Joshi Girjadharji v. Lachmanji Panth

Several objections were raised to the validity of the order passed by the Bihar Government but it is un- necessary two points which were seriously pressed before the High Court 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 arti- cle 13. The High Court reached the conclusion the pamphlet did come within the mischief of the Act. J. con- curred, on a construction of the decisions of this Court in Ramesh Thapar v. The State of Madras('), and Brij .Bhushan v. The State of Delhi(2), found, though with that section 4 ( 1) (a) of the Act was some reluctance, repugnant therefore void. the Constitution and 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. . Sarjoo Prosad J., with whom Ramaswami 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 the point at issue in the present case and that both Sarjoo Prasad indirectly on (!) [1950] S.C.R. 594. (2) [1950] S.C.R. 605. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 657 -~ and Ramaswami JJ. were in holding these decisions were conclusive on the question of invalidity of clauses (a) and (b) of section 4(1) of the Act. Towards the concluding part of his judgment Sarjoo Prosaj J. observed as follows:- in error 1952 T.ie State of Bilt11r v. Sluil11bala Devi. Alllhaian J. -' ;. through that from to observe "I am compelled the above discussions of the Supreme Court judgments, it follows that if a person were to go on inciting mur- logically der or other cognisable offences either press or by word of mouth, he would be free to do so with impunity inasmuch as he would claim the privi- lege 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 Consti- tution 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 to over- which undermines the State. I cannot with equanimity contem- conclusion plate such an anomalous situation but the appears 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 the position re-examined in the light Court the anomalous situation pointed out above. It seems to me that the words used the Constitution Act should be assigned a wide and liberal connotation even though they occur in a clause which provides an ex- right vouchsafed under ception article 19( 1) (a) of the Constitution Act." to be unavoidable on the authority of the security of or fundamental itself and These observations-I speak with great lack of understanding of respect- disclose a complete the pre- cise 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 ment that any printing press to the Provincial Govern- the purpose is used for ."-- ·- ~ . __ ., 658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] 1952 The State o1 Bihar v. of printing or publishing any newspaper, book or other document containing any words, signs or visible representation of the nature described in section 4, the Provincial Government may, by sub-section (1), Shailabala ·'FJeui: · notice in writing to the keeper of the press .... order Mahaian f.' 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 invol- ving violence. It is plain that speeches or expressions on the part of an individual which incite to or en- courage the commission of violent crimes, such as murder, cannot but be matters which would under- the security of the State and come within the ambit of a law sanctioned by article 19(2) of the Cons- titution. the decisions of this Court in Ramesh Thapar's case('), and in Brij Bhushan's case(') have been more than once misapplied and misunderstood and have been construed as laying the wide proposition 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 inter- ests of public order. Sarjoo Pro sad J. also seems have fallen into the same error. I cannot help observing restrictions of to authorise The question that arose in Ramesh Thapar's case(') was whether the impugned Act (Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, XXIII of 1949) as it purported by section 9 (1-A) 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 tJhe Province of Madras or any part thereof any document or class of documents" was a law relating to any matter which undermined to overthrow the State, and it security of or tended was observed that whatever ends the impugned Act. may have been intended to subserve and whatever (!) [1950] S.C.R. 594. (2) [1950] S.C.R. 605. 1952 The State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi. Mahajan/. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 659 itself, be aims its framers may have had in view, it:SJ application and scope could not, in the absence of delimiting words restricted to those eggravated the statute forms of preiudicial 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 bet- ween those who act prejudically to the security of the State and those who do not. Section 4(1)(a) of the im- pugned Act, however, is restricted to aggravated forms of prejudicial activity. It deals specifically with incite- ment to violent crimes and does not deal with acts that generally concern them.selves with the maintenance of public order. That being so, the decision in Ramesh Thapar's case(1) given on the constitutionality of sec- tion 9 (1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act has no relevancy for deciding the constitu- tional.ity of the provisions of section 4(1) (a) of Indian