower or higher approximation thereto.
Only such films produced in India as are
certified by the Central Government with the
previous approval of the Film Advisory Board,
Bombay to be scientific films intended for
education purposes, films dealing with news,
cut-rent events or documentary
148
films shall be deemed to be approved films for
the purposes of these directions."
This notification came into force on
December 1, 1954. On November 24, 1955 the
District Magistrate of Ajmer being- the
licensing authority under the Act sent to the
respondent a statement of conditions of
licence revised in accordance with the above
notification. We are concerned in this appeal
with two of them, conditions Nos. 15 and 22. They
are, so far as they are material as follows :-
"15. The licensee shall, when and so often as
the Chief Commissioner may require, exhibit
free of charge or on such terms as regards
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
remuneration as the Chief Commissioner may
determine, films and lantern slides provided
by the Chief Commissioner.
Provided that the licensee shall not be
required to exhibit at one entertainment films
or lantern slides the exhibition of which will
take more than fifteen minutes in all or to
exhibit film or slides unless they are
delivered to him at least twenty four hours
before the entertainment at which they are to.
be shown is due to being".
"22. (a) The licensee shall so regulate the
exhibition of cinematograph films that at
every performance open to the public, approved
films are exhibited, the approved films to be
exhibited in relation to other films at every
such performance being in the same proportion
as one is to five or the nearest lower or
higher approximation thereto.
(b) Only such films produced in India as are
certified by the Central Government with the
provious approval of the Films Advisory Board,
Bombay to be scientific films, films
149
intended for education purposes, films dealing
with news, current events or documentary films
shall be deemed to be approved films for the
purposes of these directions.
On July 25, 1956 the Films Division, Ministry. of
Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, made a
demand on the respondent for a sum of Rs. 274/1/- on account
of supplies of approved films made to him during the Period
March 3, 1956 to August 5, 1956 and further informed him
that if the above demand was not complied with, further
supplies of approved films would be stopped. The respondent
disputed his liability to pay the amount on the ground that
the supply was made not in pursuance of any contract entered
into by him but voluntarily by the Government. A
correspondence then followed and eventually the respondent
was told that if the amount was not paid as demanded,
further supplies of approved films would be stopped and the
licence cancelled. Thereupon he filed the .Writ Petition
under Art. 226 of the Constitution,’ out of which this
present appeal arises, in the Court of the’ Judicial
Commissioner, Ajmer, challenging the vires of s. 12 (4) of
the Act, the notification dated November 23, 1954 issued
thereunder and conditions Nos. 15 and 22 inserted in the
licence in accordance therewith. The petition was heard by
a Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan to which it stood
transferred under the provisions of the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956, and by their Judgment dated May
14, 1958 the learned Judges sustained the validity of s. 12
(4) but struck down the impugned conditions Nos. 15 and 22
as not authorised by s. 12 (4) of the Act. It is against
this Judgment that the present appeal, on certificate, has
been preferred by the Government.
Before us the learned Additional Solicitor General who
appeared for the appellant did not
150
contest the correctness of the decision of the High Court
insofar as it held that condition No. 15 was not valid, but
he contended that the learned Judges were not right in
holding that condition No. 22 was not authorised by s. 12
(4) of the Act. The sole point for determination in this
appeal is therefore whether the notification dated November
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
23, 1954 is within the terms of s. 12 (4). If it is, then
condition No. 22 which gives effect to it is valid. If not,
both the notification and the condition must be ,struck down
as ultra vires.
Section 12 (4) of the Act runs as follows
"The Central Government may, from time to
time, issue directions to licensees generally
or 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 be additional conditions and restrictions
subject to which the licence has been
granted."
It will be seen that the enactment comprises two categories
of films, one consisting of scientific films, films intended
for educational purposes, films dealing with news and
current events and documentary films or what for conciseness
may be called ’cultural films’, and the other, of
’indigenous films. The learned Judges of the High Court
were of the opinion that these two categories were
alternative as indicated by the disjunctive "’or" and
consequently the provision that cultural films should have
been produced in India was to introduce a restriction in
category No. 1 which is not authorised by the statute, and
that in consequence the words
151
"reproduced in India" in condition No. 22 were unauthorised
and ultra vires.
This view does not commend itself to us. It is true that
the enactment classifies films into two categories but we do
not read them as mutually exclusive. The words "indigenous
films" are general and unqualified in their contents, and
must include in their ordinary and accepted sense cultural
as well as other films. If the two categories of films are
to be construed as mutually exclusive, then we must read the
words "’indigenous films" as meaning "indigenous films other
than cultural ’films". That would be to cut down the plain
and ordinary sense of the words, and to import into the
enactment words which are not there. Such a construction’
must, if that is possible, be avoided. We must proceed on
the basis that the legislature meant precisely what it said.
This conclusion is further reinforced when regard is had to
the policy underlying the enactment, which is to encourage
exhibition of two classes of films (1) cultural and (2)
indigenous, and so far as indigenous films are concerned
they may be cultural films or they may not be. In this view
the words "produced in India" in the impugned notification,
and condition No. 22 are not to be read as a qualification
annexed to the first category of films, but as referable to
the second category, and would be perfectly intra vires
under s. 1.2 (4). We must accordingly hold that the
notification dated November 23, 1954 insofar as it requires
that cultural films should have been produced in India is
within a. 12 (4) and condition No. 22 which has been framed
in accordance therewith is valid. The order of the Court
below will be modified to this extent. As the respondent
does not appear, there will be no order as to costs in this
Court.
Order modified.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
152