ition Criminal No 735 of 1987
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
UR Lalit P Lal and Mrs Rani Chhabra for the Petitioner
Yogeshwar Prasad and Dalveer Bhandari for the Respondent
The following order of the Court was delivered JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
The arguments of this case conc luded at the close of the court hours on December 18 1987
We then nlade the following order We will give the reasons later
But we make the operative order here and now
595 The detention order is quashed
The detenu will be set at liberty forthwith
 Here are the reasons In this writ petition the validity of the detention of Arun Aggarwal has been challenged
He has been detained by the District Magistrate Meerut by an order dated August 3 1987 made under sec
32 of the 
The Government after the receipt of opinion of the Advisory Board has approved the detention as required under sec
121 of that Act
The impugned order reads as under office of the District Magistrate Meerut ORDER As I am satisfied as District Magistrate Meerut that issue of order to prevent Shri Arun Aggarwal son of Shri Rattan Singh resident of 234 L  Block Shastri Nagar Police Station Medical Meerut from doing act against the maintenance of public order is necessary
Therefore in exercise of power given in sub section 3 of sec
3 of Act No 65 1980 I hereby give order that the above said Shri Arun Aggarwal son of Shri Rattan Singh resident of 234 L  Block Shastri Nagar Police Station Medical Meerut be detained in general category in District Meerut Jail in the custody of the Supdt
Of the said jail under sub section 2 of Sec
3 of the above said Act
Passed today dated 381987 under my signature and seal  There are as many as five grounds of detention set out in the order
All relate to the offence said to have been committed by Arun Aggarwal on May 19 1987
Two of the offences are said to have been committed at 9OO AM
On that day the other two offences at 930 AM and the fifth one was alleged to have been committed between 930 AM to 100 PM
On the same day
In each of the grounds there is a mention to the following effect 596 Due to your above ill acts there broke out com munal riots causing heavy loss to properties and lives of the people and your this ill act has spread fear and terror in the general public of Meerut City
In this manner you have corrlmitted such an act which is against public law and order
 All the cases referred to in the grounds are non bailable offences
In relation of those offences Arun Aggarwal was arrested as an accused on August 2 1987
The detention order was passed and served on August 3 1987
The order particularly stated At present you are detained in District Jail Meerut and you are trying to come out on bail and there is enough possibility of your being bailed out Before we consider the main ground raised in the petition we may make one point clear
The order of detention repeatedly states that the detenu committing the alleged five offences set out in the detention order was the cause for breaking out communal riot in Meerut City
But in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the communal riots broke out in Meerut on April 14 1987 on the occasion of Shab e Earat
That was controlled by the Administration
However in the night intervening between 1319 May 1987 again a communal riot broke out
 But all the offences said to have been committed by the detenu were after 900 AM on May 19 1987
It was not in the intervening night between May 1819
It was therefore inaccurate to state that the communal riot broke out due to the incidents attributed to the detenu on May 19 1987
The primary question however is whether the detention of Arun Aggarwal could be justified solely on the ground that he was trying to come out on bail and there was enough possibility of his being bailed out and he would then act prejudicially to the interest of the public order
Mr Yogeshwar Prasad learned counsel for the State sought to justify the detention order relying upon the decision of this Court in Alijan Mian and another vs District Magistrate Dhanbad  The counsel also said that the subsequent two decisions of this court to which we will make reference later are not in tune with the ratio of the decision in Alijan Mian s case
We will first consider what the case about in Alijan Mian case
The detention order considered in that case contained statement that the District Magistrate was satisfied that the detenu was likely to be 597 released on bail and if he was allowed to remain at large he would be indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
This court refused to interfere with that detention order on the ground that the detaining authority was justified in forming that opinion
The conclusion of this Court was evidently on the basis of material placed before the detaining authority in that case
The principles applicable in these types of preventive detention cases have been explained in several decisions of this Court
All those cases have been considered in a recent decision in Poonam Lata vs M L Wadhawan  The principles may be summarised as follows
Section 3 of the does not preclude the authority from making an order of detention against a person while he is in custody or in jail but the relevant facts in connection with the making of the order would make all the difference in every case
The validity of the order of detention has to be judged in every individual case on its own facts
There must be material apparently disclosed to the detaining authority in each case that the person against whom an order of preventive detention is being made is already under custody and yet for compelling reasons his preventive detention is necessary
We will now refer to the two decisions which according to Mr Yogeshwar Prasad are not in tune with the ratio of the decision in Alijan Milan s case supra
In Ramesh Yadav vs District Magistrate Etah and Ors 19854 SCC 232 at p 234 this Court observed On a reading of the grounds particularly the paragraph which we have extracted above it is clear that the order of detention was passed as the detaining authority was apprehensive that in case the detenu was released on bail he would again carry on his criminal activities in the area
If the apprehension of the detaining authority was true the bail application had to be opposed and in case bail was granted challenge against that order in the higher forum had to be raisec
