The State of Bihar Vs. Shailabala Devi
[1952] INSC 36 (26 May 1952)
MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND SASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)
MUKHERJEA, B.K.
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BOSE, VIVIAN
CITATION: 1952 AIR 329 1952 SCR 654
CITATOR INFO :
D 1960 SC 633 (9) RF 1967 SC1643 (165) RF
1973 SC1091 (2) RF 1973 SC1461 (1705)
ACT:
Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of
1931) s.
4 (1) (a)__Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1) and 19(2)--Restrictions imposed by s. 4 (1) (a) on freedom of speech and
expression--Whether fall within Art. 19(2)--Validity of s. 4(1)--Speeches of
political demagogues--Construction--Burden of prosecution.
HEADNOTE:
Section 4 (1) (a)of the Indian Press
(Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931) is not unconstitutional as the
restrictions imposed on freedom of speech and expression by the said section
are solely directed against the undermining of the security of the State or the
overthrow of it and are within the ambit of Art. 19(2) of the Constitution.
Romesh Thapar's case ([1950] 655 S.C.R. 594])
and Brij Bhushan's case ([1950] S.C.R. 605)do not lay down any wide proposition
that restrictions of the nature imposed by s. 4 (1) (a) are outside the scope
of Art.
19 (2) as they are conceived generally in the
interests of public order. At any rate, the amendment made to Art. 19 (2) by
the Constitution (First Amendment) Act which is retrospective in operation
makes the matter clear.
In order to determine whether a particular
document falls within the ambit of s. 4(1) the writing has to be considered as
a whole in a fair, free and liberal spirit, not dwelling too much on isolated
passages or upon a strong word here and there, and an endeavour should be made
to gather the general effect which the whole composition would have on the
minds of the public. Expressions which are the stock in trade of political
demagogues and have no tendency to excite anybody, and exaggerations in
language, cannot lead to that result. Rhetoric of this kind might in conceivable
circumstances inflame passions, as for example, if addressed to an excited mob,
but if such circumstances exist it is for the Government to establish the fact.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Case No. 273 of 1951.
Appeal under Arts. 132 (1) and 134 (1)(c) of the Constitution of India from the
Judgment and Order dated I3th October, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at
Patna (Shearer, Ramaswami and Sarjoo Prosad JJ.) in Miscellaneous Judicial Case
No. 220 of 1949.
S.K. Mitra (K. Dayal, with him), for the
appellant.
Basant Chandra Ghosh and Arun Chandra Mitra
for the respondent.
1952. May 26. The Court delivered judgment as
follows:-MAHAJAN J.--This appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar
against the judgment of a Special Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Patna allowing the application of the respondent under section 23 of the Indian
Press (Emergency Powers)Act, XXIII of 1931. It appears that the petition was
argued by both the sides as it was one made under article 926 of the
Constitution.
The respondent was the keeper at all relevant
times of the Bharati Press at Purulia, A pamphlet under 85 656 the heading
"Sangram" was printed at the said press and is alleged to have been
circulated in the town of Purulia in the district of Manbhum. The Government of
Bihar considered that the pamphlet contained objectionable matter of the nature
described under section 4 (1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act and
required the press to furnish security in the sum of Rs. '2,000, under section
3(3) of the Act by the 19th September, 1949. On the 26th September, 1949, the
respondent applied to the High Court under section 23 for setting aside the
above order. This application was allowed by the majority of the Judges
constituting the Bench. Shearer J. was of the view that the application should
be dismissed.
Several objections were raised to the
validity of the order passed by the Bihar Government but it is unnecessary to
mention all of them. The two points which were seriously pressed before the
High Court were that the leaflet did not contain any words or signs or visible
representation of the nature described in section 4 (1) of the Act, and that
the provisions of section 4 (1) of the Act were inconsistent with article 19
(1) of the Constitution and as such void under article 13. The High Court
reached the conclusion that the pamphlet did come within the mischief of the
Act.
Sarjoo Prosad J., with whom Ramaswami J.
concurred, on a construction of the decisions of this Court in Romesh Thapar v.
