Judgment

Fazl Ali J. [Dissenting judgment] - For the reasons given by me in Brij Bhushan v. The State of Delhi, (A. I. R. (37) 1950 S. C. 129), which practically involves the same question as is involved in this case, I hold that the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. In this view, I would dismiss this petition but I should like to add a few observations to supplement what I have said in the other case.

2. It appears to me that in the ultimate analysis the real question to be decided in this whether "disorders involving menace to the peace and tranquillity of the Province" and affecting "public safety" will be a matter which undermine the security of the State or not. I have borrowed the words quoted within inverted commas from the preamble of the Act* which shows its scope and necessity and the question raised before us attacking the validity of the Act must be formulated in the manner I have suggested. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, as I think it must be, then the impugned law which prohibits entry into the State of Madras of "any document or class of documents" for securing public safety and maintenance of public order should satisfy the requirements laid down in Art. 19 (2) of the Constitution. From the trend of the arguments addressed to us it would appear that if a document is seditious, its entry could be validly prohibited, because sedition is a matter which undermines the security of the State; but if, on the other hand, the document is calculated to disturb public tranquillity and affect public safety, its entry cannot be prohibited, because public disorder and disturbance of public tranquillity are not matters which undermine the security of the State. Speaking for myself, I cannot understand this argument. In Brij Bhushan v. The State of Delhi, (A. I. R. (37) 1950 S. C. 129), I have quoted good authority to show that sedition owes its gravity to its tendency to create disorders and an authority on criminal law like Sir James Stephen has classed sedition as an offence against public tranquillity. If so how could sedition be a matter which would undermine the security of the State and public disorders and disturbance of public safety will not be such a matter ? It was argued that a small riot or an affray will not undermine the security of the State, but to this line of argument there is a two fold answer : (1) The Act as its preamble shows, is not intended for petty disorders but for disorders involving menance to the peace and tranquillity of the Province (2) There are degrees of gravity in the offence of sedition also and an isolated piece of writing of mildly seditious character by one insignificant individual may not also from the layman s point of view, be a matter which undermines the security of the State, but that would not affect the law which aims at checking sedition. It was also said that the law as it stands may be misused by the State executive, but misuse of the law is one thing and its being unconstitutional is another. We are here concerned with the latter aspect only. I shall not pursue the matter further as I have said enough on the subject in the connected case. * Namely, the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 - Ed.

3. Patanjali Sastri J. [Majority judgment] - The petitioner is the printer, publisher and editor of a recently started weekly journal in English called CROSS ROADS printed and published in Bombay. The Government of Madras, the respondents herein, in exercise of their powers under S. 9(1-A) Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act) purported to issue an order No. MS 1333 dated 1st March 1950 whereby they imposed a ban upon the entry and circulation of the journal in that State. The order was published in the Fort St George Gazetta and the notification ran as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 9 (1-A), Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXIII of 1949).