Press: (Emergency Powers) Act. Towards concluding portion in Ramesh Thapar's Judgment(1) it was observed as follows :- it, such "We are that unless a therefore of opinion restricting freedom of speech and expression is directed solely against the undermining of the security of State or the overthrow of law cannot fall within the reservation under clause (2) of article 19, although the restrictions which it seeks to impose may have been conceived generally in the interests of pub~ It follows that section 9(1-A) which autho- lie order. rizes imposition of restrictions for the wider purpose of securing public safety or the maintenance of public ordet falls outside the scope of authorized restrictions under clause (2), and is therefore void and unconstitu- tional." - . " 1 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 undermining of the security of the State or the over- throw of it and are within the ambit of article 19(2) ~ ~· (1) [1950] S.C.R. 594. 1952 The State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi. Mahajan /. 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] the Constitution. The deduction that a person would be free to incite to murder or other cognizable offence through the press with impunity drawn our decision in Romesh Thapar's case(') could easily have been avoided as it was avoided by Shearer J. who in very emphatic terms said as follows :- J.,. • ._. -, ' - ~. -· "I have read and re-read Supreme Court, and I can find nothing in them my- issue, and self which bear directly on leads me to think that, in their opinion, a restriction of this kind is no longer permissible." judgments of the point at Be that as it may, the matter is now concluded by the amended article 19(2) made by (First Amendment) Act which the language of the Constitution retrospective High Court on this point cannot be sustained. in operation, and the decision of repugnant Mr. Basant Chander Ghosh contended amendment made in article 19(2) of the Constitution with retrospective operation was to arti- cle 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 pub- lished. She has not been convicted of any offence so is not being again convicted for the same by far and 2(} reason of the amendment in article 19(2). Article case. has no application whatever Article 19(2) empowers a imposing reasonable restrictions 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 rights which could be said to have been contravened by the amendment. legislature present to make Though, as I have said above, the High Court 1s m error in the finding that the provisions of section 4(1)(a) (1) [1950] S.C.R. 594. 1952 T lu State •l Bihar v. Shailabala Devi. Mahajan f. , _,, .. ' , .. - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 661 Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act are of the repugnant to the Constitution, its judgment has to be maintained as it is also in error that the the mischief of pamphlet in question (Emergency section 4(1) (a) of Powers) Act. Indian Press fell within in holding somewhat The document is written in high-flown Bengali lan- guage and contairu; a good deal of demagogic claptrap It enunciates with some pretence to poetic flourish. certain abstract propositions involved language and it cannot be followed except with con- siderable effort. The High Court held that the docu- ment 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 pam- to bring about a phlet is that author is anxious bloody revolution and change completely the present order of things by causing a total annihilation of the the policies of those who according to persons and the opposite camp. Particular reference him are was. made 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:- terror "Oh thou foolish oppressor, you want to cause abject 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 i s my drink ; the flames of fire are my sweet breeze; the wailing of a hundred breaved 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. the blood- thirsty 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, I am 6-7 S.C.l./71 1952 The State of Bihar v. Skailabala Devi. Mahajan /. 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952) I want faith in the struggle. Tear, tear wrongs; Break thou the proud head of the oppressor." the chain of 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 the door of each of the revolutionary song signals to come out if they listeners and signals have life, if they have health, if they have courage come and dash to pieces those who commit oppression that with the blood of on the mother, and he says those followers kt the revolution grow. It winds up with an invocation to the readers in these terms :- to struggle against "If you are true, if you ai:e the gift of God, if you ~re not a bastard, then come forward with a fearless improper conduct, oppression and no.t 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, tyrannies be all high-handedness, all oppressions, burnt in the flame." the oppressors' injustice. We should this writing too seriously. It seems to me that the learned Judge~ of the High Court It did not &serve that consideration. It is some kind of patch-up work, with no consistency or cohesion between 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 