The State of Madras(1), and Brij Bhushan V. The State of Delhi(2), found,
though with some reluctance, that section 4 (1) (a) of the Act was repugnant to
the Constitution and therefore void. Mr. Justice Shearer, however, held that
the pamphlet was a seditious libel and that there was nothing in the two
decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above which compelled the court to
hold the provisions of section 4 (1) (a) of the Act to be void.
In my opinion, Shearer J. was right in the
view that there is nothing in the two decisions of this Court which bears
directly or indirectly on the point at issue in the present case and that both
Sarjoo Prosad (1) [1950] S.C.R.594. (2) [1950] S.C.R. 605.
657 and Ramaswami JJ. were in error in
holding that these decisions were conclusive on the question of the invalidity
of clauses (a) and (b) of section 4 (1) of the Act. Towards the concluding part
of his judgment Sarjoo Prosad J. observed as follows:-"I am compelled to
observe that from the above discussions of the Supreme Court judgments, it
follows logically that if a person were to go on inciting murder or other
cognisable offences either through the press or by word of mouth, he would be
free to do so with impunity inasmuch as he would claim the privilege of
exercising his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. Any
legislation which seeks or would seek to curb this right of the person
concerned would not be saved under article 19 (2) of the Constitution and would
have to be declared void. This would be so, because such speech or expression
on the part of the individual would fall neither under libel nor slander nor
defamation nor contempt of court nor any matter which offends against decency
or morality or which undermines the security of or tends to overthrow the
State. I cannot with equanimity contemplate such an anomalous situation but the
conclusion appears to be unavoidable on the authority of the Supreme Court
judgments with which we are bound. I, therefore, wish that my decision on the
point would sooner than ever come to be tested by the Supreme Court itself and
the position reexamined in the light of the anomalous situation pointed out
above. It seems to me that the words used in the Constitution Act should be
assigned a wide and liberal connotation even though they occur in a clause
which provides an exception to the fundamental right vouchsafed under article
19 (1)(a) of the Constitution Act." These observations--I speak with great
respect-disclose a complete lack of understanding of the precise scope of the
two decisions of this Court referred to above. Section 3 (3) of the Act under
which the notice was issued in the present case enacts as follows:
"Whenever it appears to the Provincial
Government that any printing press is used for the purpose 658 printing or
publishing any newspaper, book or other document containing any words, signs or
visible representation of the nature described in section 4,sub-section (1),
the Provincial Government may, by notice in writing to the keeper of the press
.....order the keeper to deposit with the Magistrate security ..." Clause
(a) of section 4 (1) deals with words or signs or visible representations which
incite to or encourage, or tend to incite to or encourage the commission of any
offence of murder or any cognizable offence involving violence. It is plain
that speeches or expressions on the part of an individual which incite to or
encourage the commission of violent crimes, such as murder, cannot but be
matters which would undermine the security of the State and come within the
ambit of a law sanctioned by article. 19(2) of the Constitution. I cannot help
observing that the decisions of this Court in Romesh Thapar's case(1), and in
Brij Bhushan's case(2) have been more than once misapplied and misunderstood
and have been construed as laying down the wide proposition that restrictions
of the nature imposed by section 4(1)(a) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers)
Act or of similar character are outside the scope of article 19(2) of the
Constitution inasmuch as they are conceived generally in the interests of
public order. Sarjoo Prosad J. also seems to have fallen into the same error.
The question that arose in Romesh Thapar's
case(1) was whether the impugned Act (Madras Maintenance Public Order Act,
XXIII of 1949) in so far as it purported by section 9 (1-A) to authorise the
Provincial Government "for the purpose of securing the public safety and
the maintenance of public order, to prohibit or regulate the entry.into or the
circulation, sale or distribution in the Province of Madras or any part thereof
any document or class of documents" was a law relating to any matter which
undermined the security of or tended to overthrow the State, and it was
observed that whatever ends the impugned Act may have been intended to subserve
and whatever (1)[1950] s.C.R. 594. (2) [1950] S.C.R.
