Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Section 5B in The Cinematograph Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
The Cinematograph Act, 1952
The Defence of India Act, 1962
S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989
In other words, as observed by
the Apex Court in S.Rangarajan (supra), freedom of
expression which is legitimate and constitutionally
protected cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group
of people. It is settled that in matters like this, the
contents of films are to be judged from the standards of
WPC No.20257 of 2017 26
reasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous men and
not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who
scent danger in every hostile point of view. The stand
taken by the Central Government that documentary films
on student agitations in the campuses and discussions in
the films as regards the correctness or otherwise of the
issues which prompted the student agitation would give
wrong message to the students cannot therefore be
appreciated. I also fail to understand as to how such films
would instigate students to vitiate the campus atmosphere
with their protest and violence. Equally un-understandable
is the stand that national-anti national debate discussed in
the film would lead to violence, for, such debates take
place on a day-to-day basis in all the news channels in the
country.
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State Of Bihar And Others on 7 September, 1965
It was held so by the
Apex court in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar
(AIR 1966 SC 740). That was a case of detention under
the Defence of India Act which permits detention of
persons likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the
WPC No.20257 of 2017 18
maintenance of public order. The question arose for
consideration in the said case was whether a mere
disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is
sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act. It was
explained by the Apex Court in the said case that though
contravention of law would always affect public order, but
before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect
the community or the public at large. In the
circumstances, according to me, the expression 'law and
order' contained in Ext.P4 guidelines has to be read down
as 'public order', as otherwise the same may not conform
to the provisions contained in Article 19(2) of the
Constitution. I have read down Ext. P4 guidelines in the
aforesaid fashion, instead of interfering with the same, for,
otherwise the Central Government may not be in a
position to decline exemption on account of reasons
attributable to the maintenance of public order which is
WPC No.20257 of 2017 19
permissible in terms of article 19 (2) of the Constitution.
1