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 a!J oppression, tyranny and in- justice. There is no evidence whatsoever for connecting this pamphlet with any agitation or movement at the time it was written in tl1at locality. writing several times anc\ I tl ink that Mr. Ghosh I have read . - • ' ·. ' - __. • ) • 663 likely against hiµiself, Aja~ai4~ /. impressio!l tq chaJ1ge the ord<;r of reaCl a pamphlet of lal.:Jgh and scoff at such l~i~ '[he Siqte. of Bihar v. right wll;~n 4e s;iys tha,t the: paµiphkt contains merely empty slogans, carrying no particular 111eaning except some amount of figurative expression or language \Jor- rowed at ranqom from various authors with a touch of poetic flourish about it. Writings of this c:;haracter Shaila, bCifa 1)evi. at the present moment an\} ~he present back- ground of our country neither excite nor have ~he tendency to excite any person from among cl~ss this naf:1Ire, They wjll necessarily be equ~ated, people. Such writ- ings leave their reac:lers cold and nobody takes seriously. People stuff as they have become too famili<1r with it and such writ- ings have lost all sting. Any non descript person who things by bloody prom_ises revolution and assumes the role of a new Messiah ~erely the' li!4ghingcstock of hi& readers and creat~s an a,dverse succeeq in stirring up any excitement in the minds of the readers. Rhetoric of this kinq might in con- inflame passions as, for exam- ceivable cin; ui; ns.van1=es if such if :i.ddressed ple, exceptional circumstan:ces exist the State In the absence of Govemment to establish the fact. the pamphlet ~y s4ch pnmf we must assume would be rea~ by educateci persons in the quietness of ~heir hotµes or in other places where the atmosphere i~ normal.. ~ wo4ld therefore hold, in the words of my bg)tlier Bose in 8hagwati Charan Shukla v. Government of C~ P. & J3.erar(1), that though the pamphlet in question uses extravagant language and there is in it the usual crude emotional appeal which the stock-in-trade of the demagogue as well as a blundering and ineffective attempt nothing n:mre in it. The time is long past when writ- ings qf tpis kind can in normal circumstances excite people t() cotn1Uit crimes of violence or murder or tend to ex\:ite ;µiypody to commit acts of violence. Again, the lap.~uage employed (D I.L.R~ 1946 Nag. 865. 86 tq an: excited mob, but full of mysticism it was for is all, and the poets, to ape rather 7-7 S.C.T.171 1952 -The State of Bihar v. S/Jailabala Devi. Mahajan f, 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] cannot be easily understood and it creates no impres- sion of any kind on any person. In order language cannot lead to in a fair and free and to determine whether a particular docu- ment falls within the ambit of any of the clauses of to be considered as a section 4 ( 1), the writing has whole 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. Ex- pressions which are the stock-in-trade of political de- magogues and have no tendency to excite anybody, and exaggerations that result. The learned Government Advocate placed reliance on the decision of Harries C. J. in Badri Narain v. Chief Secretary, Bihar Government('). 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 the commission of cognizable offences of encourage violence that case, a poem entitled the world" began by "Labourers, emphasising to describe present world and unfortunate and pitiful lot. In a subsequent portion today, when the author stated that organized, the labourers will be as powerful as millions and this portion of the poem ended with these words : the mainstay of though speechless the mainstay of then proceeded labourers are in general. to or incite In "Why are you helplessly tolerating the exploitation of your masters." The remaining line.s, were as follows :- "Labourers, raise now the cry of revolution. The heavens will tremble, the Universe will shake and the land and flames of revolution will burst forth from water. You who have been the object of exploitation, now dance the fearful dance of destruction on total destruction , will earth ; labourers, only truly, (2) A.LR. 1941 Pat. 132. ·- ' -- •• S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 665 create -a new world order. and ness to the whole world." that will bring happi- 1952 The State ~f Bihar ·v. Shailabala Devi. Mahajan f. ' ' ' ) - . - It had one consistent It is quite clear that here an appeal was made to to commit encouraging labourers inciting and acts of violence. The words used certainly tended achieve that result. They were no empty slogans or and· abstract propositions. coherent purpose, i.e., to excite labourers and to bring into action. Any observation made about writing can have no apt application for the determin- ation of the present case. The learned Chief Justice judgment very perti- in the concluding part of nently pointed out that a commonsense interpretation must be given question to be answered always being, what impres- to a man of sion will the documents or words give ordinary commonsense. My answer this query in that the document read at first the pres, ent case is explained to that is not intelligible unless 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 explain- laugh at it and ed to such a man, he will merely throw it· in the waste paper basket without taking seriously. He will refuse to believe that a person of this kind can create a new world order by appealing to a bloody revolution. the document complained of, reasonable 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 reader. That case dealt with clause (d) of section 4(1), but: the principle under- to the construction of writings lying it also applies which are alleged to fall under section 4(1)(a). I do not mean to suggest or to lay down as a general pro- position 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 isolated passages, parts of to commit may have the tendency to excite people the pamphlet, if read as (I) A.LR. 1946 Lah. 22. 