659 aims its framers may have had in view,
its application and scope could not, in the absence of delimiting words in the
statute itself, be restricted to those aggravated forms of prejudicial activity
which are calculated to endanger the security of the State, nor was there any
guarantee that those authorized to exercise the powers under the Act would in
using them discriminate between those who act prejudically to the security of
the State and those who do not. Section 4(1)(a) of the impugned Act, however,
is restricted to aggravated forms of prejudicial activity. It deals specifically
with incitement to violent crimes and does not deal with acts that generally
concern themselves with the maintenance of public order. That being so, the
decision in Romesh Thalbar's case(1) given on the constitutionality of section
9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act has no relevancy for
deciding the constitutionality of the provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the
Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act. Towards the concluding portion in Romesh
Thapar's judgment(1) it was observed as follows :-"We are therefore of
opinion that unless a law restricting freedom of speech and expression is
directed solely against the undermining of the security of the State or the
overthrow of it, such law cannot fall within the reservation under clause (2)
of article although the restrictions which it seeks to impose may have been
conceived generally in the interests of public order. It follows that section
9(I-A) which authorizes imposition of restrictions for the wider purpose of
securing public safety or the maintenance of public order falls outside the
scope of authorized restrictions under clause (2), and is therefore void and
unconstitutional." The restrictions imposed by section 4(1)(a) of the
Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act on freedom of speech and expression are
solely directed against the undermining of the security of the State or the overthrow
of it and are within the ambit of article 19(2) (1) [1950] S.C.R. 5 94.
660 of the Constitution. The deduction that a
person would be free to incite to murder or other cognizable offence through
the press with impunity drawn from our decision in Romesh Thapar's case(1)
could easily have been avoided as it was avoided by Shearer J. who in very
emphatic terms said as follows:" I have read and re-read the judgments of
the Supreme Court, and I can find nothing in them myself which bear directly on
the point at issue, and leads me to think that, in their opinion, a restriction
of this kind is no longer permissible." Be that as it may, the matter is
now concluded by the language of the amended article 19(2) made by the Constitution
(First Amendment) Act which is retrospective in operation, and the decision of
the High Court on this point cannot be sustained.
Basant Chander Ghosh contended that the
amendment made in article 19 (2) of the Constitution with retrospective
operation was repugnant to article 20 of the Constitution inasmuch as it
declared a certain act an offence which was not an offence at the time when the
act was committed. This contention is untenable. The respondent is alleged to
have violated the provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the Indian Press (Emergency
Powers) Act which was a law in force in the year 1949 when the offending
pamphlet was published. She has not been convicted of any offence so far and is
not being again convicted for the same by reason of the amendment in article
19(2). Article 20 has no application whatever to the present case. Article
19(2) empowers a legislature to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on
the fundamental rights conferred under article 19(1) of the Constitution. It
does not declare any acts which were not offences before as offences with
retrospective effect. Moreover, in the year 1949 the respondent was not
possessed of any fundamental right which could be said to have been contravened
by the amendment.
Though, as I have said above, the High Court
is in error in the finding that the provisions of section ,4(1)(a) (1) [1950]
S.C.R..594, 661 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act are repugnant to the
Constitution, its judgment has to be maintained as it is also in error in holding
that the pamphlet in question fell within the mischief of section4 (1)(a) of
the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act.
The document is written in high-flown Bengali
language and contains a good deal of demagogic claptrap with some pretence to
poetic flourish. It enunciates certain abstract propositions in somewhat
involved language and it cannot be followed except with considerable effort.
The High Court held that the document offended against the provisions of
section 4(1)(a) inasmuch as certain parts of it contemplate a bloody and
violent revolution and that the central theme that runs through the whole gamut
of the offending pamphlet is that the author is anxious to bring about a bloody
revolution and change completely the present order of things by causing a total
annihilation of the persons and the policies of those who according to him are
in the opposite camp.
Particular reference was made to the
following passages in the writing which in the opinion of the learned Judges
support that conclusion. The first of these passages is in these words :-"Oh
thou foolish oppressor, you want to cause abject terror in me with your red
eyes and full throated voice--do that, I am not afraid ....... My pro-test is
against parochial national politics."Another passage reads thus :`` Death
is my secret love; poison is my drink the flames of fire are my sweet breeze;
the wailing of a hundred bereaved childless mothers is just a tune in my flute;
the weeping of widows at their widowhood is just a rhythm of my song." The
next passage referred to is in these terms :-"I am the cremation ground. I
am the bloodthirsty goddess Kali who lives and moves about in the cremation
ground. Plague or famine is my great joy ....... I am thirsty, I want blood, I
want revolution,.
