Holding

The requirement of CBFC certification for entry into the National Film Awards is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) and does not violate Article 14; the exemptions for film institutes and Doordarshan are illegal but cannot be invoked to obtain a similar exemption.

Summary

Documentary filmmakers sought to enter non‑feature films for the National Film Awards, challenging regulations that required certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and release on film format. They argued that entry did not constitute public exhibition, making certification an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech (Art 19(1)(a)) and that exemptions for film institutes and Doordarshan were discriminatory (Art 14). The High Court struck down the certification requirement, but the Government appealed. The Supreme Court held that the certification requirement is a reasonable restriction under Art 19(2) aimed at ensuring only films intended for public exhibition are considered for awards, and therefore constitutional. The exemptions for film institutes and Doordarshan are illegal, but cannot be used to claim a similar exemption for other filmmakers. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the High Court judgment except for a direction permitting entry of non‑feature films in digital format.

Issues considered

Whether restricting entry to the National Film Awards to films certified by the CBFC is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and violates Article 19(2).
Whether the policy of allowing uncertified films in non‑commercial film festivals should be extended to the National Film Awards.
Whether the exemption granted to films made by Film Institutes and entries made by Doordarshan, while requiring certification for others, violates the equality clause under Article 14.

Legislation cited

Cinematograph Act, 1952s. Section 3, s. Section 4, s. Section 5A, s. Section 5B, s. Section 9
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 19(1)(a), s. Article 19(2)

Subjects

National Film AwardsCertificationCentral Board of Film CertificationArticle 19Article 14EqualityDiscriminationFilm FestivalsCinematograph ActDigital formatExemptionFilm InstitutesDoordarshan

Judgment

.•
DIRECTORATE OF FILM FESTIVALS AND ORS. A
v.
- ' GA URAV ASHWIN JAIN AND ORS.

APRIL 11, 2007

[TARUNCHATTERJEEANDR.V.RAVEENDRAN,JJ.] B

Constitution of India-Article 14 & 19(J)(a)---Cinematograph Act,
\_ 19S2-Sections 4, SA, SB & 9-Regulations providing requirement of
certification of films by Central Board of Film Certification for entry to
National Film Awards and exempting such requirement for films produced by
c
Film Institutes and films entered by Doordarshan-Writ Petition by film
makers challenging the requirement of certification was allowed by High
Court-Correctness of-Held, Government's policy to restrict entry for
National Film Awards only to those films certified by the Board for public
exhibition is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution D
and therefore constitutional-Wisdom or soundness of such policy decision
cannot be subject to judicial review-Purpose and object of Film Festivals
and National Film Awards are different and hence, cannot be a basis for
seeking similar exemption of certification-Exemption of requirement of
certification for films produced by Film Institutes and entries made by
Doordarshan is illegal under the Act but a similar illegal exemption cannot E
be claimed without challenging such exemption.

Appellant-Directorate of Film Festivals under the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting organiz.es National Film Awatds ever year. The
awards are given to feature films as also non-feature films. Respondents, who
F
were documentary film makers, intended to enter the Non-Feature Films
.... ·i category for the National Awards for a particular year but were aggrieved
with eligibility requirements prescribed by the Directorate, for non-feature ·
films, in Regulation lO(e) of the National Film Awards Regulations that the
films should have been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification.
Regulation lO(d) stipulated similar requirements for feature films. The G
respondents filed Writ Petition before High Court seeking declaration that
Regulation lO(d) and (e) of the National Film Awards Regulations were violative
)- of Article 14 and 19(1Xa) of the Constitution. The respondents contended that
as the entries for National Film Awards did not involve any public exhibition
7 H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 5 S.C.R.

A and were viewed only by a select jury, there was no need for certification by
the Board under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and hence restricting the i -

entry to only films certified by the Board is an unreasonable restriction on
the fundamental right of the film makers violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution; that if the films could be entered in Film Festivals without
certification from the Board, there is no reason why they should not be so
B entered for the National Film Awards; and that by exempting films prod,uced
by Film Institutes and entries made by Doordarshan from the requirement of
certification by the Board while insisting on such certification by the Board
in the case of other films for entry for the National Film Awards is
discriminatory violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court
-'-
c allowed the Writ Petition. Hence the appeal before this Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The right of a film maker to make and exhibit his film is a
part of his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under
D Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution oflndia. A film is a medium for expressing
and communicating ideas, thoughts, messages, information, feelings and
emotions. It may be intended either for public exhibition or purely for private
use. The requirement under sections 4 and SA of the Cinematograph Act,
1952 relating to certification by the Central Board of Film Certification, where
the film is intended for public exhibition, by applying the guidance principles
E set out in section 58, is a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the said
right of speech and expression contemplated under Article 19(2) and therefore
constitutional. [Para 13] [17-G-H; 18-A]

K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, AIR (1971) SC 481; S. Rangarajan v. P.
Jagjivan Ram, [1989] 2 SCC 574 and Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
F Manubhai D. Shah, [1992] 3 SCC 637, referred to.

