*1* wp.1733.1734.11.933.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1733 OF 2011 M/s Cinemax India Ltd.. ..Petitioner -Versus- Police Commissioner, Thane and another. ..Respondents .......... Ms.Amita Chavare, for the Petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 27th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard. Perused the impugned orders. The authority in its order has found that the cine multiplexes like the Petitioner are required to show in their theatres two slides and a message emphasizing the importance of preservation and protection of environment. Such slides and message were not exhibited and displayed at theatre of the Petitioner, namely, Cine Wonder on 08.12.2010. The authority has found that the reason given by the Petitioner for not displaying and exhibiting the slides and message, is that the projector and machinery was not functioning properly; which is false because the movie (feature film) was shown throughout without any problem. 2 The authorities have concurrently found that on surprise inspection the subject slides and message was not displayed. The authorities have not just entered the cinema hall and left the same hurriedly before the main film was exhibited, but they waited throughout the show and they discovered that not only at the beginning or during the *2* wp.1733.1734.11.933.sxw intermission but even thereafter, the slides and message were not exhibited or displayed. 3 Long back, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that right to run the cinema theatres, which is business covered under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, is subject to a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the same. The Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v/s The Motion Picture Association (AIR 1999 SC 2334) holds thus:- “17. Although the First Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution is not subject to reasonable restraint as in Article 1.9(2), the raison de'tre of a constitutional guarantee of free speech is the same. We have to examine whether the purpose of compulsory speech in the impugned provisions is to promote the fundamental freedom of speech and expression and dissemination of ideas, or whether it is to restrain this freedom, the social context of any such legislation cannot be ignored. When a substantially significant population body is illiterate or does not have easy access to ideas or information, it is important that all available means of communication, particularly audiovisual communication, are utilised not just for entertainment but also for education, information, propagation of scientific ideas and the like. The best way by which ideas can reach this large body of uneducated people is through the entertainment channel which is watched by all-literate and illiterate alike; To earmark a small portion of time of this entertainment medium for the purpose of showing scientific, educational or documentary films, or for showing news films has to be looked at in this context of promoting dissemination of ideas, information and knowledge to the masses so that there may be an informed debate and decision making on public issues. Clearly, the impugned provisions are designed to further free speech and expression and not to curtail it. None of these statutory provisions require the exhibitor to show a propaganda film or a film conveying views which he objects to. In fact, the exhibitors have not raised any objection to the contents of the films which *3* wp.1733.1734.11.933.sxw they are required to show. They, however, contend that one of the important requirements for upholding such compulsory speech in the United States is that such speech should be content-neutral. While in the present case, the contents of the compulsory films are specified in the legislation concerned. In the context of Article 19(1) what we have to examine is whether the categories of films so required to be carried promote dissemination of information and education or whether they are meant to be propaganda or false or biased information. The statute quite clearly specifies the kinds of films which promote dissemination of knowledge and information. 18. ........ 19. ........ 20. ........ 21. ........ 22. In Brij Niwas Das v. Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, ILR (1958) Raj. 1076, the Rajasthan High Court upheld conditions in the licence which required that educational and instructional slides should be shown for a duration of 15 minutes, arid approved films should be shown for a duration which was 1/5th of the total time. Looking to the specific provisions, the Court upheld these provisions under Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6). The Court also upheld Section 12(4) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The Court, however, said that the requirement in one of the impugned conditions that films produced in India should be shown in this fashion without specifying the categories of such films was not valid. The Chief commissioner, Ajmer came in appeal before this court. This Court by its judgment and order reported in Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, Brij Niwas Das, [1963] 2 SCR 145, held the condition applicable to films produced in India as also valid, the purpose being to promote indigenous films. 23. Time and place constraints on cinema halls have also been upheld as regulatory provisions in Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [1988] Supp. SCC 176. In the present case, the restrictions sought to be imposed are specific and tailored to fit the *4* wp.1733.1734.11.933.sxw public purpose behind the restrictions. The length of the film to be shown, the duration for Which it is to be shown and the nature of the films which are to be shown, are specified and are designed to further the public purpose of disseminating information and knowledge so that the general public can be educated on a number of issues of national or general importance to enable them to function effectively in the democratic framework of this country with adult franchise. These restrictions, therefore, have to be upheld as reasonable. 24. According to the exhibitors, even if the nature of the film, its duration and length are specified, their right to carry on their business of exhibiting motion pictures is nevertheless adversely affected because at every show, they are required to exhibit for a duration of 15 to 20 minutes these educational scientific films, etc, thus cutting :into their business time. They also contend that they are subjected to inconvenience because they are required to procure these films expending time and money. Moreover, under the terms of their agreement with the Films Division, they are also required to pay one per cent 0f their net weekly collection as rental for the films so procured. They contend that when such films are shown over television, the Government is required to pay for the showing time while in their case they are required to pay a rent to the Films Division. These are all unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on business. 