R. M. SESHADRI versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TANJORE, AND ANOTHER.

R. M. SESHADRI versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TANJORE, AND ANOTHER.

Conditions 4(a) and special condition 3 in the cinema licence, vesting unregulated discretion in licensing authorities and imposing broad, unspecified requirements to exhibit government-approved films without maximum limits, constitute unreasonable restrictions and are void as against the appellant’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Parties
Appellant: R. M. Seshadri; Respondent: District Magistrate, Tanjore; Intervener: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 October 1954
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights, Reasonable Restrictions, Cinema Licensing
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Fundamental Rights Reasonable Restrictions Cinema Licensing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. M. Seshadri

Appellant

District Magistrate, Tanjore

Respondent

Union of India

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conditions 4(a) and special condition 3 imposed on the cinema licence by District Magistrate, Tanjore, are unreasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether such conditions infringe the fundamental right to carry on business.

Ratio Decidendi

Conditions 4(a) and special condition 3 in the cinema licence, vesting unregulated discretion in licensing authorities and imposing broad, unspecified requirements to exhibit government-approved films without maximum limits, constitute unreasonable restrictions and are void as against the appellant’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Condition 4(a) and special condition 3 of the licence are declared void and have no legal effect as against the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
  • Respondent to pay the costs of the appellant in this Court and in the Court below.