TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Rule Regulating Cinemas</h1> <h3>Minerva Talkies, Bangalore and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 41-A under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, determining that it falls within the State ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of Rule 41-A under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Rules.2. Whether Rule 41-A places unreasonable restrictions on the appellants' right to carry on their business in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Rule 41-A under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Rules:The appellants challenged the validity of Rule 41-A, which limits the number of cinematograph shows to four per day, arguing that it was beyond the rule-making power of the State Government under Section 19 of the Karnataka Cinemas Regulations Act of 1964. The State Government contended that the rule was within the scope and purposes of the Act, aimed at regulating the exhibition of cinematograph films in licensed premises.The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Act, including the title, preamble, and express provisions, to discern the legislative intent. The Court noted that the primary purpose of the Act is to regulate the exhibition of cinematograph films in licensed premises. The Court found that Section 19 of the Act confers broad powers on the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act, including regulating the number of shows to ensure public safety, health, and convenience.The Court concluded that Rule 41-A is referable to the State Government's general powers under Section 19(1) and specific powers under Clauses (a) and (d) of Section 19(2). The rule, which limits the number of shows, is regulatory in nature and carries out the purposes of the Act.2. Whether Rule 41-A places unreasonable restrictions on the appellants' right to carry on their business in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:The appellants argued that Rule 41-A imposed unreasonable restrictions on their fundamental right to carry on their business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The State Government justified the rule by citing public safety, health, and convenience concerns arising from the continuous exhibition of five shows in a day.The Court examined whether the restrictions imposed by Rule 41-A were reasonable and in the interests of the general public, as required by Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The Court noted that the appellants' right to exhibit cinematograph films is regulated by the Act and the Rules, which are necessary to ensure public safety and health.The Court found that the restriction to limit the number of shows to four in a day was reasonable and necessary to address the issues of hygiene, safety, and compliance with existing rules. The Court held that the restriction was not prohibitory but regulatory, and it did not place any unreasonable burden on the appellants' right to carry on their business.The Court referred to similar cases, including the Patna High Court's decision in Vishnu Talkies v. State of Bihar, which upheld a similar restriction on the number of shows as reasonable and in the public interest.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that Rule 41-A is intra vires the Act and does not place any unreasonable restriction on the appellants' fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The appeals and writ petitions were dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