Merely on the ground that an accused in detention as an under trial prisoner was likely to get bail an order of detention under the should not ordinarily be passed
 What was stressed in the above case is that an apprehension of the detaining authority that the accused if enlarged on bail would again 598 carry on his criminal activities is by itself not sufficient to detain a person under the 
Every citizen in this country has the right to have recourse to law
He has the right to move the court for bail when he is arrested under the ordinary law of the land
If the State thinks that he does not deserve bail the State could oppose the grant of bail
He cannot however be interdicted from moving the court for bail by clamping an order of detention
The possibility of the Court granting bail may not be sufficient
Nor a bald statement that the person would repeat his criminal activities would be enough
There must also be credible information or cogent reasons apparent on the record that the detenu if enlarged on bail would act prejudicially to the interest of public order
That has been made clear in Binod Singh vs District Magistrate Dhanbad  at 421 where it was observed A bald statement is merely an ipse dixit of the officer
If there were cogent materials for thinking that the detenu might be released then these should have been made apparent
Etemal vigilance on the part of the authority charged with both law and order and public order is the price which the democracy in this country extracts from the public officials in order to protect the fundamental freedoms of our citizens
 There is to our mind nothing in these two decisions which runs counter to the decision in Alijan Mian s case supra
In the instant case there was no material made apparent on record that the detenu if released on bail is likely to commit activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The detention order appears to have been made merely on the ground that the detenu is trying to come but on bail and there is enough possibility of his being bailed out
We do not think that the order of detention could be justified only on that basis
These were the reasons upon which we quashed the order of detention


Summary:
 These appeals and writ petitions involved two questions of law i whether Rule 41 A of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Rules the Rules framed by the State Government under section 19 of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Act of 1964 the Act had been made for purposes of the Act and ii whether Rule 41 A placed unreasonable restrictions on the appellants  right to carry on their business of exhibiting cinematograph films in violation of Article 191g of the Constitution
The appellantspetitioners held licences for exhibiting cinematograph films in their cinema theatres under the Act and the Rules in Form prescribed by the Rules
Normally the Cinema owners were holding four shows in a day but later on they increased the shows to five in a day starting from 10 am and ending at 12 am
This caused a number of problems
The State Government in exercise of its powers under section 19 of the Act framed Rule 41 A directing that no licensee would exhibit more than four cinematograph shows in a day
The appellants challenged the validity of the Rule 41 A placing restrictions on their right to exhibit cinematograph films before the High Court by writ petitions
The appellants contended before the High Court that the restriction imposed by Rule 41 A on the licensees requiring them to exhibit more than four shows in a day was beyond the rule making power as the Rule did not carry out the purposes of the Act and that the Rule placed unreasonable restrictions on their fundamental right to carry on the business of exhibiting cinematograph films
There was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges constituting the Bench of the High Court which heard the petitions
KS Puttaswamy J held infer alia that the impugned rule was ultra 512 vires as it was beyond the rule making power of the Government under section 19 of the Act and that it placed unreasonable restrictions on the appellants  right to carry on their business guaranteed under Article 191g of the Constitution
Narayan Rai Kudoor J upheld the validity of the Rule holding that the impugned Rule carried out the purposes of the Act viz the regulation of the exhibition of cinematograph films and the restriction placed by it was reasonable
Since there was difference of opinion between the two learned Judges the matter was placed before M Rama Jois J who agreed with the opinion of NR Kudoor J holding that the State Government had the power to frame the Rule and the Rule did not place any unreasonable restriction on the appellants  right to carry on business of exhibiting cinematograph films and that it was not utlra vires the Act and did not violate appellants  fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution
Consequently all the writ petitions were dismissed
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellants filed appeals in this Court
Some of the aggrieved cinema owners filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the validity of Rule 41 A Dismissing the appeals and the writ petitions the Court  HELD The question whether Rule 41 A was validly framed to carry out the purposes of the Act could be determined on the analysis of the provisions of Act
The title of the Act and the preamble clearly indicate that the main purpose of the Act is to regulate the exhibition of the cinematograph films in places in respect of which a licence for that purpose may be issued
The extent of control and regulation is evidenced by the provisions of the Act
The ultimate purpose of these provisions is to ensure safety and convenience of the general public visiting the licensed premises for witnessing the cinematograph films exhibited therein
518DH 519A B 520F Section 19 of the Act confers power on the State Government to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act
The preamble and the provisions of the Act provide for the regulation of the exhibition of the cinematograph films which is the primary object of the Act
The Act confers wide powers on the State Government for the regulation of the exhibition of the cinematograph films which include power to regulate hours during which cinematograph films may be exhibited the seating arrangements for the members of the public and any other allied matters pertaining to public safety health sanitation and incidental matters
