JUDGMENT - Mrs. MANOHAR SUJATA, J.:—Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. This petition relates to a French film; “Guy De Maupassant”, which has English sub-titles. This film was shown in India at the International Film Festival of India in January 1989. This film was produced in France and was considered of artistic value. 2. In respect of import by private Indian parties of foreign feature films which are shown at Film Festivals, the guidelines issued require that the import of films which are shown at such film festivals shall be approved by the Film Import Selection Committee constituted by the Government of India. The film shall not be approved by the Committee for import into India unless the film meets certain requirements regarding quality, namely, (a) it should be of aesthetic value, (b) it should be cinematically of good standard, (c) it should provide clean, healthy entertainment to the audience, and (d) it should not be violative of any guidelines issued by the Government under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Provided that permission to import a film under these guidelines shall not be construed as clearance for public exhibition under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. 3. The petitioners' application for import of this film was cleared by the Film Import Selection Committee. After the film was imported the petitioners applied for clearance of the film from the Central Board of Film Censors. 4. The Central Government has issued guidelines to the Board of Film Censors in respect of sanctioning films for public exhibition. The guidelines provide, inter alia, that: “The objectives of film censorship will be to ensure that— a) the medium of film remains responsible and sensitive to the values and standards of society; b) artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed; and c) censorship is responsive to social change.” Under Clause (2) of the Guidelines, “In pursuance of the above objectives, the Board of Film Censors shall ensure that .......... (iv) human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity and depravity; (v) visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented.” Clause (3) provides that the Board of Film Censors shall also ensure that the film “(i) is judged in its entirety from the point of view of its overall impact”. 5. The film was imported by the petitioners sometime in 1990. They applied for censorship certificate on 21-9-1990. 5. The film was imported by the petitioners sometime in 1990. They applied for censorship certificate on 21-9-1990. The petitioners received a letter dated 5th December, 1990 from the Additional Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification, Bombay, informing the petitioners that the film was viewed by the Examining Committee and the Board had provisionally come to the conclusion that a certificate cannot be issued for its exhibition. The letter also set out the reasons for the refusal of a certificate to the film. In brief, the grounds of refusal were: the film appeared to be a semi-pornographic film, and dealt with the perverse sex life of a writer who suffered from syphilis and ultimately met with premature death. The Board refused the certificate to the film on the ground that it violated the Guidelines l(a) and (2)(iv) read with 3(i). 6. Thereafter by letter dated 8th January, 1991 the Additional Regional Officer, informed the petitioners that the film was viewed by the Revising Committee and that it had come to the same conclusion. The Revising Committee however, worded its refusal differently. It said that though the film is artistically made and is based on the life of a great author, it is violative of guidelines. It also decided to refuse the certificate on the ground that it was not in conformity with the Guidelines 1(a), 2(iv) read with 3(1). 7. Being aggrieved by these two orders the petitioners filed an appeal under section 5-C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 before the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal viewed the film. It also heard a Member of the respondent Board on its behalf as well as the petitioners. By its order dated 7th March, 1991 the Appellate Tribunal, after ordering the petitioners to carry out two cuts as set out in detail in its order, allowed the appeal and directed the Board to grant an 'A' certificate to the film. The Tribunal has observed in its order that it did not agree with the conclusions reached by the Board that the film was semi-pornographic. It held that the film was of great artistic import and that it was on the life of a great French writer and it will not have any adverse impact on the moral standard of the viewers. After the order of the Appellate Tribunal the Board once again viewed the film. It held that the film was of great artistic import and that it was on the life of a great French writer and it will not have any adverse impact on the moral standard of the viewers. After the order of the Appellate Tribunal the Board once again viewed the film. It also directed the petitioners to make further cuts in reels Nos. 4 and 5 of the film. We are not shown any provisions of law under which these further cuts could have been ordered. The petitioners have, however, complied with these directions also in addition to the directions of the Appellate Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have carried out all the requirements. 8. The present petition has been filed because despite the petitioners' complying with the orders of the Appellate Tribunal and the further suggestions of the Board, the film has not been granted an 'A' certificate as directed by the Appellate Tribunal. It seems that at the instance of the Central Government, the only copy of the original print in which cuts have been effected as above, has been sent to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi. This print has not been returned to the petitioners so far. From the correspondence which has been produced before us, it seems that the respondent Board had applied for a revision of the order of the Appellate Tribunal by the Central Government. 