662 I want faith in the struggle. Tear, tear
the chain of wrongs; Break thou the proud head of the oppressor."
Reference was also made to a passage in which the writer desires that his cries
should be heard by people far and near, that his call should be hearkened far
far away across the hills, the jungles, across the rivers and rivulets and all
those who hear should come forward to join the ranks in destroying the
oppressor and in which he claims that he is the messenger of death, that his
revolutionary song signals the door of each of the listeners and signals to
them to come out if they have life, if they have health, if they have courage
to come and dash to pieces those who commit oppression on the mother, and he
says that with the blood of those followers let the revolution grow. It winds
up with an invocation to the readers in these terms :-"If you are true, if
you are the gift of God, if you are not a bastard, then come forward with a
fearless heart to struggle against the oppressors' improper conduct, oppression
and injustice. We should not tolerate wrongful oppression. Oh, thou the people
with the burning pain of thine heart burn the heart of the oppressive,
high-handed oppressor. Let all wrongs, all high-handedness, all oppressions,
all tyrannies be burnt in the flame." It seems to me that the learned
Judges of the High Court took this writing too seriously. It did not deserve
that consideration. It is some kind of patch-up work, with no consistency or
cohesion between its different parts. Portions of it are unmeaning nonsense and
in other parts it talks of revolution in the abstract. There is no appeal to
anybody in particular or for any known or specific cause. No mention is made of
any specific kind of oppression or injustice that is intended to be remedied.
The desire is. to change the face of the earth by ending all oppression,
tyranny and injustice. Their is no evidence whatsoever for connecting this
pamphlet with any agitation or movement at the time it was written in that
locality. I have read the writing several times and I think that Mr. Ghosh is
663 right when he says that the pamphlet contains merely empty slogans,
carrying no particular meaning except some amount of figurative expression or
language borrowed at random from various authors with a touch of poetic
flourish about it.
Writings of this characters at the present
moment and in the present background of our country neither excite nor have the
tendency to excite any person from among the class which is likely to read a pamphlet
of this nature. They will necessarily be educated people. Such writings leave
their readers cold and nobody takes them seriously. People laugh and scoff at
such stuff as they have become too familiar with it and such writings have lost
all sting. Any non descript person who promises to change the order of things
by bloody revolution and assumes the role of a new Messiah is merely the
laughing-stock of his readers and creates an adverse impression against
himself, rather than succeed in stirring up any excitement in the minds of the
readers.
Rhetoric of this kind might in conceivable
circumstances inflame passions as, for example, if addressed to an excited mob,
but if such exceptional circumstances exist it was for the State Government to
establish the fact. In the absence of any such proof we must assume that the
pamphlet would be read by educated persons in the quietness of their homes or
in other places where the atmosphere is normal. I would therefore hold, in the
words of my brother Bose in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Government of C.P. &
Berar(1), that though the pamphlet in question uses extravagant language and
there is in it the usual crude emotional appeal which is the stock-in-trade of
the demagogue as well as a blundering and ineffective attempt to ape the poets,
that is all, and there is nothing more in it. The time is long past when
writings of this kind can in normal circumstances excite people to commit
crimes of violence or murder or tend to excite anybody to commit acts of
violence. Again the language employed is full of mysticism and (I) I.L.R. 1964
Nag. 865 664 cannot be easily understood and it creates no impression of any
kind on any person.