195~ The $we of Bi bar v. Shail~~a/a l)evi. SQP~EME COURT REPORTS crimllll of viol~nc, but that is not the effect pamphlet is read in its entirety. ,_ - [1%2] if the The result is th?t 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 is constitutional and the Act that w~s the real ground on which it came to this Q:!urt. )?P,.T,\NJAL! SAsTR! rnst deli'v"ecl gy µiy ancl jiav~ not44lg to add. <;::. J.=l ;igree with \he judgment \earnei:\ brother Mahajan J, '\ • ' MuKHERJEA J.-I . concur in the jud11ment deliver- learned brother Mahajan J. and I wpulcl ed by my to say a few words, regarding the publication the demand of security by th~ itself which Government under th~ provision of the Indian Press (Emergency) Act. Tl}, point is, whether thi!t fNWr~s qmsideration the wqrds contained in th, impugned publication are jµ section 4(1) (a) of the Act; of th~ natur~ c!esgribed qr in other wprds whether they incite to or encourage or tend to incite to or to encourage the commission of any pffence of murder or any cognizable offence in- It is well settled that to arrive at a volving violence. decision on this point, the writing is to be looked at as ;i whole: without laying stress on isolated passages or particular expres~ions used here and there, and that the court should take into consideration what effect the writing is likely to produce on . the m'ind; of the readers for whom the pµbljcation is intended. Account shoqld alsl) 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 · t)ipir proper perspective. Th~ )eaRet in question 1s entitled "Sangam" or 5trµggle. It is written in high-flown Bengali prose with ~ ll!rge mixture of poetic expressions borrowed the writings of some welloknown at random from v -- -. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS leaflet, though is, under much poets of Bengal. The object of the writing as far as could be gathered from the document is tq give a poetic or idealistic picture of what is meant and eonnotated revolution. The aim and end of by "struggle" or to wipe out "struggle", as stated ''oppression", injustice or wrong" which is "pervading all over the world from the past to the future"; and is only after all wrongs, injustice and oppression have periilied that a new world could be built up. This seems to be the main or central theme of the composi- tion, clothed, incoherent talk and seemingly meaningless utterances. There is no indication throughout the writings as to what kind of oppression, injustice or wrong the author had in mind. Far from referring ,to grievances of any specific character, such general causes of discontent as political inequa- lity, economic exploitation or class warfare which are the subject-matter of agitation in many parts of world. The leaflet does not give indication also of any unpopular measure affecting the minds of it was published and within which it was intended to be circulated. In or.e part of the docu- ment the following words are found to occur : the writer does not even hint injustice the particular or act the people -- "If mother be true, let no disgrace spread in name of the mother. If mother tongue be equal mother, then the said language is your most revered goddess. Do· not allow disgrace to spread in her name". is still agitating In another part of It is not the case of the Government and there is no statement or affidavit to that effect, that the passages controversy here have any reference to the language which agitated and probably particular district. 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 the document, it: the "oppres- sors" a.re, whose "proud heads" the author asks his Last. is difficult to say who 1'/it Stou of Biltu •• S/J11illlbolt1 Dni. • 1952 The State 'of Bihar .v. Shailabala Devi. 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1952] is neither the Government nor readers to ·break. It is quite clear that the "oppressor" mentioned here party in power, nor has it any relation to any parti- cular class or persons or a sect or community which might be harassing others and trampling upon their rights. Ii may be, the operation of to attract section 4(1)(a) of incite- the Indian Press Act, to murder or violence need not be specifically directed against particular individuals or class of per- sons ; but when the whole talk is about injustice or operation 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, sweet and blood, the words used may not improperly be looked upon as an effusion of poetic to actual facts can fancy which, having no relation have very little potency for doing mischief. I will now proceed to examine the contents of derail. the abstract, which the pamphlet is stated by · The writer begins in an affected poetic vein and des- cribes, 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 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 ordi- narily associate with our social life and happiness ; it is a negation of all natural human ·feelings and senti- .ments. 