1.2. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is well defined.
·- )-

Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate authorities examining the
correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts
G Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled
to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the
Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the
citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution or opposed to any ~

statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy
either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer
H or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy and not the wisdom or
DIRECTORATE OF FILM FESTIVALS v. GA URA V ASHWIN JAIN 9

.!,
soundness of the policy is the subject of judicial review. [Para 14] (18-D-E] A
Asif Hameed v. State of J&K, [1989] Supp. 2 SCC 364; Shri Sitaram
Sugar Co. Ltd v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 223; Khoday Distilleries v.
State of Karnataka, [1996) 10 SCC 304; Ba/co Employees Union v. Union of
India, (2002] 2 SCC 333; State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash, (2005] 13 SCC
495 and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006] 4 B
sec 162, referred to.
':>.. 1.3. The Government's policy for National Film Awards is to restrict
entry to only those films which have been certified by the Board for exhibition,
that is films intended for public exhibition. The Government is not interested
in evaluating or giving an award to a film which may never be seen by the
c
public, or at all events never be •een in an 'uncensored' form. Its object is to
select the best from among those which the public can see and enjoy or gain
knowledge. The said policy neither relates to nor interferes with the right of
a film maker either to make films, or to apply for certificate or to exhibit the
films. There is nothing mogical, unreasonable or arbitrary about a policy to D
select only the best from among films certified for public exhibition. This
Court, cannot in judicial review, change that policy by requiring the
i-
Government to select the best among 'films made' instead of 'films made and
certified for public exhibition'. The requirement that films should have been
certified by the Central Board of Film Certification for entry for the National
Film Awards is nilt an unreasonable restriction of any fundamental right of E
the respondents or other film makers. [Para 15] [ 18-G-H; 19-A-BJ

1.4. The object of Film Festivals and the object of National Film Awards
ai:e different Film Festivals are held, to provide a platform for film makers
from all over the world to meet, exchange ideas, explore the possibility of co-
F
.. production, market films and to broaden the vision of film makers. On the
other hand, the object of National Film Awards is to encourage the production
?f films of aesthetic and technical excellence and social relevance, which will
contribute to the understanding and appreciation of cultures of different
regions of the country and promote national integration and unity. When the
purpose and object of Film Festivals and National Film Awards are completely G
different, the conditions that are made applicable, or the exemptions that are
granted, in respect of Film Festivals, cannot automatically be applied to
I<:
National Film Awards. The two being unequal and dissimilar, the question of
applying the same standards or norms do not arise. Nor can application of
different norms to Film Festivals and National Film Awards, lead to a complaint
H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A of discrimination. Applying different yardsticks to different events, to achieve
different objects cannot be considered as discriminatory. [Para 18] [20-D-G] !
1.5. In law, a writ petitioner has not established a right or is not entitled
to relief, the fact that a similarly situated person has been illegally granted
relief, is not a ground to direct similar relief to him. That would be enforcing
B a negative equality by perpetuation of an illegality which is impermissible in
law. [Para 20] (21-C]

Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, (1995] 1 SCC 745 and
Gurcharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1996] 2 SCC 459,
relied on.
c
1.6. There are no special circumstances for exempting the films entered
by Doordarshan. The exemption given under Regulation tO(g) of the National
Film Awards Regulations is not for films made by Doordarshan, but films
entered by Doordarshan. This means that any film made by any independent
D film maker when entered by Doordarshan becomes eligible without
certification by the Board. It is also to be noted that Regulation tO(g) requires
a certificate from the Director General, Doordarshan that the non-feature
film has been produced within the eligibility period, but does not require a 1-
certificate from the Director General that the film entered has been viewed
by him and it complies with the principles/guidelines relating to certification
E under section SB of the Act. In the circumstances, this Court does not find
any basis for a classification treating entries by Doordarshan as a special
class requiring exemption. [Para 24] [24-E-G]