9. We are shown a letter dated 17th September, 1991 from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, addressed to the Regional Officer, Central Board of Film Certification to the effect that the Government does not want to intervene in the matter at this stage. The Central Government has therefore declined to revise the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 10. Under section 5-C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, any person applying for a certificate in respect of a film, who is aggrieved by any order of the Board (a) refusing to grant a certificate ...... may within 30 days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. 10. Under section 5-C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, any person applying for a certificate in respect of a film, who is aggrieved by any order of the Board (a) refusing to grant a certificate ...... may within 30 days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. Section 5-D provides for the constitution of an Appellate Tribunal for the purposes of hearing appeals against any order of the Board under section 5-C. Such Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and not more than four other members appointed by the Central Government. A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairman of the Tribunal unless he is a retired Judge of a High Court, or is a person who is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court. The Central Government may appoint such persons who, in its opinion, are qualified to judge the effect of the films on the public, to be members of the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal who viewed the film was duly constituted in accordance with the requirements of section 5-D. 11. Under section 5-D(11) the Tribunal may after making such enquiry in the matter as it considers necessary, and after giving the appellant and the Board an opportunity of being heard in the matter, make such order in relation to a film, as it thinks fit and the Board shall dispose of the matter in conformity with such order. In view of this provision the respondents are bound to carry out the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 12. Section 6 deals with the Revisional powers of the Central Government. It enables the Central Government to call for the records of any proceedings in relation to any film and make such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit as set out in that section. 13. We need not go into the ambit of section 6 in view of the fact that the Central Government has declined to exercise its powers under section 6 in this case. 14. We are informed by Mr. Rele, learned Counsel who appears for the respondents, that the Board has filed a review petition before the Appellate Tribunal. There is however, no provision in the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which confers on the Appellate Tribunal any power of review. Mr. Rele very fairly concedes this position. 15. 14. We are informed by Mr. Rele, learned Counsel who appears for the respondents, that the Board has filed a review petition before the Appellate Tribunal. There is however, no provision in the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which confers on the Appellate Tribunal any power of review. Mr. Rele very fairly concedes this position. 15. It is well settled that unless the power of review is conferred by the statute on the concerned authority, it cannot exercise such power. In the case of (Patel Narshi Thakorshi others v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji)1, reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1273, the Supreme Court has observed, “It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication”. The Supreme Court in that case held that there was no provision in the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, from which it could be gathered that the State Government had the power to review its own order. There are similar observations of the Supreme Court in the case of (M/s. Meher Singh Nanak Chand v. M/s. Naunihal Thakar Dass others)2, reported in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2533 and in the case of (Harbhajan Singh v. Karamsingh and others)3, reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 641. In these circumstances there is no question of the Appellate Tribunal reviewing its own order. The respondents are bound by the orders of the Appellate Tribunal and are required to carry out the order. 16. Mr. Rele however, has pointed out some remarks made by two of the members of the Revising Committee who had earlier seen the film. They have objected to the dialogue: “I am the son of God”. “Christ slept with his mother”. He rightly points out that this dialogue may hurt the religious sentiments of some of the viewers. Mr. Chinoi who appears for the petitioners agrees that this dialogue shall be deleted from the film. 17. In the premises, the respondents are directed to return to the petitioners the print of the film. The respondents are further directed to issue to the petitioners the certificate of exhibition under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 in 'A' category as per the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 7th March, 1991. 17. In the premises, the respondents are directed to return to the petitioners the print of the film. The respondents are further directed to issue to the petitioners the certificate of exhibition under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 in 'A' category as per the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 7th March, 1991. It is an accepted position that the cuts as ordered by the Appellate Tribunal and also some other cuts as stated earlier have already been carried out in the film. The petitioners shall also delete from the film the dialogues referred to above, before an 'A' certificate is granted to the petitioners as directed above. Rule is made absolute accordingly. On the application of the respondents the part of the order relating to the issue of 'A' certificate is stayed for a period of four weeks from today. Certified copy expedited. Rule made absolute accordingly. -----