Reasonable restriction on cinema exhibition upheld in principle, but a fixed Kannada film screening mandate was struck down as arbitrary.

The Karnataka High Court held that the Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 conferred wide rule-making power to regulate film exhibition in licensed premises, so a rule requiring screening of Kannada films was within the statutory scheme and not ultra vires. It further held, however, that a fixed requirement that Kannada films be exhibited for 12 weeks each year was unreasonable and arbitrary because it imposed an inflexible burden, allowed no adjustment for local conditions or non-availability, and left no scope for exemption by the licensing authority. The 12-week condition was therefore struck down as violative of Article 19(1)(g).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rule-making power under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 extended to a rule requiring exhibition of Kannada films for a specified period in licensed cinemas; (ii) Whether the requirement that Kannada films be screened for 12 weeks in a year was a reasonable restriction or was arbitrary and violative of the right to carry on trade or business.

Issue (i): Whether the rule-making power under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 extended to a rule requiring exhibition of Kannada films for a specified period in licensed cinemas.

Analysis: The Act was read as regulating not merely cinematographs as apparatus, but the exhibition of films in licensed premises and allied matters incidental to that activity. The general rule-making power to carry out the purposes of the Act was held to be wide, and the illustrative matters in the provision were not treated as exhaustive. A rule directing exhibition of Kannada films was therefore held to be within the statutory scheme and capable of becoming part of the licence conditions.

Conclusion: The challenge to the competence of the State Government failed; the rule was within power and not ultra vires on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the requirement that Kannada films be screened for 12 weeks in a year was a reasonable restriction or was arbitrary and violative of the right to carry on trade or business.

Analysis: Although the object of encouraging Kannada films and promoting public interest was accepted, the fixed period of 12 weeks was found to be unsupported by material showing that it could be implemented without undue hardship in all theatres and localities. The requirement was held to impose an onerous and inflexible burden on exhibitors, leave no scope for exemption in cases of non-availability, and confer no role on the licensing authority to adjust the period according to local conditions. On that basis, the restriction was treated as excessive and unreasonable.

Conclusion: The 12-week requirement in Rule 7A and Condition 12A was struck down as arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The regulatory power of the State to require exhibition of Kannada films was upheld in principle, but the fixed statutory period of 12 weeks was invalidated as an unreasonable restraint on the petitioners' business freedom.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule made under a statute regulating cinematograph exhibitions may validly require exhibition of specified films in the interest of the public, but the restriction must be reasonable, flexible, and supported by relevant material; an inflexible condition imposing a fixed exhibition period without regard to local circumstances is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

---