In order to determine whether a particular
document falls within the ambit section 4(1), the writing has to be considered
as a whole and in a fair and free and liberal spirit, not dwelling too much
upon isolated passages or upon a strong word here and there, and an endeavour
should be made to gather the general effect which the whole composition would
have on the mind of the public. Expressions which are the stock-in-trade of
political demagogues and have no tendency to excite anybody, and exaggerations
in language cannot lead to that result. The learned Government Advocate placed
reliance on the decision of Harries C.J. in Badri Narain v. Chief Secretary,
Bihar Government (2). The learned Chief Justice therein held that in order to
show that certain words fall under section 4 (1) (a) it is not necessary to
show that the words tend to incite or to encourage the commission of a
particular offence or offences and that it is sufficient if they tend to incite
to or to encourage the commission of cognizable offences of violence in
general. In that case, a poem entitled "Labourers, the mainstay' of the
world" began by emphasising that labourers are the mainstay of the present
world and then proceeded to describe their unfortunate and pitiful lot. In a
subsequent portion the author stated that though speechless today, when
organized, the labourers will be as powerful as millions and this portion of
the poem ended with these words:
"Why are you helplessly tolerating the
exploitation of your masters." The remaining lines were as follows:"Labourers,
raise now the cry of revolution. The heavens will tremble, the Universe will
shake and the flames of revolution will burst forth from land and water. You
who have been the object of exploitation, now dance the fearful dance of
destruction on this earth; truly, labourers, only total destruction will (2)
A.I.R. 1941 Pat.132 665 create a new world order and that will bring happiness
to the whole world." It is quite clear that here an appeal was made to labourers
inciting and encouraging them to commit acts of violence. The words used
certainly tended to achieve that result. They were no empty slogans or abstract
propositions.
It had one consistent and coherent purpose,
i.e., to excite labourers and to bring them into action. Any observation made
about this writing can have no apt application for the determination of the
present case. The learned Chief Justice in the concluding part of the judgment
very pertinently pointed out that a commonsense interpretation must be given to
the document complained of, the question to be answered always being, what
impression will the documents or words give to a man of ordinary commonsense.
My answer to this query in the present case is that the document read at first
sight is not intelligible unless it is explained to that man of ordinary
commonsense by a learned person and hence it can by itself create no impression
of any kind on such a person.
After the writing is explained to such a man,
he will merely laugh at it and throw it in the waste paper basket without
taking it seriously. He will refuse to believe that a person of this kind can
create a new world order by appealing to a bloody revolution.
As I pointed out in my judgment in Harkrishan
Singh v. Emperor(1), the use of such words as appear in this document creates
no impression on the mind of any reasonable reader.
That case dealt with clause (d) of section 4
(1), but the principle underlying it also applies to the construction of
writings which are alleged to fall under section 4 (1) (a).
I do not mean to suggest or to lay down as a
general proposition that some of the words used in the pamphlet in question in
the context of any other writing would not fall within the mischief of section
4 (1) (a). Certain parts of the pamphlet, if read as isolated passages, may
have the tendency to excite people to commit (I) A,I.R, 1946 Lah, 22.
666 crimes of violence but that is not the
effect if the pamphlet is read in its entirety.
The result is that I would dismiss the appeal
but in the circumstances would make no order as to costs. The State Government
has succeeded in its contention that section 4 (1) (a) of the Act is
constitutional and that was the real ground on which it came to this Court.
PATANJALI SASTRI C.J.--I agree with the
judgment just delivered by my learned brother Mahajan J. and have nothing to
add.
MUKHERJEA J.--I concur in the judgment
delivered by my learned brother Mahajan J. and I would like to say a few words,
regarding the publication itself which led to the demand of security by the
Government under the provision of the Indian Press (Emergency) Act.
The point that requires consideration is,
whether the words contained in the impugned publication are of the nature
described in section 4 (1) (a) of the Act; or in other words whether they
incite to or encourage or tend to incite to or to encourage the commission of
any offence of murder or any cognizable offence involving violence. It is well
settled that to arrive at a decision on this point, the writing is to be looked
at as a whole without laying stress on isolated passages or particular expressions
used here and there, and that the court should take into consideration what
effect the writing is likely to produce on the minds of the readers for whom
the publication is intended. Account should also be taken of the place,
circumstances and occasion of the publication, as a clear appreciation of the
background in which the words are used is of very great assistance in enabling
the court to view them in their proper perspective.