1.7. The exemptions in favour of films made by Film Institutes and films
entered by Doordarshan will amount to recognizing the Heads of such
F institutes or institutions as equal to Central Board for Film Certification and
entrusting thl! Heads of such institutions with the power of Central Board ·-
for film certification. Appellants have not placed any material justifying
reposing of such confidence in persons other than the Central Board for Film
Certification. Nor can such parallel authorities be recognized, having regard
G to the provisions of the Cinematograph Act. Further exemption under
Regulations 10(1) and (g) cannot be equated to exemption under section 9 of
the Act Hence, the exemptions in favour of Film Institutes and entries made
by Doordarshan were illegal and other film makers cannot claim similar
exemption. [Para 25] [24-H; 25-A-B]

H 1.8. A film maker can challenge an illegal exemption in favour of Film
DIRECTORATE OF FILM FESTIVALS v. GA URA V ASHWIN JAIN [RA VEEN ORAN, J] 11

Institutes and Doordarshan under clauses 10(1) and (g) of the Regulations A
but cannot claim a similar exemption by placing reliance on such illegality.
Therefore, the challenge to the words "and certified by the Central Board of
Film Certification" in Regulation IO(d) and (e) has no merit. The respondents
have not challenged the validity of Regulation 10(1) and (g) granting exemption
to films made by Film Institutes or films entered by Doordarshan. Therefore,
no relief can be granted to the respondents in that behalf. B
[Para 26[ [25-C-D)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1892 of2007.
..... ~
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2006 of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in C.W.P. No. 1448 of2006. c

- Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Indra Sawhney and V.K. Verma for the Appellants.

Prashant Bhushan, Indra Unninayar and Parul Kaur Majethia for the
Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. I. Leave granted.
t
The judgment dated 27.7.2006 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.1448
> of 2006 is under challenge in this appeal.
E
2. The Directorate of Film Festivals under the Ministry of Information
& Broadcasting organizes National Film Awards ('NFA' for short) every year,
on behalf of the Government of India. The awards are given to feature films
• as also non-feature films. The respondents who are documentary film makers,
intended to enter their Non-Feature Films for the 53rd National filtn Awards
for the year 2005. Respondents were aggrieved by the following two eligibility F
requirements prescribed by the Directorate, for non-feature films, in clause (e)
of Regulation IO of the 53rd NFA Regulations : (i) that the films should have
been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification ('Board' for short);
and (ii) that the films should have been released only on a film (celluloid)
format, even if they were shot in digital format. Clause (d) of Regulation I0 G
,j
stipulated similar requirements in regard to feature films. The Respondents,
therefore, filed WP No.1448/2006, seeking a declaration that Regulations I0(d)
)< and (e) of the 53rd National Film Award Regulations were violative of Articles
14 and I 9(1)(a) of the Constitution. They also sought a consequential
declaration that films made and released on either 'film format' or 'digital
format' are eligible for entry, without any certification by the Board. H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A Reasons for the First Grievance

3. The Respondents submitted that films are works of art, made in
exercise of the fundamental right of speech and expression. Films are accepted
as entries for awards and for exhibition in International Film Festivals all over
the world, without any kind of censorship so that the select audience can
B view the films in their pristine form and appreciate the creative talent of the
film makers as also the theme and content of the films. Recognizing the said
tradition, the Ministry evolved a policy in respect of non-commercial Film
Festivals and exempted all entries from the requirement of certification by the
Board. As the entries for National Film Awards did not involve any public _j .....
c exhibition, and were viewed only by a select jury (consisting of persons
distinguished in the fields of cinema and allied arts and humanities), there was

D
no need for certification by the Board under the Cinematograph Act, 1952
('Act' for short). If films could be entered in Film Festivals (where the audience
consist of not only Juries, but also film-makers, film media students, critics,
film theorists, film lovers) without certification from the Board, there is no
reason why they should not be so entered for NFAs (where the audience
-
consisted of only the Jury).

4. It was also submitted that films made by the Film Institutes and films
entered by Doordarshan for NFAs were exempted from the requirement of
certification by the Board. The logic for exempting those films applied equally
E to other films also. The action of the Directorate in exempting films produced
by Film Institutes and entries made by Doordarshan from certification while
insisting on such certification by the Board in the case of other films for entry
for NF As amounted to hostile discrimination.

Reasons for the Second Grievance
F
5. According to the respondents, most non-feature films are shot and
released in digital format, a far superior technology when compared to film ·-
format. Non-feature films, being non-commercial, are rarely screened in cinema
theatres. They are mostly screened on television or to select audiences, which
G does not require conversion into film format. It is, therefore, a sheer waste of
resources to convert non-feat:ire films shot in digital format into film format,
only for the purpose of entry in National Film Awards. Conversion from digital
to a film (celluloid) format involves huge expenditure and most of the ,,(,
independent documentary film-makers, who operate on a tight budget, cannot
afford the expense of conversion. It was submitted that restricting entry to
H only films released on film format, would prevent most of the non-feature films
DIRECTORATE OF FILM FESTIVALS» GAURAV ASHW!N JAIN [RA VEENDRAN, J.J J3

from being entered for National Film Awards. A
Decision of the High Court

6. When the said writ petition was taken up for hearing by the High
Court, the appellants herein (respondents in the writ petition) submitted that
the Directorate had decided to accept the entry of non-feature films on digital B

- >-
format. Therefore, the sole issue that required consideration related to the
requirement of a certificate by the Central Board for NFA entries.

