W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 1 of 56 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 4th October 2010 Delivered on: 24th November 2010 W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 M/S SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. … Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Sibal with Mr. Rahul Ajatshatru and Mr. S. Shanker, Advocates. versus BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION & ORS. … Respondents Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum with Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocate for R-3. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 10552 of 2009 M/S R.K. MOVIES THROUGH: ITS PROP. RAJINDER KUMAR … Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Pankaj Batra, Advocate for R-1 & R-2. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 6481 of 2007 DHARMENDAR KAPOOR .… Petitioner Through: Mr. D.N. Grover, Advocate. versus CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION … Respondents Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Atul Nanda and Ms. Sugandha, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 2 of 56 WITH W.P.(C) No. 6976 of 2007 RAMA CASSETTES INDUSTRIES … Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 250 of 2008 MAX CASSETTES INDUSTRIES & ANR. .… Petitioners Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Sushil D. Salwan, Additional Standing counsel with Mr. Aditya Garg, Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 362 of 2008 VAISHNAO ELECTRONICS .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. versus CENSOR BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION & ORS … Respondents Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 5557 of 2008 SHUBHAM AUDIO VIDEO P. LTD. .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 3 of 56 Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 5772 of 2008 J.K.ELECTRONIC THROUGH: ITS PARTNER ANIL KUMAR … Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 5774 of 2008 RHYTHM MUSIC TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. THROUGH: ITS DIRECTOR NARESH MALHOTRA … Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 5776 of 2008 BHAGWATI VIDEO THROUGH: ITS PROP. HARENDER SINGH GUSHAIN & ORS. .… Petitioners Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 5822 of 2008 CHANDA CASSETTES PVT. LTD. .… Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 4 of 56 Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate. versus BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 6396 of 2008 SIMRAN MUSIC INDUSTRIES .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Sushil D. Salwan, Additional Standing counsel with Mr. Aditya Garg, Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 6558 of 2008 SONOTEK CASSETTES COMPANY & ANR. .… Petitioners Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate. versus BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate for R-3. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 6602 of 2008 K.S. MEDIA P. LTD. THROUGH: ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OR DIRECTOR KALA IYER .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi with Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 5 of 56 Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 6603 of 2008 EAGLE HOME AND ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD. THROUGH: ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OR MANAGER ASHOK VERMA .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates for R-2 & R-5. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 6604 of 2008 MAD 4 MUSIC AMAR AUDIO THROUGH: ITS A/R JAGMOHAN SINGH .… Petitioners Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani and Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates for R-2 & R-5. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 6703 of 2008 GAURI MUSIC AND RECORDING CENTRE THROUGH: ITS PROP. RAMESH LAL .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 6 of 56 Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 6704 of 2008 S.M. ELECTRONICS @ SHANKAR SERIES RAJASTHANI CASSETTES THROUGH: SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 6914 of 2008 ANGLE MUSIC VIDEO PVT. LTD. .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate. versus BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 7018 of 2008 YUKI CASSETTES .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate. versus BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 7431 of 2008 MAGIC ART PRESS .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate. versus W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 7 of 56 BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 7482 of 2008 CLASSIQUE DISCS .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate. versus BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 7499 of 2008 SHASHI AUDIO AND VIDEO PVT. LTD. .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 7500 of 2008 MATA CASSETTES .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 7501 of 2008 MATA CASSETTES (PARTNERSHIP FIRM) … Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 8 of 56 Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 7928 of 2008 SAAWARIYA MUSIC AND FILMS .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi with Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..… Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 7929 of 2008 M/S. S.R. PRASTUTI .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 7930 of 2008 ASHOK MUSIC INDUSTRIES .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 9 of 56 WITH W.P.(C) No. 7973 of 2008 VASU MUSIC AND ENTERTAINMENT INC. THROUGH: ITS PARTNER SUNIL KUMAR … Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. WITH W.P.(C) No. 8382 of 2008 HIMALAYAN FILMS P. LTD. THROUGH: ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OR DIRECTOR M.C. LAKHERA .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 8842 of 2008 UMA CASSETTES THROUGH: ITS PROP. NARAIN MEHTA .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 9 of 2009 M/S. GANGOTRI FILMS THROUGH: ITS PROP. SMT. KRISHNA GAUR .… Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 10 of 56 Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 7429 of 2009 M/S. SHUGUN LOVING AND BASOYA MUSIC CO. THROUGH: PROP. BIJDENDRA SINGH BASOYA ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 547 of 2010 M/S. ROCKWELL MUSIC THROUGH: ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RAJEEV KUMAR SAXENA .