VASIREDDY SEETHA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this case is a literary figure of great repute. She is a distinguished person in the field of literature and is credited with several awards of renown and distinction for her literary work. She is currently working as the Director of Jawahar Bal Bhavan under the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. She has published several novels and is the author of hundreds of short stories which are read on wide scale. It would not be necessary to go into the details of her academic achievements, for, it seems to be a well-known fact that she has made a name for herself in the field of education, arts and literature. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned proceedings No. 811/5/85-F(c) dated 1-4-1987 issued by the 1st respondent lie within a narrow compass. By a notification dated 14-2-1985 issued by the Ministry of Human Reasources, Department of Culture, the petitioner was appointed, along with seven others as a Member of the Advisory Panel of the Board of Film Certification at Hyderabad. The other seven names are also of persons who have carved out a place for themselves in the various fields of their literary pursuit. The petitioner having thus been appointed as a member, was obviously looking forward for active participation in the activities of the Advisory Panel of the Board of Film Certification, constituted at the regional level in Hyderabad. The primary object of the Advisory Panel, i,e., the second respondent herein, is to examine the films and advise about the certification to the Board of Film Certification. The procedure adopted for this purpose is examination by rotation by Four Members out of the total Eight Members for a recommendation of certification for the film. The petitioner realised that she was being excluded from the meetings of the Advisory Panel convened for the purpose of certification of films though she was participating now and then in the routine business of the Advisory Panel. She has addressed a letter on 21-10-1986 to the 3rd respondent enquiring about her exclusion from the activity of certification of films. It seems, on 5-11-1986 she was invited to the meeting to discuss the various items of agenda. She was also invited to the other meetings of the Board, but not, significantly enough, to the meeting convened for the main pupose of certifying the films as being suitable for exhibition to the public at large. She made oral enquiries about the same which do not seem to have borne any fruit. Be that as it may, a notification dated 1st April, 1987 was issued in the Gazette in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5(1) of Cinematograph Act, 1952, read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 declaring that the petitioner ceases to be a member of the Board of Film Certification, Hyderabad, with immediate effect. It is this notification which is now sought to be quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari by the petitioner.

(2.) In order to examine the legality of the notification dated 1-4-1987, it would be imperative to examine closely the relevant provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, which have a bearing on the matter. Nevertheless, before embarking upon the clauses of the relevant sections and the rules, as indicated above, it may be necessary to mention that in the counter-affidavit filed in this case, the main ground taken for the cessation of the membership of the petitioner of the advisory panel is that the Central Government was not aware of the fact that the petitioner is a full-time State Government employee and in ignorance of such a fact, she was appointed a? a Memeber of the Advisory Panel. It is further stated that this came to light when respondent No. 3 requested the petitioner to furnish particulars in respect of her address, telephone numbers etc., in writing. In response to such a querry, the petitioner informed the respondent of the fact that she is a regular State Government employee on a full time basis and indeed she is now working as the Director of Jawahar Bal - Bhavan in Hyderabad Therefore, the crucial question to be considered is whether there is any legal bar against a full time State Government employee to be a Member of the Advisory Panel Keeping this question in view, a reading of Section 5 (1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is to be done. It would be in the fitness of things to reproduce Section 5 of the said Act, which runs as hereunder : Section 5. Advisory Panels :

(3.) It is clear from a reading of the above section that the Central Government may establish at such regional centres as it thinks fit, Advisory Panel, each of which consists such number of persons being persons qualified in the opinion of the Central Government to judge the effect of films on the public. The essential point involved in the scheme of Section 5 is that the Advisory Panel should consist of persons, who, in the opinion of the Central Government, are fit to "judge the effect of films on the public". There cannot be two opinions about the fact that 'judging' a film is a fairly important activity in a modern welfare State, for the reason that films, especially in our country, are a very powerful media of mass communication to the public at large. But significantly enough, there is not a whisper in Section 5 which can be read to disqualify a person from the membership on the ground that such a person is a fulltime State Government employee. This proposition may be tested again in the light of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983. Rule 7 is in the following terms :