2000 (11) TMI 458

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ereinafter called the said Act) as amended by Act No. 49 of 1981. In the Writ petition the challenge was to the constitutional validity of Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5D, 6(1) and 7(1). By the impugned Judgment Sections 3(1), 4(1), 5D and 7(1) were held to be constitutionally valid. However, portions of Section 6(1) have been held to be unconstitutional and those portions have been struck down. 3. It must be mentioned that, in the case of K.A. Abbas v. Union of India reported in AIR 1971 S.C. 481, the validity of certain provisions of the said Act had been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that an appeal from a decision of the Board should lie to a Court or to an independent Tribunal and not to the Central Government. The Solicitor Gen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 6(1). It reads as follows : "6(1) : Notwithstanding anything contained in the part, the Central Government may, of its own motion, at any stage, call for the record of any proceeding in relation to any film which is pending before, or has been decided by, the Board, or as the case may be, decided by the Tribunal (but for including any proceeding in respect of any matter which is pending before the Tribunal) and after such inquiry, into the matter as it considers necessary, make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit, and the Board shall dispose of the matter in conformity with such order : Provided that no such order shall be made prejudicially affecting any person applying for a certificate or to whom a certificate has bee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal, consisting of a retired Judge of a High Court or a person qualified to be a Judge of a High Court and other experts in the field, gives its decision that decision would be final and binding so far as the Executive and the Government is concerned. To permit the Executive to review and/or revise that decision would amount to interference with the exercise of judicial functions by a quasi-judicial Board. It would amount to subjecting the decision of a quasi-judicial body to the scrutiny of the Executive. Under our Constitution the position is reverse. The Executive has to obey judicial orders. Thus, Section 6(1) is a travesty of the rule of law which is one of the basic structures of the Constitution. The Legislature may, in certain cases....