1963 (8) TMI 74 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Constitutionality of Section 31(5) of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950.
2. Whether the publication by the accused amounted to a 'prejudicial report' under the Act.
3. Whether the restrictions imposed by Section 31(5) are reasonable under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 31(5) of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950:

The petitioners contended that Section 31(5) of the Act is ultra vires as it imposes arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. They argued that the section is void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution. The Advocate-General, representing the State, countered that the legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on these rights in the interests of public order, as permitted by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The court examined Article 19(2), which allows the state to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interests of public order, among other considerations. The court referred to previous Supreme Court decisions, such as Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. and Virendra v. State of Punjab, which elucidated that laws enacted "in the interests of public order" could impose restrictions on fundamental rights.

2. Whether the publication by the accused amounted to a 'prejudicial report' under the Act:

The court found that the report published by the accused in the Malayalam daily 'Janatha' was false and baseless. The report alleged police torture leading to a suicide, which was proven to be untrue. The publication of this report was considered a 'prejudicial act' and 'prejudicial report' as defined under Section 2 of the Act, thus constituting an offense punishable under Section 31(5). The court noted that both the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Sessions Judge had concluded that the report was false. The defense's argument that the report was published in good faith believing it to be true was not accepted by the court.

3. Whether the restrictions imposed by Section 31(5) are reasonable under Article 19(2) of the Constitution:

The court considered whether the restrictions imposed by Section 31(5) were reasonable and in the interests of public order. The petitioners argued that the section could potentially apply to both true and false reports, thereby imposing a total prohibition on the exercise of fundamental rights. However, the court clarified that the section was intended to penalize only the publication of false reports and rumors. The court referred to the principle of severability, indicating that even if a law is partially unconstitutional, the valid portion can still be upheld. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, which upheld the constitutionality of sections that aim to prevent activities likely to create public disorder or incite violence. The court concluded that the restrictions imposed by Section 31(5) were reasonable and within the permissible limits of legislative action under Article 19(2).

Conclusion:

The court held that Section 31(5) of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950, does not impose unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The section was found to be constitutionally valid as it imposes restrictions in the interests of public order. The publication by the accused was determined to be a false report, amounting to an offense under Section 31(5). Consequently, the conviction and sentence were confirmed, and the revision petition was dismissed.