7. The High Court held that there was no difference between films
entered for awards in Film Festivals and films entered for National Film
c
Awards; that there was also no difference between films produced by Film
lnstitutes/Doordarshan and films produced by others, for purposes of entry
for National Film Awards; and that the requirement relating to certification by
Board in respect of film makers other than Film Institutes and Doordarshan
amounted to hostile discrimination. It, therefore, allowed the writ petition by
its judgment dated 27.7.2006 holding that the words "and certified by the
D
Central Board ofFilm Certification" in Regulations IO(d) and (e) were violative
t of Article 14 and void, and the said two clauses should be read without those
words. The High Court however, reserved liberty to appellants to impose a
condition similar to Regulation 8 of the Mumbai International Film Festival,
2006 ('MJFF-2006' for short) which read as follows:
E
"Selection of fihns/videos for Competition will be made by a Committee
whose decision will be final. However, Festival Authorities reserve the
right to accept or not to accept any film, if it is likely to offend the
feelings and sensibilities of any country and/or promote racism or any
other reason Festival Authority consider to be sufficient for acceptance
or non-acceptance of a film/video." F
The High Court directed the Appellants to permit film-makers to enter their
films in digital format without any certification from the Central Board·of Film
Certification. As the High Court found that the requirement relating to
certification by the Board was violative of Article 14 and therefore, invalid,
it did not examine the issue with reference to Article 19(I)(a).
G
'y
Questions for consideration

8. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, the Directorate
of Film Festivals (NFA), Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government
H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A of India, have filed this appeal by special leave. On the rival submissions, the
following three questions arise for consideration:

(i) Whether restricting the entry, for National Film Awards, to only
films certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, is an
unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of film makers,
B violative of Article 19(J)(a) of the Constitution.

(ii) Whether the Directorate, having permitted entry of films in an
uncensored format for awards in Non-Commercial Film Festivals, should
do so in respect of National Film Awards also.

C (iii) Whether exempting films made by Film Institutes and films entered
by Doordarshan from the requirement of certification by the Board,
while requiring certification by the Board in the case of others, is
discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Legal Provisions
D
9. The relevant provisions of the 53rd National Film Award Regulations,
which regulated the eligibility for entry for awards and the procedure for
selection for Awards, are:

"Aims
E 2. The Awards aim at encouraging the production of films of aesthetic,
and technical excellence and social relevance contributing to the
understanding and·appreciation of cultures of different regions of the
country in cinematic form, thereby also promoting integration and
unity of the nation."
F Eligibility

"10.(a) Only those persons whose names are on the credit titles of the
film and are normally residing and working in India shall be eligible
for the Awards. The film shou Id have been produced in India. In the
case of co-productions involving a foreign entity, the following
G
conditions should be fulfilled :-

(a) ........ .

(b) The film should ha;;e been certified by the Central Board of Film
Certification between Isl January 2005 and 31st December 2005.
H
DIRECTORATE OF FILM FESTIVALS v. GA URA V ASHWIN JAIN [RA VEENDRAN, J.JJ 5

(c) The Director of tbe film shou Id be an Indian national. A
(d) Films made in any Indian language, shot on 16 mm, 35 mm or in
a wider gauge or digital format but released on a film format and
certified by the Central Board of Film Certification as a feature film
or featurette are eligible for feature film section. In the case of award
for Best Children's Film only such films shall be eligible as have been B
certified by the Central Board of Film Certification as Children's
films .......
>- (e) Films made in any Indian language, shot on 16 mm, 35 mm or in
a wider gauge or digital format but released on film format and certified
by the Central Board of Film Certification as a Documentary/ C
Newsreel/Non-Fiction/Short-Fiction are eligible for non-feature film
section .......

(t) A film produced by a film institute running diploma/degree courses
run by it which are recognized by the Government of India shall be
eligible even without certification by the Central Board of Film D
Certification, provided a specific certificate from the Head of the
·\ organization to the effect that the film has been produced within the
eligibility period, is sent along with the entry form.

(g) Entries made by Doordarshan for the non feature film section
shall be eligible without certification by Central Board of Film E
Certification provided that a specific certificate, from Director General,
Doordarshan to the effect that the non feature film has been produced
within the eligibility period, is sent along with the entry form.

