Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
26th April 1956
BHAGWATI AND CHANDRASEKHRA AIYAR, JJ.
Kartar Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1955.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Ram Das and Mr. Raghu Nath Pandit, Advocate for Appellants, Mr. Jindralal and Mr. P. G. Gokhale, Advocates for Respondent.
The appellants were members of the Amritsar District Motor Union which took out a procession on 23rd March, 1954 to protest against the policy of the Punjab Government to nationalise motor transport. The appellants raised slogans against the then Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab State, which besides being indecent amounted to defamation. The appellants were challenged under section 9 of the Punjab Security of the State Act, 1953, on the ground that the slogans besides being indecent amounted to defamation, were prejudicial to the security of the State and the maintenance of public order. They were convicted by the trying magistrate and their appeals against (conviction were also rejected.
Held (allowing the appeal) : It cannot be denied that the appellants by words spoken published statements in relation to the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government. Their conduct in this behalf could not at all be justified. No decent citizen should have uttered such slogans and the State authorities were well within their rights in proceeding against the appellants. The State authorities, however, misconceived their remedy. Howsoever provocative and indecent or unbefitting a responsible citizen of the State the conduct of the appellants was, the charge which with leveled against the appellants was one under section 9 of the Punjab Security of the State Act, 1953, and before the prosecution could succeed they had not only to prove that what the appellants did was against decency and was defamatory of these individuals but also was such that it undermined public order, decency or morality or was tantamount to in incitement to an offence prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The learned counsel for the State very rightly conceded that the statements could not be said to undermine the security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States nor did they amount to contempt of Court or defamation prejudicial to the security of the State nor did they tend to overthrow the State. Howsoever reprehensible those slogans were, they certainly would not have that effect. The only way in which he sought to bring these slogans uttered by the appellants within the mischief of section 9 of the Act was by urging that the statements undermined public order, decency or morality and that they were tantamount to an incitement to an offence prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. There is, however, no reliable evidence in regard to the members of the public having felt annoyed over these slogans uttered by the appellants. Even assuming that some members of the public who had congregated near the Prabhat Studio felt annoyed at these slogans and took them ill it is a far cry from that annoyance to undermining of the public order, decency or morality or incitement to an offence prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The only offence prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which could be thought of in this context was that of rioting and there is not the slightest evidence on record to justify Boll inference that the effect of the utterance of these slogans by the appellants against these Ministers would but for the police arrangements, have led to the undermining of the public order or would have led to rioting which would be certainly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Section 9 could not, therefore, apply to the facts of this case.
Judgement
BHAGWATI, J. : This appeal with special leave involves the interpretation of section 9 of the Punjab Security of the State Act, 1953 (Punjab Act XII of 1953), hereinafter called "the Act".
2. The appellants were members of the Amritsar District Motor Union which took out a procession on 23rd March, 1954 to protest against the policy of the Punjab Government to nationalise motor transport. The procession started from Gal Park and was taken on lorries and jeeps. It stopped near Chitra Talkies and then started on foot. When it reached near Prabhat Studio, the appellants raised slogans "Jaggu mama hai hai (Jaggu maternal uncle be dead)" and "Khachar Khota hai hai (mule-cum-donkey be dead)".
The first slogan was alleged to have been directed against the Hon ble Shri Jagat Narain, Transport Minister, Punjab State and the second slogan against the Hon ble Shri Bhim Sachar, Chief Minister, Punjab State. The uttering of these slogans was considered objectionable and the appellants were charged in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class Amritsar :
"that you, on or about the 23rd day of March 1954 at Amritsar, while being members of a procession, raised slogans "Jaggu mama hai hai", "Khachar Khota hai hai". Which besides being indecent amounted to defamation and was prejudicial to the security of the State and the maintenance of public order and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 9 of the Security of the State Act."
3. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They also led evidence in defence. The learned Magistrate however, disbelieved the defence and accepting the prosecution evidence, found that the appellants did raise these slogans. In the opinion of the learned Magistrate, the slogans were in fact abuses hurled at the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government which besides indecent amounted to defamation and were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
4. The appeal taken by the appellants before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, was unsuccessful. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found against the appellants and observed that the slogans were highly objectionable and they fell within the ambit of section 9 of the said Act, that by raising those slogans the appellants undermined the public order as well as decency and they also amounted to defamation. He therefore, maintained the conviction of the appellants and the sentences of 3 months rigorous imprisonment which had been imposed by the learned Magistrate upon them.
5. The appellants filed a Revision Applications before the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla but the same was summarily dismissed by the learned Chief Justice. The appellants thereafter applied for and obtained from this Court Special Leave to appeal and the appeal has accordingly come on for hearing and final disposal before us.
6. On the evidence on record, there is no doubt that the appellants were members of the procession and did utter those slogans against the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government. The question however, remains whether, in uttering these slogans, they committed an offence under section 8 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act reads as follows.
"9. Whoever -
(a) makes any speech or
(b) by words, whether spoken or written, or by signs or by visible or audible representations or otherwise publishes any statement, rumour or report.
shall, if such speech statement, rumour or report undermines the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or amounts to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order., or tends to overthrow the State, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both."
7. It cannot be denied that the appellants by words spoken published statements in relation to the Tra
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
