Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BHIMASANKARAM, P.CHANDRA REDDY, SRINIVASA CHARI
N.Veerabrahmam - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-12-59
Whether the impugned order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed under Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code in G. O. Ms. No. 501 Home (General-C) dated 23/03/1958 is valid and constitutional.
Fact of the Case:
The impugned order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed under Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code in G. O. Ms. No. 501 Home (General-C) dated 23/03/1958 declared every copy of the Telugu book entitled "bible Bandaram" written by the petitioner and published by Kavirajasramam, Nagandla, Guntur District and all other documents containing copies, re-prints, translations of, or extracts from the said book are forfeited to the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed under Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code in G. O. Ms. No. 501 Home (General-C) dated 23/03/1958 is valid and constitutional.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the impugned order is liable to be quashed merely because it does not contain the grounds of the opinion of the Government? 3. Whether the applicant is guilty of the "deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India"? 4. Whether the Government has the power to forfeit all the volumes of a book issued in several volumes when only one of the volumes contains obnoxious matter?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code is not violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution as the restriction imposed by this statutory provision on the freedom of expression is a reasonable one and as such it falls within the reservation under Clause (2) of the Article. 2. The Court held that the impugned order is not liable to be quashed merely because it does not contain the grounds of the opinion of the Government as the statement of the grounds of the opinion of the Government is not a precondition to the exercise of its power. 3. The Court held that the applicant is not guilty of the "deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India" as the passages relied on by the Government may be offensive and shock the susceptibilities of overzealous Christians, but it cannot be said that the author was inspired by the malicious intention to do so. 4. The Court held that the Government does not have the power to forfeit all the volumes of a book issued in several volumes when only one of the volumes contains obnoxious matter as the purpose of Section 99-A is to destroy the offending matter by forfeiture and there is no justification for the State Government exercising any such power either on the ground of commonsense or on the plain meaning of the words of the section.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition and the application under Section 99-B of the Criminal Procedure Code.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is the author of a book called Bible Bandaram, which means the Treasure of the Bible. He claims to have dealt with the Bible from a scientific and rationalistic point of view. Being of opinion that it contains matter, which falls within the purview of Section 99-A, Criminal Procedure Code, the State Government declared that all copies of the aforesaid book, wherever found, should be forfeited to the Government. Pursuant to this, the books are said to have been confiscated by the officers concerned. These two petitions are filed in this Court challenging the validity of that order. Crl. M. P. No. 888 of 1958 is preferred under Section 99-B Criminal Procedure Code, while the Writ Petition raises the question of the constitutional validity of section 99-A.
( 3 ) THE main theme of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner in support of both the petitions is that Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code offends Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, which guarantees to the citizens freedom of expression. The stress of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that any law, which takes away or even curtails any of the freedoms enshrined in Article 19 is void and should, therefore, be struck down.
( 4 ) IT is contended that the power conferred by that section could be used by the executive in such a way as to interfere with the right of freedom of expression of a citizen and thus destroy the protection afforded under Article 19. The crucial point for consideration is whether there is any repugnancy between Article 19 of the Constitution and Section 99-A Criminal Procedure Code.
( 5 ) WE will presently show that the impugned section does not in any way violate Article 19 (1) (a ). The right now claimed is created by Article 19 and is not independent of it and is subject to the limitation imposed by it and as such is not an unrestricted or unqualified right. It is useful to extract here the relevant provisions of Article 19.
( 6 ) ARTICLE 19 (1) in so far as it is relevant runs as follows : - "19 (1) All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression xxxx xx (f) to acquire, hold and dispose of property," Article 19 (2) says :-- "nothing in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Article 19 (5) says: -- " (5) Nothing in Sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe. "
( 7 ) IT is seen that the rights guaranteed under Clause 1 are subject to certain restrictions of a reasonable kind. The restrictions on the rights contemplated should be within the limits set by Clause 2. Therefore, the point for decision is whether the offending section is saved by Sub-article (2 ). This, in its turn, depends upon the terms of Section 99-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. We will have therefore to read that section, here. It runs thus ; - " (1) Where (a) any newspaper, or book as defined in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867) or (b) any document Wherever printed, appears to the State Government to contain any seditious matter or any matter
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
