Back
1947 Supreme(SC) 11
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD THANKERTON, LORD PORTER, LORD SIMONDS, SIR MADHAVAN NAIR AND SIR JOHN BEAUMONT.
KING-EMPEROR - Appellant
Versus
SADASHIV NARAYAN BHALERAO - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Bombay.
Decided On : Feb. 18. 1947
Solicitor for the appellant: Solicitor, India Office.
Incitement to public disorder or violence is not an essential ingredient for a conviction of sedition or a prejudicial act intended to excite disaffection, hatred, or contempt towards the government; the excitation of such feelings is sufficient for conviction.
Headnote:(A) Defence of India Rules - Rules 34(6)(e), 34(7), 38(1)(c) and 38(5) - Indian Penal Code - Section 124A - Prejudicial report - Sedition - Incitement to violence - Whether incitement to public disorder or violence is an essential ingredient for an offence of exciting disaffection, hatred, or contempt towards the Government - The offence consists in exciting or attempting to excite certain bad feelings towards the Government; it is not the exciting or attempting to excite mutiny, rebellion, or any sort of actual disturbance - Whether any disturbance or outbreak was caused or intended is immaterial if the intent was to excite feelings of enmity to the Government.
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Where a statutory definition is provided, the court is precluded from importing external common law definitions that restrict the plain meaning of the statute - The omission of certain explanations in one rule does not necessarily lead to a difference in construction when the operative language is identical to another statutory provision.
Facts of the case:
The respondent published and distributed a leaflet criticizing the government's policies, highlighting public suffering, food shortages, and calling for national unity and control of national defence. He was charged with publishing a prejudicial report intended to bring the government into hatred or contempt. The lower courts acquitted the respondent, relying on a precedent that held that the acts or words complained of must either incite to disorder or be such as to satisfy reasonable men that such was their intention or tendency.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the language of the rules governing prejudicial acts is identical to the law on sedition. It held that the requirement of incitement to public disorder is not a necessary element of the offence, and the lower courts erred in applying a test that required a likelihood of public disorder.
Issues: Whether incitement to public disorder or violence is an essential ingredient of a prejudicial act as defined under the relevant rules, which mirror the law on sedition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the offence is complete if there is an intention or likelihood to excite feelings of disaffection, hatred, or contempt towards the government. Incitement to actual violence or public disorder is not a necessary ingredient, as the statute focuses on the excitation of feelings rather than the induction of a specific course of action such as rebellion or forcible resistance.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the state
- sedition
-
offences against the state
Judgement
Law Rep. 74 Ind. App. 89 ( 1946- 1947) King-Emperor V. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao
57
Appeal (No. 49 of 1946) by special leave from a judgment of the High Court (January 25, 1944) which had affirmed an order of Mr. S. D. Adhav, Magistrate of the First Class, Jalgaon City (June 22, 1943), acquitting the respondent who had been charged under r. 38, sub-r. 5, of the DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES for having, on January 26, 1943, made, published and distributed copies of a leaflet which contained prejudicial reports within the meaning of r. 34, sub-r. 7 read with r. 34, sub-r.6 (e) and (g) of the DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES , and having thus con travened r. 38, sub-r.1 (c).
The following facts and statutory provisions are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES , which were made by the Central Government under s. 2 of the Defence of India Act, 1939 (XXXV of 1939)—so far as material—provided as follows
"34. (6) prejudicial act means any act which is intended or is likely—
"(e) to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection towards, His Majesty or the Crown Representative or the Government established by law in British India or in any other part of His Majestys dominions;
"(g) to cause fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public;
"34. (7) prejudicial report means any report, statement or visible representation, whether true or false, which, or the publishing of which, is, or is an incitement to the commission of, a prejudicial act as defined in this rule;
"38. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse—
"(c) make print, publish or distribute any document containing, or spread by any other means whatsoever, any prejudicial report;
"(5.) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of this rule, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both."
The document which formed the subject-matter of the charge was admittedly made and published by the respondent at Jalgaon City on January 26, 1943, and he admittedly distributed printed copies thereof. It consisted of a leaflet addressed. To all the patriots and it will be sufficient to quote some of the statements in the leaflet
“Unprecedented calamity has befallen our nation and the whole of our country has been undergoing sufferings. The Imperialists have by their barbarous policy turned the entire country into a cremation ground. When we were in great need of the national leaders for the purpose of the national defence, the bureaucracies has declared the National Congress unlawful and have detained all the leaders in jail.
"By reason of firings and arrests several villages in Khandesh have been made desolate and on account of this great calamity the people are losing their moral courage (day by day) and the whole of the country is putting on moribund appearance. The people in Khandesh have been harassed by the inequitable collective fines. As the Government is unable to solve the food problem, the cry of hunger is heard everywhere; and a situation has arisen everywhere in which serious food riots are expected. By depriving the mills of the coal fifty thousand families
Law Rep. 74 Ind. App. 89 ( 1946- 1947) King-Emperor V. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao
58
of the workers have been thrown into the ditch of hunger.
"But the Imperialists do not stop even at this. They are w making ceaseless efforts to create a split between the people and the patriots. They have been trying to strengthen their hold by creating disputes and differences among the people by various ways such as creating a split between the owner and the worker on the question of dearness allowance and coal, between the merchants and consumers on the question of food grains and between the Muslims and the non-Muslims on the question of collective fines. The disunion among the people is their last resort.
"If we blindly carry on sabotage activities simply because the Imperialists are not transferr