The leaflet in question is entitled
"Sangram" or struggle. It is written in high-flown Bengali prose with
a large mixture of poetic expressions borrowed at random from the writings of
some well-known 667 poets of Bengal. The object of the writing as far as could
be gathered from the document is to give a poetic or idealistic picture of what
is meant and connotated by "struggle"or revolution. The aim and end
of "struggle ", as stated in the leaflet, is to wipe outs,
"oppression, injustice or wrong" which is "pervading all over
the world from the past to the future"; and it is only after all wrongs,
injustice and oppression have perished that a new world could be built up. This
seems to be the main or central theme of the composition, clothed, though it
is, under much incoherent talk and seemingly meaningless utterances. There is
no indication throughout the writing as to what kind of oppression, injustice
or wrong the author had in mind. Far from referring to grievances of any
specific character, the writer does not even hint at such general causes of
discontent as political inequality, economic exploitation or class warfare
which are the subject-matter of agitation in many parts of the world. The
leaflet does not give indication also of any unpopular measure or act of
injustice affecting the minds of the people in the particular area where it was
published and within which it was intended to be circulated. In one part of the
document the following words are found to occur:
"If mother be true, let no disgrace
spread in the name of the mother. If mother tongue be equal to mother, then the
said language is your most revered goddess. Do not allow disgrace to spread in
her name".
It is not the case of the Government and
there is no statement or affidavit to that effect, that the passages here have
any reference to the language controversy which agitated and probably is still
agitating this particular district. In another part of the document the
expression "narrow parochial politics" has been used, but here again
the Government has not made any attempt to explain, what this expression could,
in the particular context, mean or refer to. As no acts of injustice or
oppression are actually mentioned in the document, it is difficult to say who
the "oppressors" are, whose "proud heads" the author asks
his 668 readers to break. It is quite clear that the "oppressor"
mentioned here is neither the Government nor the party in power, nor has it any
relation to any particular class of persons or a sect or community which might
be harassing others and trampling upon their rights. It may be, that to attract
the operation of section 4 (1) (a) of the Indian Press Act, the incitement to
murder or violence need not be specifically directed against particular
individuals or class of persons; but when the whole talk is about injustice or
oppression in the abstract, which is stated by the author to be in existence
from the beginning of time and when in hyperbolic language a hope is expressed
of establishing a better and a cleaner world through struggle, sweat and blood,
the words used may not improperly be looked upon as an effusion of poetic fancy
which, having no relation to actual facts can have very little potency for
doing mischief. I will now proceed to examine the contents of the pamphlet in
detail.
The writer begins in an affected poetic vein and
describes, in language, to which it is difficult to attach any rational
meaning, what "struggle" or revolution is. The "struggle"
which is personified in the article introduces itself in the following manner:
"I am not wealth, nor popular strength, not
the people nor fame;...I am not joy nor a brag, nor the timid look of the
beloved's eyes .... I am not mother's affection, nor sister's love".
If these words convey any sense, they can
only mean that the struggle or revolution which the writer wants to depict is
something different from what we ordinarily associate with our social life and
happiness; it is a negation of all natural human feelings and sentiments. The
next paragraph says in equal enigmatical language what "Sangram" or
"struggle" actually is. "I am old antiquated history" thus
the article proceeds;
" I am time eternal, I am the future,
the present and the past, in my heart is written the story of the past, the
problems of the present and the voice of the 669 future". I do not know
whether this is a poetic way of depicting the entire life process which is said
to lie through struggle and guide our evolution in this planet.
Struggle, according to the author, is coeval
with time and eternity.
In the next paragraph the writer passes on to
say with many repetitions of the word "wrong" that "it is wrong
which is pervading all over from the past to the future", and it is this
wrong that is to be righted by the struggle. The struggle here is likened for
reasons best known to the author to a piece of torn grass in the middle stream
of a turbulent river, and to a grain of dust thrown in the face of a cyclone.
"It is dishonour, Unhappiness, endless pain." It is again likened
successively to the frown of the beloved, to famine, storm and evil days. The
call is sent to everybody to come on "where the sky is cracking and the
endless rough and thorny path is shrouded in darkness" and assist in
building up a new world.. Many of the expressions used here are taken verbatim
from the writings of some well-known Bengalee authors, though they sound
nothing but a rigmarole in the present context.
The next paragraph begins with the word
"revolution".
Struggle is revolution and through struggle
and revolution the world is to be built anew. It is then said that "death
is my darling and death is the only truth in this world".
