1968 (8) TMI 205 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petitions under Section 99B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Validity of the order of forfeiture passed by the Delhi Administration.
4. Whether the book "Gandhi-hatya Ani Mee" promotes feelings of enmity and hatred between Hindus and Muslims in India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 99A on the grounds that it violates Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(f), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, arguing that it imposes unreasonable restrictions on free speech, property rights, and the right to carry on business. The Court held that Section 99A is an 'existing law' and the restrictions it imposes are reasonable and in the interests of public order and the general public. The Court cited precedents and tests for reasonableness, concluding that the restrictions are not excessive or arbitrary. The Court also noted that Section 99A provides for a full judicial review under Sections 99B and 99D, which acts as a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petitions under Section 99B of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Court addressed the preliminary objection raised by the Advocate General regarding the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the petitions under Section 99B. The Court concluded that the High Court of Delhi, and no other High Court, would have jurisdiction to entertain petitions filed under Section 99B to challenge the order of forfeiture passed by the Delhi Administration. The Court reasoned that allowing challenges in multiple High Courts would lead to conflicts of jurisdiction and that Section 99B must be read in conjunction with Section 99A, implying that the High Court with jurisdiction over the area of the State Government issuing the order has the authority to hear the petition.

3. Validity of the order of forfeiture passed by the Delhi Administration:
The Court examined whether the order of forfeiture dated 26th September 1968 was justified on merits. The Court analyzed the book in detail, considering its theme, language, and context. The Court concluded that the book does not contain matter that promotes feelings of enmity and hatred between Hindus and Muslims in India. The Court emphasized that the book must be read as a whole and in context, and isolated passages should not be taken out of context to infer objectionable content. The Court found that the book's theme revolves around historical events and the author's views on Gandhiji's policies, rather than promoting communal enmity.

4. Whether the book "Gandhi-hatya Ani Mee" promotes feelings of enmity and hatred between Hindus and Muslims in India:
The Court analyzed specific passages from the book, considering whether they promote enmity and hatred. The Court found that the book's primary theme is the political context of Gandhiji's assassination and the author's perspective on historical events. The Court noted that while the book contains strong expressions of the author's views, it does not promote enmity or hatred between communities. The Court also considered the broader context of the book, including the author's personal experiences and the historical setting, concluding that the book does not fall within the mischief of Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, setting aside the order of forfeiture dated 26th September 1968 and directing the respondents not to take any steps in furtherance of the said order. The Court also ordered the return of copies of the book seized by the police. The Court awarded costs to the petitioner, with the 2nd Respondent (Delhi Administration) ordered to pay a total of Rs. 4,000 in costs to the author and publisher.