University Institute Of Legal Studies

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

AMRIT NAHATA vs. UNION OF INDIA

AIR 1986 SC791

Submitted To: Prof.Rattan Singh

Submitted By: Gurpreet Kaur
Class: B.A.LL.B.(2nd Year)
Section: B
Roll No: 79/15

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I HAVE WRITTEN THIS PROJECT OF CASE LAW “AMRIT NAHATA vs. UNION OF
INDIA UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF “PROF. RATTAN SINGH” FACULTY OF
UILS, PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH.

THE VALUABLE SUGGESTIONS OF MY SUPERVISOR NOT ONLY HELPED ME

IMMENSELY IN MAKING THIS WORK, BUT ALSO IN DEVELOPING AN
ANALYTICAL APPROACH IN WORK.

I FOUND NO WORDS TO EXPRESS MY SENSE OF GRATITUDE FOR DIRECTOR

OF OUR INSTITUTE FOR ENCOURAGEMENT AT EVERY STEP.

I AM EXTREMELY GRATEFUL TO LIBRARIAN AND LIBRARY STAFF OF THE

INSTITUTE FOR THE SUPPORT AND COOPERATION EXTENDED BY THEM
TIME TO TIME.

ALSO, MY FATHER AND MOTHER CONTRIBUTION, SUPPORT AND

COOPERATION IN THIS WORK IS BEYOND WORDS.

-Gurpreet Kaur

2
 INDEX

Sr. No. Contents Page no.

1. Abbreviations 4

2. Table of Cases 5

3. Facts of the Case 6-7

4. Legal Issues Arising 8

5. Arguments by Petitioner 9

6. Arguments by Respondent 10

7. Judgment 11

8. Observation 12

9. Bibliography 13

3
 Abbreviations

1. AIR All India Reports

2. Misc. miscellaneous
3. UOI Union of India
4. v versus

4
 Table of Cases

Case Pg. No.

 V.C. Shukla and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration)

5
 Amrit Nahata vs. Union of India
AIR 1986 SC 791
PETITIONER:
AMRIT NAHATA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/05/1985

BENCH: DESAI, D.A.
ERADI, V.BALAKRISHNA (J)
MISRA, R.B. (J)

Facts of the case:

The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court fora declaration that a sections 3
and 6 of the CinematographAct, 1952 and Rule 23 and 25 of the Cinematograph(Censorship)
Rules, 1958 were unconstitutional and invalidand for a writ of mandamus (under Article 32
of the constitution of India) directing the respondents tocertify his film 'Kissa Kursee Ka'
for unrestricted publicexhibition.
The Court made an order on July 18, 1975 that the petitioner will deliver within one week
from the date of order, negatives andprints of the film to the Government forpreserving the
same in proper condition until the disposal of the Writ Petition.
During the course of further proceedings on October 29 1975 the court made another order
directing that the film ‘Kissa Kursi Kaa’ be screened on November 17 1975 at 6p.m. to be
seen by five learned judges of Supreme Court. However the film was not made available as
directed.
The Solicitor General of India moved Criminal Misc. Petition (No. 8009/77) requesting the
Court to take action against the five persons named in the petition under section 15 of
theContempt of Courts Act, 1971on the ground that they were individually and severally

6
guilty of willful disobedience of the directions and order of the Court with regard to the
preservation of the negatives and the prints of the film in proper condition.
Criminal misc. petition (8010/77) was also moved by the Solicitor General inviting the
Court to hold that the aforesaid five persons also appear to have committed offences
under Section 120-B read with Sections 199 and 193of the Indian Penal Code and it was
expedient in the interest of justice to file a criminal complaint against them.
In the meantime a substantive prosecution was launched against Sri Vidya Charan Shukla, the
then minister of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India and late Shri Sanjay
Gandhi alleging that the prints and negatives of the film were deliberately destroyed with a
view not to make them available for screening before the court as directed by the Supreme
Court. The case came up for trial before the learned session judge and evidence was led on
behalf of the prosecution and the case ended in conviction.1

The matter was carried in appeal to the Delhi High Court. In the meantime on the enactment
of special Court Act, 1979, a declaration under section 5(1) of the Special Courts Act was
made with the result that the appeal stood transferred to the Supreme Court. While allowing
the appeal the Supreme Court acquitted the accused holding that it is not proved to the
satisfaction of the court that the prints and negatives of the film were deliberately destroyed
by the alleged contemners. The defence canvassed that the negatives and prints of the film
got mixed up with other boxes and could not be traced.2