(h) & (i) ..
F
(j) All entries should be in the version certified by the Central Board
of Film Certification, except films as per provisions of clause (t) and
Clause (g) above."

Last date for receipt of entry :
G
13. Last date for receipt of the application along with the print in the
Directorate of film Festivals shall be the 19th May, 2006.

Procedure for selection :

"19. (a) The Awards shall be decided by two juries, one for feature
H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A films and other for non-feature fil1:11s, duly constituted by the
Directorate with the approval of the Government of India.

(b) The Jury for Feature films shall comprise a Chairperson and not
more than 16 members distinguished in the field of cinema, other allied
arts and humanities.
B
(c) The Jury for Non Feature Films shall comprise a Chairman and not
more than 6 members distinguished in the field of cinema, other allied
arts and humanities.

c 25. The juries shall have the discretion to recommend that an award
in any particular category may not be given if they are of the opinion
that the entries in that category are not of the required standard."

10. Certification of films for exhibition and regulation of exhibition by
D means of cinematograph is governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 ('Act'
for short). Part II of the Act relates to certification of films for public exhibition.
Section 3 provides for constitution of the Board of Film Certification (earlier
known as Board of Film Censors). Sections 4 and 5A provide for examination '
and certification of films. They require any person desiring to exhibit any film,
to make an application to the Board for a certificate. The Board, after examining
E the film, can sanction the film for unrestricted public exhibition, or for public
exhibition restricted to adults, or for public exhibition restricted to members
of any profession or any class of persons, having regard to the nature,
content and theme of the film. The Board can also direct the applicant to carry
out excisions or modifications or even to refuse sanction of the film for public
F exhibition. Section 5B lays down the principles for guidance in certifying
films. Sub-section (I) thereof provides that a film shall not be certified for
public exhibition if, in the opinion of the authority competent to grant the
certificate, the film or any part of it is against the interests of the sovereignty
and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt
G of Court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence. Sub-section (2)
authorizes the Central Government to issue such directions as it may :hink
fit setting out the principles which shall guide the authority competent to
grant certificates under the Act in sanctioning films for public exhibition
subject to the provisions of sub-section (I). Section 9 relates to power to
exempt and is extracted below :
H
DIRECTORATE OFFILM FESTIVALS v. GA URA V ASHWIN JAIN [RA VEENDRAN, J.] 17

"The Central Government may, by order in writing exempt, subject to A
---\ such conditions and restrictions, if any, as it may impose, the exhibition
of any film or class of films from any of the provisions of this Part
or any rules made thereunder."

Re : Point (i}
B
11. The object of the National Film Awards is to encourage the production
of films of aesthetic and technical excellence and social relevance contributing
to the understanding and appreciation of cultures of different regions of the
>- country in cinematic form, and thereby, also to promote nation's integrity and
unity. This object is sought to be achieved by selecting the best of Indian
films made for public exhibition in various categories and giving them National c
Awards. As this is an annual event, the entries are restricted to films certified
by the Central Board ofFilm Certification during the previous year. The 53rd
National Film Awards were thus restricted to films certified by the Central
Board of Film Certification between 1.1.2005 and 31.12.2005. The last date for
entries for NFA was 19.5.2006. This means that most of the films that were D
entered, would have been released for public exhibition before the last date
prescribed for entry (except those which are not released for public exhibition
due to non-availability of distributors, exhibitors, theaters or other reasons).

12. Under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, a film can be released for
public exhibition only if it has been examined and certified by the Central E
Board of Film Certification as being suitable for public exhibition under the
categories 'unrestricted' or 'restricted to adults' or 'restricted to members of
any profession or class of persons'. The decision to consider for awards,
only those films which are certified by the Board for public exhibition is a
policy of the Ministry. This policy has two underlying objectives. The first
.... is to consider only films which have been released or capable of being F
released for public exhibition. The second is to consider the films in the form
in which they will be seen by the public.