If one has to die, there is no sense in dying
of illness.
Let a man choose an honourable death by
standing against oppressors. Quite abruptly the author brings in the name of
Sri Subhas Chandra Bose in the midst of this talk and asks his readers to
listen "far far away across the hills, across the jungle, across the
rivers and rivulets the call of Subhas Chandra Bose, the greatest revolutionary
leader of the world". The people are asked not to stop until the objective
is attained. Again it is said "I am struggle, I am revolution ...... I am
a Hindu, I am a Mussalman, I am a Christian, I am a Jew, I am a Keduin, I am
severed from all religions by the fruits of my action in previous births".
Without the least attention to any sequence of thought, immediately 670 after
this, the imaginary oppressor is addressed by the author as follows:
"Oh you foolish oppressor you want to
terrify with your red eyes, I fear not." The author, or rather the personified
"struggle" which purports to speak, then repeats the well-known words
of poet Tagore and says that he does not seek salvation through renunciation;
he wants that salvation which lies in joy amidst innumerable dangers and
difficulties. The idea of finding joy in all that is hated, avoided and dreaded
in this world is elaborated in the passages that follow.
"Death" it is said "is my
secret love, poison is my drink, the flames of fire are my sweet breeze, the
cry of childless mothers a tune in my flute and the weeping of widows a rythm
of my song". In this vein the author goes on conjuring up all the uncanny
and weird things in the world and associating them with struggle. "I am
not joy, I am the remnant of the dying cries ...... I am the bloodthirsty
goddess Kali who lives and moves about in the cremation ground. I want blood
............ Break the proud head of the oppressor.
I bathe in flames ............... Thunder is
my kiss of affection ......... I do not understand myself. I do not know myself.
I do not recognise myself still I want revolution, still I want struggle".
The learned Judges of the High Court laid very great stress on these passages
which in their opinion constitute a direct incitement to bloody revolution; and
that is also the line of argument adopted by Mr. Mitter who appeared before us
on behalf of the State.
It has been argued by Mr. Ghosh appearing for
the respondent that the "struggle" which the author has depicted and
which he aims at is a non-violent struggle and the blood that is to be shed is
the blood of those who are called upon to resist oppression and injustice. On
the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the State that the passages quoted
above can only mean that it is a bloody and violent revolution which could carry
men to their desired end. In my opinion, neither of these contentions furnish
to us the proper method of approach to the question which requires 671 decision
in the present case. We would have to look at the article as a whole and focus
our attention on what can be regarded to be its central theme or purpose. As
has been said already, what the writer wants is to draw an ideal picture of
"struggle" or revolution quite unconnected with any particular place,
or any particular political or social environment. Injustice or oppression
exists, according to the author, from the very dawn of time and so also does
struggle or revolution. It is an integral part of the world process and is a
sort of irrational or blind impulse. This is expressed by saying "I do not
understand myself,I do not recognise myself, still I want revolution". In
painting death or war, the artist would naturally choose some uncanny
associations. The trappings of revolution, as the author paints it, are all the
fearful and hideous things in this world. It is linked up with thunder and
storm, fire and devastation, cataclysm, famine, danger, destruction and death.
It is immaterial so far as this ideal picture is concerned whether the blood
that is spoken of is the blood of the oppressor or of the oppressed, and
whether the struggle is violent or pacific. The goddess Kali in the Hindu
mythology is the goddess of destruction and death, but she is the benign
goddess also whose protecting hands ward off all oppressions, danger and
calamity. That is the reason why revolution or struggle is assimilated to this
goddess.
It cannot be denied that in painting this
picture of "struggle" or revolution the author has used very strong
words;
but they would not be unnatural if it is only
an ideal picture that the author really desired to paint. If however, it can be
shown that under the cloud of these general enigmatical words something
concrete and tangible lies hidden, that the "oppression" and
"oppressor" are not imaginary abstractions but are real things not
unknown to the people to whom the article is addressed and there is in fact a
grievance agitating the popular mind, no matter whether it is well or ill
founded, against which the author desires to inflame public opinion then even
though he uses veiled or covert language, there 672 can be no doubt that the
article would come within the purview of section 4 (1) (a) of the Indian Press
Act. But the difficulty is that the Government has not made any attempt to
establish any of these facts. Without knowing the attendant circumstances and
the actual background of the publication, it is not possible for us to
ascertain the real intention that lies behind the writing; and absolutely no
materials have been placed before us by the Government which might enable us to
find out what in reality was the substance behind this camouflage of words, if
camouflage it actually is.