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate for CBFC and GNCTD. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing counsel for CBI. WITH W.P.(C) No. 1860 of 2010 GHANSHYAM BHATT .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh C. Agrawal, Mr. Ashok Sethi and Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 11 of 56 Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. B.V. Niren, Advocate for UOI. AND W.P.(C) No. 3806 of 2010 GANGA CASSETTES .… Petitioner Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, CGSC with Mr. Nitish Gupta, Advocate for R-1 & R-6. Ms. Zubeda Begum and Ms. Sana Ansari, Advocates for R-3. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR 1. Whether reporters of the local news papers be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes JUDGMENT 24.11.2010 The common question 1. The Petitioners in thirty-five of these thirty-six writ petitions are producers, manufacturers, and sellers, and also replicators for music companies holding copyright in audio-visual materials including devotional and religious songs in many regional languages, recorded on video compact discs („VCDs‟) and digital video discs („DVDs‟), which the Petitioners have labeled as „only for private viewing‟. The common question that arises in these petitions is whether these audio-visual recordings on DVDs and VCDs which the Petitioners sell in the market, but with the label that it is meant only for private viewing, requires certification by the Central Board of Film W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 12 of 56 Certification („CBFC‟) under Section 5-A of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 („CG Act' )? The only exception is Writ Petition (C) No. 6481 of 2007 by Dharmendar Kapoor which prays for directions to the Respondents to strictly enforce the CG Act and the CR Act against those making and selling such audio-visual material in DVDs and VCDs. 2. The above question which is common to all these petitions arises in the context of raids conducted by the police on the shops from where DVDs and VCDs similar to the ones being manufactured and sold by the Petitioners were seized and prosecution launched against several persons for violation of Section 52A(2)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957 („CR Act‟). The contention of the Petitioners is that since they are themselves the manufacturers and sellers and, therefore, the holders of the copyright in respect of the material in these DVDs and VCDs, they were not required to obtain certification under Section 5-A of the CG Act, and consequently they cannot be prosecuted under Section 52A(2)(a) of the CR Act. 3. The prayers in these writ petitions, except W.P. (C) No. 6481 of 2007, are more or less of a declaratory nature. The Petitioners seek a declaration that their films sought to be sold in the form of DVDs and VCDs and which are meant for private viewing do not require certification by the CBFC under Section 5-A CG Act. Such a declaration is sought with a view to avoiding prosecution under the CR Act. The facts in each of the other petitions differ slightly as regards the precise DVDs and VCDs being sold by each of the Petitioners. Illustratively, the facts in Writ Petition (C) No. 2543 of 2007 are set out. W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 13 of 56 Facts in W.P. (C) No. 2543 of 2007 4. Petitioner No.1 is Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. („SCIL‟) having its registered office at New Delhi. Petitioner No. 2 is its share holder. The CBFC is Respondent No.1 in the present petition. Respondent No. 2 is the Union of India („UOI‟) through the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India („I&B Ministry‟). Respondent No. 3 is the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi. 5. SCIL was initially registered as a private limited company in the year 1983 having late Mr. Gulshan Kumar and his father, Mr. Chanderbhan Dua as its Directors. In 1988 it became a deemed public limited company. It is stated that SCIL, since its inception, has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and marking audio and video cassettes (blank and recorded), compact discs („CDs‟), televisions, tape recorders, CD players and other electrical goods. It is stated that SCIL has also built state-of-the-art facilities in its recording studios. SCIL is the proprietor of T-SERIES brand of music cassettes, CDs, VCDs and DVDs. SCIL claims to own copyright in a vast repertoire of cinematograph films and sound recordings, including over 20,000 Hindi non-film songs and around 50,000 songs in regional languages, adding up to tens of thousands of hours of music. SCIL claims to own exclusive copyright in video films of different varieties including audio-visual songs of hundreds of feature films, music videos of private artists, performance of devotional songs and discourses along with visual picturisation, performance of Indian classical music with visual picturisation, other video films such as animated films and compilations of excerpts from feature films. W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 14 of 56 6. The case of the Petitioner SCIL, which is also that of the other Petitioners, is that the films manufactured or produced by them, containing devotional and religious songs, are not being sold for „public exhibition‟ within the meaning of the CG Act. The Petitioners‟ case is that since they are being sold for private home viewing, they do not require certification by the CBFC. It is stated that with each DVD and VCD sold by the Petitioners a set of warnings are printed on the cover/jacket containing the VCD or DVD. A sampling of the said warnings is: “WARNING: This video is for your personal and private use only. Any commercial use including renting in public will need licence from Super Cassettes Industries Limited, under the Copyright Act, 1957.” “WARNING: Any unauthorised copying of the film, causing the film to be seen and heard in the public, making any record of the sound track in the film, communicating the film by broadcasting, usage, publishing, adapting, synchronization or by means of wireless diffusion or wire selling or letting for hire, distributing, exhibiting, importing or exporting any unauthorized copy shall constitute infringement of the producer‟s copyright in this cinematograph film and any such act or attempt shall be an offence punishable with fine and imprisonment under Chapter XII of the Copyright Act, 1957.” “Warning: All rights reserved. For non-commercial private home viewing only and on a single viewing device at any time. The contents are not to be transmitted on any cable or like television, transmission system or distribution to more than one television device or W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 15 of 56 dwelling. Unauthorised copying, duplication, reproduction, hiring, renting lending broadcasting and public performance or exhibition or screening (including clubs, bars, hospitals, nursing homes, retail establishments, oil rigs, prisons, schools and/or in public transport, airports, railways and bus station) is strictly prohibited. Any unauthorised use, copying or violation of the above terms shall constitute an offence under the Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended) and shall be liable for prosecution.” 