SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1949 Supreme(SC) 58

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KANIA C.J.I., FAZL ALI, PATANJALI SASTRI, MAHAJAN, B.K. MUKHERJEA AND S.R. DAS, JJ.
Brij Bhusan and another - Petitioner s
Versus
The State of Delhi - Opposite Party.
Petition No.29 of 1950.
Advocates appeared
Shri N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (Shri B. Banerji, Advocate, Supreme Court, with him) instructed by Shri Ganpat Rai, Agent - for Petitioners. Shri M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, (Shri S. M. Sikri, Advocate, Supreme Court, with him) instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent - for Opposite Party.

The judgment established that the imposition of pre-censorship on a publication infringes the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, and such restrictions must be justified under the constitutional provisions.

Headnote:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH - EAST PUNJAB SAFETY ACT, 1949 - S.7 (1) (c)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, printer, publisher, and editor of an English weekly called ORGANIZER, challenged the validity of an order under S.7 (1) (c) of the East Punjab Safety Act, 1949, which imposed pre-censorship on their publication.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the provision infringed the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Issues: The main issue was whether S.7 (1) (c) of the Act was justified under cl. (2) of Art. 19, which allows restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the imposition of pre-censorship on a journal is a restriction on the liberty of the press and concluded that S.7 (1) (c) did not fall within the reservation of cl. (2) of Art. 19.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed.

Judgment

Fazl Ali J. [Dissentry Judgment.]- The question raised in this case relates to the validity of S.7 (i) (c). East Punjab Safety Act, 1949(as extended to the Province of India), which runs as follows : " The Provincial Government or any authority authorised by it in this behalf if satisfied that such nation is necessary for the purpose of preventing or combating any activity prejudicial to the public safety or the maintenance of public order may, by order in writing addressed to a printer, publisher or editor - (c) require that any matter relating to a particular object for class of subjects shall before publication be submitted for scrutiny."

2. It should be noted that the provision of sub-cl.(c) are not in general terms but are confined to a "particular subject or class of subjects", and that having regard to the context in which there words are used, they must be connected with "public safety or the maintenance of public order.

3. The petitioners on whose behalf this provision is assailed, are respectively the Printer (and Publisher) and Editor of an English weekly of Delhi called ORGANIZER , and they pray for the issue of writs of certiorari and prohibition to the Chief Commissioner. Delhi with a view "to examine and review the legality" of and "restrain the operation" of and "quash" the order made by him on 2nd March 1950, under the impugned section, directing them "to submit for scrutiny, in duplicate, before publication, till further orders, all communal matter and news and views about Pakistan including photographs and cartoons other than those derived from official sources or supplied by the news agencies . . . . . . . " The order in question recites among other things that the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that the "ORGANIZER" has been publishing highly objectionable matter constituting a threat to public law and order and that action to which reference has been made is necessary for the purpose of preventing or combating activities prejudicial to the public safety or the maintenance of public order. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that notwithstanding these recitals the order complained against is liable to be quashed because it amounts to an infringement of the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. Article 19(1) (a) and (2), which are to be read together, run as follows: "19. (1) All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression; * * * * * * * * (2) Nothing in sub-cl. (a) of cl. (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to, libel, slander, defamation, contempt of Court or any matter which offends against decency or morality or which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State. "

4. It is contended that S. 7 (1) (c) of the Act, under which the impugned order has been made, cannot be saved by cl. (2) of Art. 19 of the Constitution, because it does not relate to any matter which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State. Thus the main ground of attack is that the impugned law is an infringement of fundamental right and is not saved by the so-called saving clause to which reference has been made.

5. There can be no doubt that to impose precensorship on a journal, such as has been ordered by the Chief Commissioner in this case, is a restriction on the liberty of the press which is included in the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, and the only question which we have therefore to decide is whether cl. (2) of Art. 19 stands in the way of the petitioners.

6. The East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949, of which S. 7 is a part, was passed by the Provincial Legislature in exercise of the power conferred upon it by S. 100, Government of India Act, 1935, read with entry No. 1 of List II of Sch. 7 to that Act, which includes among other matters public or























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top