The rest of the article proceeds in the same
hyperbolic and enigmatical style There is repetition ad nauseam of the same
stock phrases and expressions. It goes on to say "I am the messenger of
death. I am untouchable, I am vague, I am queer, 1 am nightmare, I am robber, I
am enemy, I am unknown. 1 am not Falgoon with its sweet smelling flowers; I am
eternal separation, I am restlessness". I am extremely doubtful whether
expressions like these would not, to an ordinary reader, appear to be anything
better than the ravings of a mad man. I will cull a few more expressions which
occur subsequently and which loftily this impression.
"I see struggle on my darling's face, I
see struggle in the honey of flowers...I am storm, I am the Deepak Ragini.I am
misfortune. I am cry of distress, I am jealousy, I am evil days." The
concluding portion of the article reads as follows:
`` Let me speak the last word: If you are
true, if you are gift of God, if you are not a bastard...then come forward with
a fearless heart, struggle against the oppressor's improper conduct, oppression
and injustice. We shall not tolerate wrongful oppression. Oh, the people, with
the pain of your heart-burn: the heart of the oppressive high-handed oppressor,
let all wrongs, all high-handedness, all oppressions, all tyrannies be burnt in
the flame." 673 There was a good deal of discussion before us as to
whether these passages hint at a violent or a non. violent struggle.
It may be capable of either interpretation.
but as I have said already, that by itself would not afford a decisive solution
of the question before us. It is also not much material to consider whether the
author wants that "Jealousy and malice" which he has referred to at
the end of the article, are to develop and spread or they are to be transformed
into innocuous and sweet smelling flowers. This is certainly a matter upon
which difference of opinion is possible. After all, we are to see what impression
the article read as a whole would produce upon ordinary people. An ordinary
reader is not expected to seek the assistance of an interpreter in trying to
find out the true meaning of the words used.
As has been said already, many of the
expressions used here have been taken verbatim from the writings of certain
noted Bengalee authors. They are stock phrases current in Bengal and amongst
the Bengali speaking community elsewhere.
If it strikes the reader that what the author
wanted was to pass himself off as a noted writer by sheer plagiarism, then
whatever else may be said about the article, it certainly does not come within
the purview of section 4 (1) (a) of the Press Act. Taking the article as it is,
it is nothing but a tissue of high sounding and meaningless words and whether
the author wanted to imitate some of the welt known poets of Bengal in
attempting to give a poetic description of "struggle" or revolution
or wanted to give himself the pose of a liberator of mankind, out to wipe out
the last vestiges of oppression and injustice from the face of the earth, no
rational person would take him seriously and would look upon this composition
as the vapourings of a deranged brain. If, on the other hand, the whole thing
is a clever ruse resorted to with the object of inflaming the popular mind
against certain persons or authorities, and although only general and vague
words are used, the words have their meaning and significance to those 674 who
are acquainted with the actual situation, it was incumbent upon the Government
to clear up these matters and present before us the background and the context
without which no meaning could be attributed to this species of empty verbiage.
As Government did not discharge the duty that lay upon them, I am clearly of
opinion that no security order could be passed against the respondent under the
provision of section 4 (1) (a) of the Press Emergency Act.
DAS J.--During the course of the arguments I
entertained some doubt as to the innocence of the meaning and implication of
the pamphlet in question, but, in the light of the judgments of my learned
brothers Mahajan J. and Mukherjea J., which I have had the advantage of
perusing since, I do not feel that I would be justified in dissenting from the
construction they have put upon the language used in the pamphlet. I
accordingly concur in their conclusion.
Bose J.--I agree with my brothers Mahajan and
Mukherjea.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant: R.C. Prasad.
Agent for the respondent: P.K. Chatterjee.
Back
