REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 345 OF 2011

M/S PRAKASH JHA PRODUCTIONS & ANR                 Petitioner(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                          Respondent(s)

O R D E R

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 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 Andhra Pradesh and State of Uttar  

Pradesh suspending the screening of the film 'Aarakshan' in their  

respective States for a specified period.  

Page 1 of 14

2. Notice  was issued on this  writ  petition making the same  

returnable today so as to enable the three State Governments 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are  concerned,  they  had  withdrawn  the  order  of  suspension  of  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'.  

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.  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  

opposing the prayer in the writ petition which is on record.  We  

have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties extensively  

today.   

Page 2 of 14

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.   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  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 Board of Film Certification, (hereinafter referred to as “the  

Board”)  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  

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  

Page 3 of 14

situation a power is vested in the State Government 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.  

6. We  have  also  heard  Mr.  Chandiok,  learned  Additional  

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  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 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, therefore, the aforesaid decision of  

suspending the screening of the film “Aarakshan” in Uttar Pradesh,  

Page 4 of 14

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  

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 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  to  suspend  exhibition  of  films  in  certain  cases  –  (1)  The  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 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.”  

10. Upon  going  through  the  records,  we  find  that  the  film  

'Aarakashan'  was  submitted  to  the  Central  Board  of  Film  

Page 5 of 14

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 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 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 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  

trailor in reel no. 1, which was deleted by the producer of the film,  

and  the  same  was  treated  as  voluntary  cut.   Thereafter,  the  

certification was granted and a certificate was issued for screening  

of the film.  The said certificate is annexed with the petition.  

Page 6 of 14

12. Pursuant  to  grant  of  the  aforesaid  certificate,  the  film is  

being screened all over India except for the State of Uttar 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 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  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 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  

Page 7 of 14

aforesaid decision is taken.  There is no dispute that the 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 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  exhibited' and  the  word  

'suspension' are  relevant  for  our  purpose  and,  therefore,  we  are  

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  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 functional or something  

which  is  being  shown  or  is  running.  Suspension  is  always  a  

Page 8 of 14

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  of  the  fact  that  the  said  film  was  not  being  

exhibited publicly in the theatre halls in U.P.  Consequently, at this  

stage, when the 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 Act.   

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 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 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  

Page 9 of 14

screened, are also similarly sensitive States as that of the State of  

U.P.  In  such  States  the  film  is  being  screened  without  any  

obstruction or difficulty and 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 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 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 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   

Page 10 of 14

people via open discussion.   The democratic   form of government 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 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  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  

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 (2001) 1  

SCC 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  

Page 11 of 14

stated that  once an expert body has 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 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 Board  

had  seen the  film  along  with  the  experts  and only  after  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  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 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.

Page 12 of 14

23. It is for the State to maintain law and order situation in the  

State  and,  therefore,  the  State  shall  maintain  it  effectively  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.

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.   

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.  

.........................................................J.                                                 (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

Page 13 of 14

                         …………………………..........................J.              (ANIL R. DAVE)

New Delhi August 19, 2011.

Page 14 of 14