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 · voice of the the present and the problems of .- -- ' • 1952 'The State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, Mukherjea /. S.C.R. SUPREME. 'COURT REPORTS 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 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, likened sue- unhappiness, endless pain .. " . cessively 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 is shrouded in darkness" and assist and thorny path in building up a new world. Many of the expressions the writings of taken verbatim from used here are some well-known Bengalee authors, though they sound nothing but a rigmarole in the present context. is again It - It is to die, standing against The next paragraph begins with the word "revolu- tion". Struggle is revolution and through struggle and revolution the world is to be built anew. said that· "death is my darling and death is the only truth in this world". If one has is no sense in dying of illness. Let a man choose an honour- able death by oppressors. Quite abruptly the author brings in the name of Sri Subhas Chandra Bose in the midst of this talk and asks his readers 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 is said "I am the objective 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 in previous births". Without the least of my action immediately attention to any sequence of is attained. A.gain thought, 1952 "f he State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi. Mukherj•a /. 6'7J) SUPREME COURT REPORTS ['1952] this, the author as follows : imaginary pppressor is addressed by "Oh you foolish oppressor you want terrify with your red eyes, I fear not." The author, or rather lives and moves about 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 salva- tion which lies in joy amidst innumerable dangers and dijliculties. The idea of finding joy in all that is hated, avoided and dreaded in this world is elaborated in the secret passages that follow. "Death" it is said "is my love, poison is my drink, the flames of fire are ~y sweet breeze, the cry of childless mothers a tune m my flute and the weeping of widows a rythm of my In this vein the author goes on conjuring up song". 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 cfies ......... I am the blood- thirsty goddess Kali who I want blood .......... Break the cremation ground. the proud head of I bathe in flames the oppressor. ............ Thunder is my kiss of affection .......... I do I do I do not know myself. not understand myself. not recognise myself, still I want revolution, I want struggle". T!ie learned Judges of the High Court laid very great stress on these passages which in revo- opinion constitute a direct incitement to bloody lution ; and that is also the line of argument adopted l:Jy Mr. Mitter who appeared before us on behalf of the It has been argued by Mr. Ghosh appearing State. 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 l!pon to resist oppression and miustice. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the State that the passages quoted above can only mean th:i.t it is a bloody and violent revolution which In my opinion, could carry men to their desired end. the proper neither of these contentions furnish to us I)lethod ~£ approach to the question which requires ,._ -- y 1952 Tire Statt! •f Bihllr v. Skm'lahala Detli. M111(/1erjea f, S.CJL SUPREME COURT REPORTS social the artist would decision in the present case. We would have to look at the article as a whole find focus our attention on what can be regarded to be its central theme or pur- pose. As has been the writer said already, what ideal picture of "struggle" o:r re- to draw an volution quite unconnected with any particular place, or any particular political or environment. Injustice or oppression exists, according to the author, from the very dawn of time and so also does struggle It is an integral part of the world pro- or revolution. cess 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, naturally choose some uncanny associations. The .trappings of revolution, as the author paints it, are all the fearful this world. It is linked up things and hideous thunder and storm, fire and devastation, cata- It is clysm, famine, danger, destruction and death. immaterial so far as 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 the author has this picture of "struggle" or revolution used very strong words ; but they would not be un- natural if it is only an ideal picture that the author really ·desired to paint. If however, it can be shown these general enigmatical that under words something concrete and lies hidden, that the "oppression" and "oppressor" are not imagi- nary abstractions but are real things not unknown 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 though he uses veiled or covert language, there inflame public opinion; the cloud of ideal picture tangible :1952 .The State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi. . Muk.herjea J. ., . 