25. According to the exhibitors, although these provisions have been In force for almost three decades and they have regularly complied with these provisions by exhibiting educational, scientific films etc. of the Films Division for the stipulated duration in their shows, they are now seeking to challenge these provisions because according to them, the business of exhibiting cinematograph films is no longer as profitable as it used to be. They contend that with the arrival of the electronic media, popular attraction for watching movies in cinema theatres has dwindled. People like to watch entertainment programmes over television or with the help of a video or through internet in their homes. They do not flock to cinema *5* wp.1733.1734.11.933.sxw theatres as they used to. As a result, the cost of showing the short films of the Films Division can no longer be borne by them. The condition, therefore, in the licence requiring them to show these films even for a short duration is now onerous and violates their right to carry on their chosen business under Article 19(1)(g)- In this context they further submit that the restrictions imposed cannot now be considered as reasonable because the exhibitors, in view of their reduced profit making, cannot bear the expenses relating to the showing of these films, including the rental. 26. The reasonableness or otherwise of restrictions on their right to carry on business will have to be examined in the context of the purpose sought to be served by imposing such restrictions. There is no dispute that the rights of the exhibitors under Article 1.9(1) (g) are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). There is a public purpose in requiring the exhibitors to show such films, We have already stated that where a large percentage of population is illiterate and has very limited access to knowledge, information and ideas, it is important that such knowledge and information is disseminated to this vast volume of population in a manner which will ensure that ideas and information are in fact conveyed to them and they can assimilate and debate these ideas before accepting or rejecting them. Requiring an entertainment medium like cinema theatre to show for a short duration of its programme, films which educate and impart information cannot be considered as an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business. When there is adult franchise without literacy, it becomes all the more important that information and ideas reach the adult population.” 4 If the promotional and advertising material in relation to the environment has to be exhibited compulsorily in public interest so that a message is spread across all sections of public, then, not abiding by such *6* wp.1733.1734.11.933.sxw directions and that too in the garb of projector having certain problems, is wholly contrary to the conditions stipulated in licence. This is not a fit case for interference inasmuch as there is no reason put forth for not exhibiting the promotional slides and message and the authorities were right in holding that the movie went on from 06:00 p.m. to 09:00 p.m. without any interruption, therefore, there was nothing wrong with the projector and machinery. In these circumstances, it is not for this Court to substitute its opinion with that of the authority or take a lenient view to reduce the period of suspension which has been rightly reduced by the authority. Once the tendency of the multiplex owners to violate the terms and conditions is noted and to curb the same, the impugned order is passed, then, no interference is necessary. 5 In all fairness, it must be stated that the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner argued that the authority while imposing the suspension vide order dated 25.01.2011 did not abide by the provisions of law inasmuch as the order can be effective as directed therein from the time the period prescribed for Appeal is over. Further, during the pendency of the appeal challenging the authority’s order, he has no power to recall the directions therein and reduce the period of suspension after the final order is passed. In this behalf, reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No.2703/1992 (Ramanlal Hemlal Bhatiya v/s State of Maharashtra) (Aurangabad Bench) decided on 10.06.2004. 6 To my mind, in the peculiar facts of this case, it is not necessary to enter into any larger controversy. The affidavit that has been filed by the Respondents would indicate that the order was passed pursuant to the show-cause notice and after due hearing to the Petitioner. In any event, the matter was considered by the Appellate Authority. The licence of the Petitioner’s establishment was initially suspended for a *7* wp.1733.1734.11.933.sxw period of seven days. The Petitioner challenged it. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order but has curtailed the period of suspension from 07 days to 04 days. From perusal of this affidavit, it is clear that it is not as if the law has been violated, but it has been clarified that to enable the Petitioner to appeal against the order, it was kept in abeyance. My attention is invited to a letter addressed in that behalf. In any event, the matter was taken up in appeal and in appeal, an application for stay was made. The Appellate Authority has considered all these aspects and has come to a conclusion that the mistake is admitted. That the slides and message were not shown being an admitted position and the reasons also not finding favour with the Appellate Authority, yet, he took a lenient view and reduced the period of suspension from 07 days to 04 days. In these circumstances, larger issue which has been raised need not be considered in the peculiar facts of this case. Similarly, the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner is also distinguishable in the above facts and circumstances. 7 The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) *8* wp.1733.1734.11.933.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1734 OF 2011 M/s Cinemax India Ltd.. ..Petitioner -Versus- Police Commissioner, Thane and another. ..Respondents .......... Ms.Amita Chavare, for the Petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 27th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 For the reasons recorded in the order passed today in Writ Petition No.1733/2011, this Writ Petition is also dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)