The Chief Commissioner, Ajmer vs Brij Niwas Das

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 310 of 1961

Decision Date: 17 April, 1962

Coram: Bhuvneshwar P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, Venkatarama Aiyar

In the matter titled The Chief Commissioner, Ajmer versus Brij Niwas Das, the Supreme Court of India rendered its judgment on the seventeenth day of April, 1962. The bench hearing the appeal comprised Justice Bhuvneshwar P. Sinha, Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar, Justice K. N. Wanchoo, and Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, with Justice T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar also mentioned in association with the bench. The petitioner in this case was the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer, while the respondent was Brij Niwas Das. The decision is reported in the 1963 volume of the All India Reporter at page 408 and also in the 1963 Supplementary Cause Reporter at page 145. The statutory provision under consideration was Section 12(4) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Act 37 of 1952), which deals with the conditions for the exhibition of indigenous and cultural films.

The factual backdrop involved the respondent’s operation of a public cinema theatre where he exhibited films. Under the authority granted by Section 12(4) of the Cinematograph Act, the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer issued a notification that imposed several requirements. Among those requirements, the notification stipulated that a specified percentage of each performance must consist of “approved films,” and it declared that any film produced in India and certified by the Central Government as a cultural film would automatically be classified as an “approved film.” These stipulations were reproduced in Condition No. 22 of the licence granted to the respondent. The respondent later failed to remit a certain sum to the Ministry of Information for the supply of these “approved films.” In response, the Ministry threatened to discontinue the supply of approved films to the respondent, prompting him to file a writ petition in the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 12(4), the notification, and the licence conditions.

The respondent’s principal argument was that Section 12(4) created two distinct categories of films—“cultural films” and “indigenous films”—which were intended to be alternatives rather than overlapping categories. He contended that Condition No. 22, by requiring that cultural films also be produced in India, effectively imposed an impossible or contradictory requirement and was therefore void. The High Court upheld the validity of Section 12(4) but held that Condition No. 22 was invalid and struck it down. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, which was required to determine whether the notification and Condition No. 22 were valid exercises of the power conferred by Section 12(4). The Court held that the term “indigenous films” in the statute is broad and unqualified, encompassing both cultural films and other types of Indian‑produced films in its ordinary meaning. Interpreting “indigenous films” to exclude cultural films would narrow the plain meaning of the words and introduce meanings not intended by the legislature. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the legislature meant exactly what it stated. Moreover, the phrase “produced in India” appearing in the notification and Condition No. 22 does not qualify the first category of films but rather refers to the second category, and therefore it falls within the scope of Section 12(4). The Court further found that requiring cultural films to be produced in India under the notification is permissible and intra vires of the statutory provision.

The Court affirmed that section twelve clause four of the Act and condition number twenty‑two, which had been framed in compliance with that provision, were valid. The matter arose under the civil appellate jurisdiction as Civil Appeal number three hundred ten of nineteen‑sixty‑one. The appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated fourteen May nineteen‑fifty‑eight issued by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, in writ application number two hundred thirty‑seven of nineteen‑fifty‑six. Counsel for the appellants and interveners consisted of the Additional Solicitor‑General of India, together with two other advocates, while the respondent failed to appear before the Court. The judgment was delivered on seventeen April nineteen‑sixty‑two by Justice Venkatarama Aiyar.

This appeal challenged the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which had been rendered on a certificate granted by that Court under article one hundred thirty‑three clause one of the Constitution. The respondent was engaged in the business of exhibiting films at a premises known as the Royal Talkies located in Beawar. Those exhibitions were conducted under licences issued by the appropriate authorities pursuant to the Cinematograph Act, nineteen‑fifty‑two (Act number thirty‑seven of nineteen‑fifty‑two), hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. Acting under the powers conferred by section twelve clause four of the Act, the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer issued a notification on twenty‑third November nineteen‑fifty‑four. The notification, after omitting non‑material portions, required that the licencee regulate the exhibition of cinematograph films so that, at every public performance, approved films were shown in a proportion of one to five, or the nearest lower or higher approximation. It further specified that only films produced in India and certified by the Central Government with prior approval of the Film Advisory Board, Bombay, as scientific, educational, news, current‑events or documentary films would be deemed approved for the purposes of those directions. This notification became effective on the first of December nineteen‑fifty‑four.