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] can be no doubt that the article would come within the purview of section 4( 1) (a) of the Indian Press the difficulty is that the Government has Act. But not made any attempt to establish any of these facts. Without knowing the attendant circumstances and 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 actually is. this camouflage of words, if camouflage The rest of the article proceeds in the same hyper- repetition atl bolic and enigmatical style. There nauseam of the same stock phrases and expressions. It goes on to say "I am the messenger of death. I am I am vague, I am queer, I am nightmare, untouchable, I am robber, I am enemy, I am unknown, I am not Falgoon with its sweet smelling flowers ; I am eternal extremely restlessness". separation, doubtful whether expressions like these would not, to an ordinary reader, appear to be anything better 'the ravings of a mad man. I will cull a few more ex- pressions which occur subsequently and which fortify this impression. I I "I see struggle on my darling's struggle in the honey of flowers ... I am Deepak Ragini ... I am misfortune. distress, I am jealousy, I am evil days." I face, storm, I am the I am cry of The concluding portion of the article reads as "Let me speak last word : If you are follows: 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 injustice. We shall not tolerate wrongful oppression. Oh, the people, with the pain of your heart-burn, the let all heart of the oppressive high-handed oppressor, wrongs, all high-handedness, tyrannies be burnt in the flame." oppressions, oppression improper conduct, ' - .... • S.C.R. : SUPREME· COURT REPORTS 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 inter- pretation, but as I have said already, itself that by the question would not afford a decisive solution of It before us. .to consider is also not much material that "jealousy and malice" whether the author wants which he has referred to at the end of the article, are transformed to develop and spread or into innocuous and sweet smelling flowers. This 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 ordi- nary people. An ordinary reader is not expected seek the assistance of an interpreter. in trying to find out the true meaning of the words used. they are to be . 1~52 .. The State·of Bihar ' .. v. Shailabala Devi. . . Mu.k.hr:riea /. If it the article, in Bengal and amongst 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 the Bengali phrases current elsewhere. speaking community strikes reader that what the author wanted was to pass him- self off as a noted writer by sheer plagiarism, then whatever else may be said about 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 mean- ingless words and whether imitate some of the well-known poets of Bengal in attempting to give a poetic description of "struggle" or revolution or wanted to give himself the pose of a to wipe out liberator of mankind, out injustice from the face of vestiges of oppression and the earth, no rational person would take him seriously and would If, ·on the other vapourings of a deranged brain. hand, resorted popular to with although. only general and vague words are used, the words have their meaning and significance to those certain persons or authorities, the object of the author wanted is a cleaver · ruse look upon composition the whole inflaming against j 1952 Tlie State of BihtJr v. Shailaba/a De11i. 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] to clear up the Government it was who are acquainted with the actual situation, incumbent upon matters and present before us the background and the context without which no meaning could be attributed empty verbiage. As Government to this species of I am did not discharge the duty that lay upon them, clearly of opinion that no security order could be passed against the respondent under the provision of section 4(l)(a) of the Press Emergency Act. DAs in the the course of the arguments innocence of I J.-During entertained some doubt as meaning and implication of the pamphlet in question, but, learned brothers Mahajan. J. and Mukherjea J., which I have had the advantage of perusing since, I do not fee) 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. judgments of my light of BosE J.-1 agree with my brothers Mahajan and Mukherjea. Appeal dismissed. · Agent for the appellant : R. C. Prasad. Agent for the respondent: P. K. Chatterjee. 1952 Ma1 26. THE STATE OF BOMBAY ti. PURUSHOTTAM JOG NAIK [PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., MEHER CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA, DAs and BosE JJ.] Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950), s. 3-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 166--0rder of deteotion-Form of order-Order stating that Government is satisfied-Not stating exf"essl'f that it is issued in the name of the Governor'-Valid£ty-Proof by other evidence-Valt1e of Secretary's evidence-Form of verification. The tnatetial ,portio~ of an order of detention made under s, 3 ·of. the: Ptevo11ti.e Detention Act, 1950, ran as fol!bws: , -. - .. .