Film certification and free speech prevailed over anticipatory law-and-order bans; State prohibitory orders were stayed.

Prior certification of a film for public exhibition, after the prescribed process with excisions and disclaimers, weighed against blanket State prohibition based on apprehended public disorder. The Court held at the interim stage that the statutory film-certification scheme and the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression required restraint on advance bans, and that the State's proper role was to maintain law and order during exhibition rather than prevent exhibition altogether. The notifications and orders prohibiting the film were stayed, and the States were restrained from issuing similar prohibitory orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State notifications and orders prohibiting exhibition of the film should be stayed pending final adjudication, in view of prior certification by the film certification authority and the competing claim of public order and law and order concerns.

Analysis: The film had been certified for public exhibition after the prescribed certification process, with excisions and disclaimers carried out. The impugned State measures were founded on public interest and law and order concerns, but the Court held, at the interim stage, that the parliamentary scheme governing film certification and the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression required protection against blanket State prohibition. The Court also noted that the State's obligation is to maintain law and order when the film is exhibited, rather than to prohibit exhibition in advance on the basis of apprehended disorder.

Conclusion: The notifications and orders banning exhibition of the film were stayed, and the States were restrained from issuing similar prohibitory orders.

---