Subsequently, on twenty‑fourth November nineteen‑fifty‑five, the District Magistrate of Ajmer, who acted as the licensing authority under the Act, dispatched to the respondent a revised statement of licence conditions that incorporated the provisions of the aforementioned notification. The appeal concerned two of those conditions, namely condition numbers fifteen and twenty‑two, which are reproduced below to the extent that they are material. Condition fifteen stipulated that the licencee must, whenever required by the Chief Commissioner, exhibit films and lantern slides supplied by the Chief Commissioner either free of charge or on remuneration terms determined by the Chief Commissioner, subject to the limitation that no single entertainment could include films or slides whose total exhibition time exceeded fifteen minutes, and that such films or slides must be delivered to the licencee at least twenty‑four hours before the scheduled entertainment. Condition twenty‑two provided that the licencee shall, as often as the Chief Commissioner may direct, exhibit the supplied films and lantern slides either free of charge or on remuneration terms as determined by the Chief Commissioner.

Condition 22 required that “every such performance [be] in the same proportion as one is to five or the nearest lower or higher approximation thereto.” It further provided that “Only such films produced in India as are certified by the Central Government with the previous approval of the Films Advisory Board, Bombay to be scientific films, films intended for education purposes, films dealing with news, current events or documentary films shall be deemed to be approved films for the purposes of these directions.” On 25 July 1956 the Films Division of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, issued a demand to the respondent for a sum of Rs 274/1/‑. The demand was made on account of supplies of approved films that had been made to him during the period from 3 March 1956 to 5 August 1956, and the Division further warned that if the demand was not satisfied, further supplies of approved films would be stopped. The respondent contested his liability to pay the amount, asserting that the supply had not been made under any contract entered into by him but had been supplied voluntarily by the Government. Subsequent correspondence reiterated the Government’s position and eventually informed the respondent that refusal to pay the demanded sum would result in the cessation of further supplies of approved films and the cancellation of his licence. In response, the respondent filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer. The petition sought to challenge the constitutionality of section 12(4) of the Act, the notification dated 23 November 1954 issued under that section, and conditions 15 and 22 that had been inserted in the licence in accordance with the notification. The petition was transferred to a bench of the High Court of Rajasthan under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and by a judgment dated 14 May 1958 the learned judges upheld the validity of section 12(4) but struck down the impugned conditions 15 and 22 as not being authorised by section 12(4) of the Act. The Government appealed against that judgment, obtaining a certificate of appeal. Before this Court, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant, did not dispute the High Court’s finding that condition 15 was invalid, but he argued that the learned judges were incorrect in holding that condition 22 was not authorised by section 12(4) of the Act. Consequently, the sole point for determination in this appeal is whether the notification dated 23 November 1954 falls within the scope of section 12(4). If the notification is within that scope, then condition 22, which gives effect to it, is valid; if the notification is not within the scope, both the notification and condition 22 must be struck down as ultra vires. Section 12(4) of the Act provides: “The Central Government may, from time to time, issue directions to licensees generally or to any licensee in particular for the purpose of regulating the exhibition of.”

The statutory provision provided that the Central Government could, from time to time, issue directions to licensees generally or to any particular licensee for the purpose of regulating the exhibition of any film or class of films. The provision stated that such directions should ensure that scientific films, films intended for educational purposes, films dealing with news and current events, documentary films or indigenous films secured an adequate opportunity of being exhibited. It further declared that once such directions were issued, they would be deemed to be additional conditions and restrictions subject to which a licence would be granted.

It was observed that the enactment created two broad categories of films. The first category comprised scientific films, films intended for educational purposes, films dealing with news and current events and documentary films; for brevity, these were described as “cultural films.” The second category comprised “indigenous films.” The High Court had held that the use of the disjunctive “or” in the statute meant that the two categories were mutually exclusive. Accordingly, the High Court concluded that a provision requiring cultural films to be produced in India introduced a restriction on the first category that was not authorised by the statute, and that the words “produced in India” in condition 22 were therefore ultra vires. The Supreme Court rejected that view.

The Court noted that although the statute classifies films into two categories, it does not intend them to be mutually exclusive. The expression “indigenous films” was described as general and unqualified, and its ordinary meaning includes both cultural films and other films. To interpret the term as meaning “indigenous films other than cultural films” would truncate its plain meaning and would import words that do not appear in the legislation; such a construction had to be avoided. The Court therefore affirmed that the legislature meant exactly what it said.

The Court’s conclusion was reinforced by the policy underlying the enactment, which was to encourage the exhibition of two classes of films: cultural films and indigenous films. The policy allowed indigenous films to be either cultural or non‑cultural in nature. Consequently, the words “produced in India” found in the contested notification and in condition 22 were not to be read as a qualification attached to the first category of films, but as referring to the second category of indigenous films. In that sense, the requirement that cultural films be produced in India fell within the scope of section 12(4) and was therefore intra vires.

Accordingly, the Court held that the notification dated 23 November 1954, insofar as it required cultural films to be produced in India, was valid under section 12(4). Condition 22, which was framed in accordance with that notification, was also held to be valid. The order of the lower court was therefore modified to reflect this finding. Because the respondent did not appear, the Court did not make any order as to costs. The order was thus modified.