The hearing of the two criminal miscellaneous petitions was postponed by the court and after
the acquittal of the two aforesaid persons; a petition was filed by the Union of India for
withdrawal of both the criminal miscellaneous petitions. Amrit Nahata at a later date backed
out and withdrew the petition.3

1
Amrit Nahata v.Union of India , AIR 1986 SC 791
2
 V.C. Shukla v. state (Delhi Administration) retrieved from <www.manupatrafast.in/pers/Personalised.aspx>
visited on 1 November 2016, at 1PM.
3
Amrit Nahata v. Union of India retrieved from <www.manupatrafast.in/pers/Personalised.aspx> visited on 1
November 2016, at 1:06 PM.

7
 Legal issues arising

Whether it is appropriate to take action for contempt of court or whether the permission for
withdrawal of petition of contempt proceedings should be granted or not?

8
 Arguments by petitioner

As per Amrit Nahata he was not guilty of disobedience of directions and orders of the court
as he had already given the prints and negatives of the film to the central board of film
certification when he had applied for certification of his film on 19th April, 1975 and the film
was viewed on 24th April 1975 by an examining committee of the board.4

He also asked for a declaration that section 3 and 6 of cinematograph Act, 1952 are
unconstitutional and his film ‘Kissa Kursi Ka’ should be certified for unrestricted public
exhibition.

4
V.C.Shukla and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 SC 1382

9
 Arguments by Respondent

The Solicitor General of India moved criminal miscellaneous petition requesting the court to
take action against the five persons named in the petition under Section 15 of Contempt of
Courts act 1971 on the ground that they were individually and severely guilty of willful
disobedience of directions and orders of the court with regard to preservation of the negatives
and prints in proper condition.

The contemners have interfered with due course of judicial proceedings.

Their conduct was intended and calculated to interfere with and obstruct the administration of
justice by causing loss and disappearance of the film.

There conduct was also intended to prevent the court from effectively dealing with writ
petition pending before it and judicially determining the issues arising therein.

These persons appear to have entered into a conspiracy to intentionally give false evidence at
any stage of judicial proceedings as also fabricated evidence.

Later, Solicitor General filed a petition for withdrawal of both the criminal misc. petitions.

10
 Judgment

The court has considered the request for withdrawal of the proceedings initiated for taking
action for contempt of court and the court said that it would be guided by the broad facts of
the case and whether respect for judicial process would be enhanced or dwindled by either
granting or refusing to grant the request.  The contempt is of the court and not of the
individual therefore Section 15 of The Contempt of courts act, 1971 confers power on the
court to take suo moto action or on a motion made by Solicitor General.

The petitioner who has moved for taking action in contempt is not entitled as a matter of right
to withdraw the petition whenever it suits his purpose. Once the act, which prima facie shows
that contempt of the court has been committed, is brought to the notice of the court, it is the
court which has to decide whether the contempt has been committed or not or whether it is
appropriate to take action or at a later date whether to drop the proceedings.

However the court has granted the permission for withdrawal of both the petitions. The
reason which has weighed with the court to permit withdrawal of the petition of contempt
was Amrit Nahata who has filed petition for certification of his film; he himself at a later date
backed out and withdrew the petition. Permission for withdrawal of both the petitions was
granted. Both the petitions are disposed off as withdrawn.5

5
Amrit Nahata v. Union of India retrieved from <www.manupatrafast.in/pers/Personalized.aspx> visited on 2
November 2016, at 10 AM.

11
 Observation

In this case the court had granted permission for withdrawal of petition for initiating
contempt proceedings against Amrit Nahata. In my views it was right if court has granted
permission because Amrit Nahata was not guilty of disobedience of directions and orders of
the court as he had already given the prints and negatives of the film to Central Board of Film
Certification when he had applied for certification of the film on 19th of April 1975 and the
film was viewed on 24 April 1975 by an Examining Committee of the Board.
The Session Court, Delhi had found Shri Vidya Charan Shukla, the then minister of
Information and Broadcasting, Government of India  and Late Shri Sanjay Gandhi guilty for
burning the negatives and prints of the film. But Supreme Court has acquitted both the
accused holding that it was not proved that the prints were destroyed by them.

12
 Bibliography

Legislative
 Constitution of India

Books
 Kumar, Narender. Constitutional Law of India, Faridabad: Allahabad Law Agency,
2016.
 Singh,Rattan. Legal Research Methodology, Gurgaon: Lexis Nexis, 2016.

13