Constitution of India Article 19(1) (c) and (2) Pre-censorship of films-If unconstitutional Cinematograph Act, 1952, s. 5-B-Provisions of Directions under s. 5-B(2)-If. vague and therefore unconstitutional.

The petitioner made a documentary film called "A Tale of Four Cities" which attempted to portray the contrast between the life of the rich and the poor in the four principal cities of the country. The film included certain shots of the red light district in Bombay. Although the petitioner applied to the Board of Film Censors for a 'U' Certificate for unrestricted exhibition of the film, he was granted a certificate only for exhibition restricted to adults. On an appeal made to it by the petitioner, the Central Government issued a direction on July 3, 1969 that a 'U' Certificate may be granted provided certain specified cuts were made in the film. The petitioner thereafter field the present petition seeking a declaration that the provisions of Part II of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, together with the rules prescribed by the Central Government on February 6, 1960 in the exercise of its powers under s. 5-B of the Act were un- constitutional and void; he further prayed that the direction dated July 3, 1969 should be quashed. The petitioner claimed that his fundamental right of free speech and expression was denied by the order of the Central Government and that he was entitled to a "U' Certificate for the film as of right.

At the hearing of the petition the Central Government indicated it had decided to grant a 'U' Certificate to the petitioner's film without the cuts previously ordered. The petitioner then applied for amendment of the petition so as to enable him to challenge pre-censorship as offensive to freedom of speech and expression and alternatively the provisions of the Act and the Rules, orders and directions under the Act as vague, arbitrary and indefinite. The Court allowed the amendment holding the petitioner was right in contending that a person who invests capital in promoting or producing a film must have clear guidance in advance in the matter of censorship of films even if the law of pre-censorship be not violative of the fundamental right.

It was contended inter alia on behalf of the petitioner (a) that pre- censorship itself violated the right to freedom of speech and expression; and (b) that even if it were a legitimate restraint on the freedom, it must be exercised on very definite principles which leave no room for arbitrary action.