Certified film screening cannot be suppressed by informal state action; lawful exhibition requires constitutional protection and public law compensation.

A duly certified film cannot be obstructed by executive or police pressure outside the statutory scheme under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and related law; informal directions, intimidation, or withdrawal pressure were unlawful and constitutionally impermissible. The State also bore a positive constitutional duty to protect lawful screening and safeguard exhibitors and viewers, rather than yielding to threatened disorder, because freedom of speech and expression requires conditions for its exercise. The resulting interference with lawful exhibition and business was treated as actionable in public law, justifying mandamus, protective directions, and compensation for violation of fundamental rights.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State authorities, despite certification of the film by the Central Board of Film Certification, unlawfully obstructed its exhibition by extra-constitutional means; (ii) whether the State was under a constitutional duty to protect the screening of the film and the safety of exhibitors and viewers; and (iii) whether the Petitioners were entitled to relief including compensation for violation of fundamental rights.

Issue (i): Whether the State authorities, despite certification of the film by the Central Board of Film Certification, unlawfully obstructed its exhibition by extra-constitutional means.

Analysis: Once a film is duly certified for public exhibition, the statutory scheme under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 leaves no room for informal or indirect obstruction by executive or police authorities outside the law. The authorities had not invoked the statutory powers under the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1954 or the Cinematograph Act, 1952, yet the film was withdrawn from theatres shortly after release. Such conduct was treated as an abuse of public power and a subversion of the rule of law, because censorship or restraint could arise only through lawful statutory action and not through pressure, intimidation, or informal directions.

Conclusion: The obstruction to the exhibition of the film was unlawful and constitutionally impermissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the State was under a constitutional duty to protect the screening of the film and the safety of exhibitors and viewers.

Analysis: The right to freedom of speech and expression carries with it a corresponding duty on the State to create conditions in which that freedom can be exercised. The State cannot remain passive when organized interests threaten lawful expression, and it must maintain law and order by protecting exhibitors and viewers rather than yielding to threats of disturbance. The statutory power to suspend exhibition under the relevant enactments could not be replaced by informal police interference, and the constitutional guarantee under Article 19(1)(a) required affirmative protection of lawful exhibition.

Conclusion: The State was bound to protect the film's lawful screening and the safety of those associated with it.

Issue (iii): Whether the Petitioners were entitled to relief including compensation for violation of fundamental rights.

Analysis: The withdrawal of the film from theatres caused a direct infringement of the Petitioners' rights to free speech and expression and to carry on a lawful business. The Court treated the infringement as actionable in public law and found that remedial compensation was warranted because the harm flowed from unconstitutional state action and omission. The directions previously issued to ensure screening and security were maintained and confirmed.

Conclusion: The Petitioners were entitled to mandamus, protective directions, and public law compensation.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the impugned interference with the film's exhibition was condemned as unconstitutional, protective directions were continued, and monetary compensation was awarded to the Petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: A duly certified film cannot be obstructed by executive or police action outside statutory authority, and the State has a positive constitutional duty to protect lawful artistic expression against informal suppression and intimidation.

---