13. The right of a film maker to make and exhibit his film, is a part of
his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19( 1)
G
(a) of the Constitution. A film is a medium for expressing and communicating
ideas, thoughts, messages, information, feelings and emotions. It may be
)
intended either for public exhibition (commercial or non-commercial) or purely
for private use. The requirement under sections 4 and SA of the Act relating
to certification by the Board, where the film is intended for public exhibition,
by applying the guidance principles set out in section 5B, is a reasonable H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A restriction on the exercise of the said right of speech and expression
contemplated under Article 19(2), and therefore, constitutional [vide K. A.
Abbas v. Union of India, AIR (I 971) SC 481, S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan
Ram, (1989] 2 SCC 574, and Life Insurance Corporation ofIndia v. Manubhai
D. Shah, [ 1992] 3 SCC 63 7]. But the question here is not whether the
B requirement that films can be released for public exhibition, only if they
possess a certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification, is a
reasonable restriction. The question is whether the Government can impose
a condition that the entry of films for awards will be restricted to only those
which possess a certificate issued by the Board under section 5A of the Act.
Whether the government should encourage the production of films with
C aesthetic and technical excellence and social relevance, whether such
encouragement should be by giving awards periodically or annually, and if
it decides to give such awards, whether the field of competition should be
restricted only to films which have been certified by the Board, are all matters
of policy of the Government.

D 14. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well
defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the
correctness, suitability and appropriateness ofa policy. Nor are courts Advisors
to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to
formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the
E government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the
citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to
any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with
policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better,
fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the
wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review [vide :
F AsifHameedv. State ofJ&K, (1989] Supp 2 SCC 364; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co.
Ltd., v. Union of India, (1990] 3 SCC 223; Khoday Distilleries v. State of
Karnataka, (1996] 10 SCC 304, Ba/co Employees Union v. Union of India,
[2002] 2 SCC 333, State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash, [2005] 13 SCC 495 and
Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2006] 4 SCC 162].

G 15. The Government's policy for National Film Awards is to restrict
entry to only those films which have been certified by the Board for exhibition,
that is films intended for public exhibition. The government is not interested
in evaluating or giving an award to a film which may never be seen by the
public, or at all events never be seen in an 'uncensored' form. Its object is
H to select the best from among those which the public can see and enjoy or
DIRECTORATE OF FILM FESTIVALS>'. GAURA V ASHWIN JAIN [RA VEENDRAN, J.J 19
gain knowledge. The said policy neither relates to nor interferes with the right A
of a film maker either to make films, or to apply for certificate or to exhibit the
films. There is nothing illogical, unreasonable or arbitrary about a policy to
select only the best from among films certified for public exhibition. We
cannot, in judicial review, change that policy by requiring the Government to
select the best from among 'films made' instead of 'films made and certified
for public exhibition'. We, therefore, hold that the requirement that films B
should have been certified by the Central Board ofFilm Certification between
I. 1.2005 and 31.12.2005 for entry for the 53rd National Film Awards is not an
unreasonable restriction of any fundamental right of the respondents or other
film makers.

Re : Point (ii) c
16. We will next consider whether requirement relating to certificate from
the Board in regard to entry for National Film Awards is discriminatory, as the
Ministry has permitted films to be entered in Film Festivals (non-commercial),
without any certification. The Respondents referred to the Regulations D
governing the 9th Mumbai International Film Festival (for Documentary, short
and animation films), popularly known as MIFF 2006. The said regulations
\
provide that films shot and produced in India by an Indian national between
1.9.2003 and 31.8.2005 are eligible for entry in 'national competition'. Regulation
15 provides that censorship will not be applicable to any films entered in the
festival. Thus, the policy of the Government is to give exemption from E
certification by the Board for entering films (both Indian and foreign) in Film
Festivals which are non-commercial in nature and where viewership is confined
to delegates and select audiences (subject to the condition that the Ministry
will have the power to reject any film which in its opinion would impinge on
the security and integrity of the country or affect law and order or affect
relations with other countries). The respondents contend that when films can F
be entered in the national competition section of Film Festivals without the
requirement of certification by the Board, requiring certification by the Board
as a condition for entry for National Film Awards is ex facie discriminatory
and arbitrary. It is submitted that a provision for rejection of any film, similar
to Regulation 8 (extracted at Para 7 above) would be sufficient safeguard even G
for National Film Awards and there is no need for requiring a certificate from
the Board. It is also pointed out that the Jury for National Film Awards
consists of distinguished persons from the field of cinema and other allied
areas and humanities, selected by the Directorate with the approval of the
Government of India, and such a body of Jurists can be expected to act
H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A responsibly and weed out films which may offend the feelings and sensibility
of any country or which promote racism, or otherwise unacceptable/
objectionable.

17. The Government can no doubt make a policy permitting entry to all
films including those which have not obtained certificates from the Board, for
B National Film Awards. But that is a matter to be decided by the Government.
The question is not whether films should be permitted to be entered for
National Film Awards, in an uncensored form. The question is whether the
Government's policy restricting entry to only films certified by the Board is
so unreasonable or manifestly arbitrary as to warrant interference in Judicial
C review. Nothing prevents the Government from having different policies for
National Film Awards and for Film Festivals.