Rule 41 A which limits the numbers of shows in a day regulates the exhibition of the cinematograph films and carries out the 513 purposes of the Act
It was therefore referable to the State Government s general power under section 191 of the Act
Rule 41 A was further referable to clauses a and d of section 192 of the Act
Clause a confers power on the State Government to frame rules prescribing terms conditions and restrictions subject to which a licence may be granted
The State Government may lay down conditions and impose restrictions prescribing hours during which the films might be exhibited and also the number of shows in the licensed premises
Clause d confers power on the State Government to frame rules regulating the exhibition of cinematograph films for the purpose of securing public safety
Any rule regulating the exhibition of the cinematograph films if reasonably connected with public safety would be justified under the said provision
Rule 41 A adds a condition to the licence that exhibition of films would be limited to four shows in a day
No licensee could claim to have unrestricted right to exhibit cinematograph films for all the 24 hours of the day
Such a claim would be against public interest
The restriction to limit the number of shows to four in a day placed by rule 41 A was regulatory in nature which clearly carried out purposes of the Act
520G H521A F The provisions of the Act have laid down the policy for regulating the exhibition of the cinematograph films in the licensed premises and also for regulating the construction of the building auditorium galleries balconies projection rooms seating accommodation and other allied matters related to public health and safety etc and all other matters relating to the exhibition of films
Validity of none of the other rules has been challenged by the appellantspetitioners although those provisions placed a number of restrictions on their right of exhibiting cinematograph films
The restrictions placed by Rule 41 A are similar to the restrictions already placed on their right to exhibit cinematograph films
It is incidental to the general power of regulating the exhibition of cinematograph films and it is connected with the regulation of the exhibition of the cinematograph films522C DH523A The question arises whether rule 41 A placed unreasonable restrictions on the appellants  right to carry on business of exhibiting cinematograph films in violation of Article 191g of the Constitution The appellantspetitioners have not challenged the validity of the Act
Therefore they claim no unrestricted right to exhibit cinematograph films
They have been carrying on the business exhibiting films under a licence in form which contained the terms and conditions prescribed by the Act and the Rules framed therunder
Rule 41 A added one more condition to it requiring the licensee not to exhibit more than four 514 shows in a day
The freedom to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation trade or business guaranteed by Article 191g is not absolute it is subject to clause 6 of Article 19 which permits imposition of reasonable restrictions by law if it is necessary in the interest of the general public
Any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right guaranteed by Article 191g would be valid if it is in the interest of the general public
Restriction contemplated in Article 196 may in certain circumstances extend to total prohibition as held by this Court in Narender Kumar vs Union of India  The material placed before the State Government as also this Court clearly demonstrated the necessity for curtailing the holding of five shows to four to remove the public grievance as the representation filed on behalf of the public highlighted the hazards to public safety and the inconvenience caused to the members of the public visiting the cinema halls
Rule 41 A was framed to meet the public need and to secure public safety by placing minimum possible restrictions on the licensees
The Court found no merit in the contentions of the appellantspetitioners that Rule 41 A was neither necessary nor reasonable as the purpose for which it was framed could have been achieved if the relevant authorities carried out their duties in making inspections and securing the compliance of the existing rules and that the impugned Rule did not prescribe the duration of four shows or the intervals between them and each one of the reasons set out by the State to justify the impugned Rules could be fully achieved by the enforcement of the existing Rules523B E525A C In holding five shows the licensees did not exhibit approved documentaries and slides and adequate measures could not be taken to ensure public safety and health
The Court had no doubt that the existing Rules could not meet the situation and the State Government was justified in framing Rule 41 A placing limit on the appellants petitioners  right to exhibit cinematograph films to four shows which was in the public interest
The appellantspetitioners had no unrestricted fundamental right to carry on business of exhibiting cinematograph films
Their right to carry on business was regulated by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder
These provisions were necessary to ensure public safety
Public health and other allied matters
The Rule 41 A does not prohibit exhibition of the cinematograph films instead it regulates it by providing that instead of five shows only four shows should be exhibited in a day
The Rule does not take away the licensees  right to carry on business of exhibiting cinematograph films it merely regulates it
No rule or law could be declared unreasonable merely because there was reduction in the income of a on account of the regulation of the business
Rule 41 A does not place any unreason 515 able restriction on the appellants petitioners  fundamental right guaranteed to them under Article 191g of the Constitution
It carries out the purpose of the Act in regulating the exhibition of the cinematograph films in the licensed premises
Rule 41 A is inter vires the Act
525G H526C527A B The Court was in agreement with the majority opinion of the High Court
Narender Kumar vs Union of India   referred to
Shelvarajan vs State of Mysore  disapproved
Vishnu Talkies vs State of Bihar AIR 1975 Patna 26 and DK 
V Prasad Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1984 AP 75 approved