7. It is stated that on or around 7th December 2006, teams of police officers conducted raids at the business premises of several individuals and firms dealing in the sale of video films including audio-visual materials produced by SCIL. A considerable stock of VCDs and DVDs was seized on the ground that the persons stocking them failed to produce the necessary documents including the certification of the CBFC under Section 5-A of the CG Act. FIR No. RC SIB 2006 E 0010 dated 8th December 2006 was registered under Section 120B IPC read with Section 52A CR Act and Sections 63, 65 and 69 CR Act. Several retailers were named as the accused persons. SCIL claims that the present petition has been filed under the apprehension that there may be more such raids in which the DVDs and VCDs produced by SCIL and sold in the retail market for private viewing may be seized for want of certificates issued by the CBFC under Section 5-A CG Act. It is stated that an FIR on similar grounds was lodged on 14th July 2006 in the Dabri Police Station, South-West District, Delhi upon the complaint of one Mr. Avadh Sharma, a member of the Delhi Advisory Panel of the CBFC. W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 16 of 56 8. SCIL states that thereafter large stocks of VCDs and DVDs were returned to it by its retailers and stockists since a panic was created as a result of the raids. SCIL claims to have suffered return of stock of value of Rs. 161 crores between 1st November 2006 to 14th February 2007 apart from loss of reputation and goodwill. In the circumstances, W.P. (C) No. 2543 of 2007 was filed on 3rd April 2007. While directing notice to issue in the writ petition, the following order was passed by this Court: “Issue notice to the Respondent No.1, returnable on 19th July 2007. The issue involved in this petition is whether the manufacture and sale of DVDs and VCDs pertaining to certain audio-visual materials including devotional songs etc. which do not fall within the standard „understanding of feature films or documentaries‟ would still require certification from the Board of Film Certification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Petitioner is a manufacturer of various DVDs and VCDs which include feature films and films designed for public viewing as well as films which, according to the Petitioner, are not designed for public viewing. Insofar as those audio visual materials, which are designed for public viewing are concerned, the counsel for the Petitioner clearly states that a Film Certification would be necessary and it has been applying for the same and obtaining the same from time to time. Insofar as the audio-visual material which is not designed for public viewing is concerned, the Petitioner is of the view that the same does not require certification for the purposes of manufacture and sale. In case, any person, after having purchased or rented the said material, uses it for public exhibition then it would be his liability and not the liability of the manufacturer. W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 17 of 56 There is a difference of understanding between the Petitioner and the Respondents on this aspect. According to the learned counsel for the Respondents, all audio- visual materials, which are capable of public viewing, require certification. Since, this matter requires consideration, the Respondents are directed to file their counter affidavits within four weeks and the Petitioner shall file the rejoinder affidavit within four weeks thereafter. In the meanwhile, the Respondents may continue with their investigation but shall not take any coercive step with regard to the audio-visual materials which are meant for private viewing. Dasti.” 9. The above interim order has continued since then. 10. The facts in each of the other petitions and the reliefs sought are more or less similar. As already noticed only in W.P. (C) No. 6481 of 2007, by Mr. Dharmendar Kapoor, the relief sought is for a direction to the Respondents to strictly enforce the provisions of the CG Act and the CR Act. Submissions of counsel for Petitioners 11. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned counsel appearing for SCIL submitted that under Section 52A(2)(a) of the CR Act, the certificate for public exhibition issued by the CBFC under Section 5-A CG Act is required to be displayed only when the video film in question is publicly exhibited. Where it is meant for private viewing, Section 52A(2)(b) and 52A(2)(c) get attracted and it is nobody‟s case that the details thereunder are not being displayed. The anxiety only is that despite these films being meant for private viewing not W.P.(C) No. 2543 of 2007 & batch Page 18 of 56 requiring certification under Section 5-A CG Act, raids have been conducted and DVDs and VCDs seized for want of a CBFC certificate. According to Mr. Sibal, showing a film in a public place, to which the public is admitted, constitutes „public exhibition‟ within the meaning of the CG Act. Analysing various provisions of the CG Act including Sections 3, 4, 5-A, 7 and 10, Mr. Sibal submitted that only such films that are meant for public exhibition are required to be certified by the CBFC. He submits that the mere display of the jacket or the cover containing the VCD or DVD as the case may be in a shop selling such VCDs or DVDs does not amount to public exhibition. 12. In order to underscore the distinction between the different expressions „sale‟, „distribution‟ and „exhibition‟, Mr. Sibal referred to Section 51 CR Act which sets out the circumstances in which the copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed. It is submitted that Section 51(b) CR Act provides that when any person makes for