18. The High Court wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the
objects of the Film Festivals and National Film Awards are the same and
therefore when permission was granted for entering films in Film Festivals
D without certification by the Board, a similar treatment should be extended to
entries for the National Film Awards. The object of Film Festivals and the
object of National Film Awards are different. Film Festivals are held, to
provide a platform for film makers from all over the world to meet, exchange
ideas, explore the possibility of co-production, market films and to broaden
the vision of film makers. On the other hand, the object of National Film
E Awards is to encourage the production of films of aesthetic and technical
excellence and social relevance, which will contribute to the understanding
and appreciation of cultures of different regions of the country and promote
national integration and unity. When the purpose and object of Film Festivals
and National Film Awards are completely different, the conditions that are
p made applicable, or the exemptions that are granted, in respect ofFilm Festivals,
cannot automatically be applied to National Film Awards. The two being
unequal and dissimilar, the question of applying the same standards or norms
does not arise. Nor can application of different norms to Film Festivals and
National Film Awards, lead to a complaint of discrimination. Applying different
yardsticks to different events, to achieve different objects cannot be considered
G as discriminatory.
Re : Point (iii)

19. The next question is whether exemption in respect of films made by
Film Institutes and films entered by Doordarshan entitles others also to claim
H a blanket exemrtion in respect of all films to be entered in National Film
DIRECTORATE OF FILM FESTIVALS v. GA URA V ASHWIN JAIN [RA VEENDRAN, J.]2}

Awards. A
--\ 20. When a grievance of discrimination is made, the High Court cannot
just examine whether someone similarly situated has been granted a relief or
benefit and then automatically direct grant of such relief or benefit to the
person aggrieved. The High Court has to first examine whether the petitioner
who has approached the court has established a right, entitling him to the B
relief sought on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the context of
such examination, the fact that some others, who are similarly situated, have
been granted relief which the petitioner is seeking, may be of some relevance.
But where in law, a writ petitioner has not established a right or is not entitled
to relief, the fact that a similarly situated person has been illegally granted
relief, is not a ground to direct similar relief to him. That would be enforcing
c
a negative equality by perpetuation of an illegality which is impermissible in
law. The principle has been stated by this Court in Chandigarh Administration
v. Jagjit Singh, [1995] l SCC 745 thus:

"Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has D
passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly
situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the
\
petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the
other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to
be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the
case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is E
found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and
circumstances cifhis case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted
order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the
respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another.
unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the F
High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because
.... the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it
does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that
illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be
corrected, if it can be done according to law - indeed, wherever it is
possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct G
such wrong orders in accordance with law - but even if it cannot be
corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its

~
'> repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to repeat the
illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor
can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint
H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to
the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest.
It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case
the order in favour of the other person is found to be a lawful and
justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can be given to the
petitioner if it is found that the petitioners' case is similar to the other
B persons' case. But then why examine another person's case in his
absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present
before the Court and seeking the relief. Is it not more appropriate and
convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the
Court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his case
c than to enquire into the correctness of the order made or action taken
in another person's case, which other person is not before the case
nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a course - barring
exceptional situations - would neither be advisable nor desirable. In
other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-
accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because
D in one case a particular order has been passed or a similar action has
been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether
such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case
must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance
with relevant legal principles."
E In Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1996] 2 SCC
459, this Court observed :

"There appears to be some confusion in respect of the scope of
Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to
all citizens. This guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept
F
and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner.
To put it in other words, if an illegality or irregularity has been
committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, others
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court, that
the same irregularity or illegality be committed by the State .. so far
G such petitioners are concerned, on the reasoning that they have been
denied the benefits which have been extended to others although in
an irregular or illegal ml!flner. Such petitioners can question the validity
of orders which are said to have been passed in favour of persons
who were not entitled to the same, but they cannot claim orders which
are not sanctioned by law in their favour on principle of equality
H
D!RECTORA TEOF FILM FESTIVALS"· GA URA V ASHWIN JAIN [RA VEENDRAN, J.]23

before law. Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conc~ives within the A
-..\, equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court ·
to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced,
it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuated an illegal
procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others.
Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established
by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied B
to him, while it has been extended to others and in the process there
has been a discrimination."

