Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)Union Of India vs K. M. Shankarappa on 6 November, 2000
15. Rule 32 of the said Rules has little application after the decision
of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa
(supra). Even if it is accepted - which this Court does not - that the
said Rule could be applied, it was necessary that the said Rule be read
in conjunction with Section 6 of the Act. The Cinematograph
(Certification) Rules, 1983 have been framed by the Central
Government in exercise of powers under Section 8 of the
Cinematograph Act, 1952, which is for the purpose of carrying into
effect the provisions of the Act. Thus, the said Rule has to be
interpreted in a manner so as to ensure that there is no repugnancy
with the main provisions of the Act. If Section 6(1) of the Act was
valid, the Central Government was required to exercise its revisional
powers strictly in the manner as specified therein. It was required to
hold an inquiry and pass an order after hearing the applicant. The
CBFC in turn, would pass an order in conformity with revisional order
passed by the Central Government. In terms of Sub-rule (5) of Rule
32 of the said Rules, the Central Government was required to conduct
an inquiry after receipt of the opinion of the Chairman of CBFC and
then, pass an order. In terms of proviso to Section 6(1), such order
could be passed only after hearing the person applying for the
W.P.(C) 674/2015 Page 14 of 15
certificate or to whom the certificate has been granted. As stated
above, this procedure has not been complied with.
K.M. Shankarappa vs Union Of India on 2 April, 1990
11. At this stage, it is also relevant to mention that in K.M.
Shankarappa v. Union of India (supra), the Karnataka High Court
had held that Section 6(1) of the Act, insofar as it enables the Central
Government to exercise the power of revision against the decision of
CBFC and FCAT, is violative of the basic structure of the
Constitution. The Central Government had appealed against the said
decision before the Supreme Court.
Section 5C in The Cinematograph Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 3 August, 1988
3.9 Thereafter, on 21.08.2014, the Ministry of Home Affairs sent a
letter stating that the contents of the film appeared to be contrary to
certain observations made by the Supreme Court in its decision in the
matter of Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.): (1998) 3
SCC 609. It was also stated that the said feature film is likely to cause
a serious law and order situation by arousing sentiments of the people
and further cause disaffection amongst the armed forces. The Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting was requested to take immediate
action under the Act or any other provisions as may be deemed
necessary.
Section 8 in The Cinematograph Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
M/S Prakash Jha Productions & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 August, 2011
4. Mr Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner, has assailed the impugned orders on, essentially, two fronts.
First, he submitted that the Chairperson of CBFC had no power to
W.P.(C) 674/2015 Page 6 of 15
review and cancel the certificate that was issued by CBFC. He
contended that the said certification was issued by CBFC after the
Revising Committee had viewed the feature film on two occasions.
He submitted that there was no provision in the Act which empowered
the Chairperson to override the decision of the Revising Committee.
Next, he submitted that the feature film did not violate any guidelines
and withdrawal of certification was violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court in M/s Prakash Jha Productions and Anr. v. Union of India
and Ors.: (2011) 8 SCC 372 in support of his contention that once a
feature film has been certified by CBFC for public exhibition, it
cannot be subjected to further censorship by the Government.
Union Of India vs K. M. Shankarappa on 28 November, 2000
5. Ms Maninder Acharya, learned ASG appearing on behalf of
respondent no.1, fairly drew the attention of this Court to a decision
rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.M.
Shankarappa: (2001) 1 SCC 582 and the decision of the High Court
of Karnataka in K.M. Shankarappa v. Union of India: ILR 1990
KAR 4082. She submitted that notwithstanding the above decisions,
the Central Government has the power under Section 6(2) of the Act
to direct that a film, which has been granted certification, be deemed
to be an uncertified film in any part or the whole of India. She handed
over a compilation of letters dated 21.08.2014 (as referred to above)
and relied upon Rule 32 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules,
1983 in support of her contention. She contended that the decision to
W.P.(C) 674/2015 Page 7 of 15
withdraw certification was in accordance with Rule 32 of the said
Rules.
1