21. In this case, we have already found that the NFA policy restricting
the entry to only films certified by the Board is valid and does not violate
Article 19(1)(a). It therefore follows that a film maker does not have any right
c
to claim that he is entitled to enter his films without certification by the Board.
When a film maker complains of discrimination on the ground that films made
by Film Institutes and films entered by Doordarshan have been exempted from
the requirement of certification, and claims similar exemption, the question
that requires examination is whether the exemption that has been granted to D
Film Institutes and Doordarshan is legal. If it is illegal, he cannot claim a
similar illegal exemption in his favour.
~\

22. The appellants point out that only films produced by the Film
Institutes running diploma/degree courses which are recognized by the
Government of India and certified by the Head of such film institutes, as E
having been produced within the specified period, are exempted from
certification by the Board. The appellants contend that when a film is made
by a Film Institute running diploma/degree courses recognized by Government,
the persons in· charge of the Film Institute would ensure due compliance with
the principles and guidelines relating to certification of films under section 5B F
of the Act. Regulation IO(t) does not even require the Head of the film
"' institute to certify that the film has been made by him or under his supervision
or that the film complies with the principles and guidelines relating to
certification under section 5B of the Act. Regulation IO(t) requires the Head
of the Institute to only certify that the film has been produced within the
eligibility period. There is no basis for the assumption that merely because G
·" a diploma or degree course of a film institute is recognized by the Government
) of India, any film made by such film institute would have complied with the
principles for certification of films contained in section 5B of the Act.

23. Insofar as films entered by Doordarshan, the appellants rely on a
H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A notification dated 16.10.1984 issued by the Government of India in exercise
)--·
of power of exemption under section 9 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952,
exempting all Doordarshan programmes from the the provisions of the Act
relating to certification of films, subject to the condition that while clearing
programmes for telecast the Director General Doordarshan or the concerned
B Director, Doordarshan Kendra shall keep in view that the film certification
guidelines issued by the Central Government to the Board of Film Certification
under section 5B(2) of the said Act. What the said notification exempts are
programmes telecast by Doordarshan (in respect of which the Director General,
Doordarshan or the Director of the concerned Doordarshan Kendra are required
to keep in view the principles and guidelines relating to film certification
C issued by the Central Government under section 5B). But we are not concerned
with telecasting by Doordarshan. We are concerned with entry for National
Film Awards certified by the Board between 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2005. The
Notification dated 16.10.1984 does not grant any exemption in respect of
entries made by Doordarshan for Film Awards. Therefore, the notification
dated 16. I0.1984 is not relevant. It is not necessary to examine the further
..
D question whether the Central Government can invest in the Director General
and the Directors of Doordarshan Kendras the power and authority of the
Central Board for Film Certification and thereby create virtually a parallel
body.

24. If the notification dated 16. l 0.1984 is excluded, there are no special
E circumstances for exempting the films entered by Doordarshan. The exemption
given under Regulation IO(g) is not for films made by Doordarshan, but films
entered by Doordarshan. This means that any film made by any independent
film maker when entered by Doordarshan becomes eligible without certification
by the Board. It is also to be noted that Regulation IO(g) requires a certificate
F from the Director General, Doordarshan that the non-feature film has been
produced within the eligibility period, but does not require a certificate from
the Director General that the film entered has been viewed by him and it
complies with the principles/guidelines relating to certification under section
5B. In the circumstances, we do not find any basis for a classification treating
G entries by Doordarshan as a special class requiring exemption.

25. There are innumerable Film Institutes and several Doordarshan
Kendras. The exemptions in favour of films made by Film Institutes and films
entered by Doordarshan will amount to recognizing the Heads of such Institutes
or institutions as equal to Central Board for Film Certification and entrusting
H the Heads of such institutions with the power of Central Board for film
DIRECTORATE OF FILM FESTIVALS"· GA URA V ASHWIN JAIN [RA VEENDRAN, J .J25

certification. Appellants have not placed any material justifying reposing of A
·--\ such confidence in persons other than the Central Board for Film Certification.
Nor can such parallel authorities be recognized, having regard to the provisions
of the Cinematograph Act. Further exemption under Regulations IO(f) and (g)
cannot be equated to exemption under section 9 of the Act. We are, therefore,
of the view that exemptions in favour of Film Institutes and entries made by B
Doordarshan were illegal and other film makers cannot claim similar exemption.

CONCLUSION

26. A film-maker can challenge an illegal exemption in favour of Film
Institutes and Doordarshan under clauses (f) and (g) of Regulation IO, but
cannot claim a similar exemption by placing reliance on such illegality. Therefore C
the challenge to the words "and certified by the Central Board of Film
Certification" in Regulation lO(d) and (e) has no merit. The respondents have
not challenged the validity of Regulation IO(f) and (g) granting exemption to
films made by Film Institutes or films entered by Doordarshan. Therefore, no
relief can be granted to respondents in that behalf. D
27. In view of the foregoing, we allow the appeal in part and set aside
the Judgment of the High Court except the direction to permit entry of non-
feature films in digital format.

B.S. Appeal Partly allowed. E