JUDGMENT - (1) This application under Art. 228 of the Constitution raises the question as to the validity of section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffectio n) Act beig Act No. XXII of 1922.

(2) The petitioner is a memeber of the Loksabha having been elected from the constituency of the City of Ahmedabad and is also the President of the Maha Gujerat Janta Prishad. On the 15th of March 1959, he delivered a speech in a public meeting held under the auspices of the Maha Gujerat Janata Parishad at Gandh Chowk, Saraspur, Ahmedabad, in which he addressed certain remarks amongst other persons to the members of the police force. It is alleged that the speech was in contravention of Section 3 of the said Act.

(3) The speech made by the petitioner and taken down by the police shorthand-writer runs as follows:

"Someone (policemen) tells me to form an Union. I told him to form Seva Mandal. There is fund of the department (Police Welfare Fund). The children of policemen should be given education and the ailing persons should be known (sic) everywhere; that there is dissatisfasction among the policemen and when the 8t August will come they will realise that they were so far acting like enemies of the people and henceforth they will be careful and disregrd the rule of Shri Chaven.

"When dissatisfaction among the police rank will increase, they will think of remaining faithful to the people of Gujarat and its soil and they will not care for Heradia (District Magistrate) and Shri Nanavati (Dy. Inspector General of Police. Ahmedabad); the mastery of Sethna (District Superintentent of Police) will be of no use. The wireless police will not give any reply. The Motor driver will get down and the policemen will say that they are also on strike. The revolution in Russia came in 1905 and at that time policemen went on strike damning the Government administration as it could not function without them, and had to compromise with the opponents of Czar.

"If all officers at all places raise shouts of protests, declare a revolt and decide to go on strike, Shri Chavan will run to Delhi and say that he cannot run the bilingual State etc."

On this speech the petitioner was charged with having committed an offence under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922. While the case against the petitioner, being case No. 625 of 1959, was pending in he Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court, Ahmedamad the petitioner presented this application and obtained an interim stay.

(4) For the purposes fo this application we will assume that the aforesaid speech made by the petitioner falls under the mischief of Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disazffection) Act, 1922.

(5) Mr. Singhvi, who appears for the petitioner, assailed Section 3 on two grounds; (1) that the section has nothing to do and is not concerned with the security of State or the public order and (2) that even if it has the section is so wide in its scope that it is unreasonable, that is. Its scope is wider than it need be. It was, therefore, urged that the impugned section cannot be said to be a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) of the Constitution as it cannot be said to have been enacted ither in the interests of the secuirty of the State or public order. Act. 19(1) privides:

"All citizens have the right-

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

xxx"

To appreciate Mr. Singhvis argument it is necessary to keep in mind Art. 19(2) as it was before its amendment in 1951 and as it stands now.Art, 19 (2) prior to the amendment in 1951 was as follows:

"Noting in sub-clause (a) of clause (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 or overthorow, the State."

By the Constitution (First Am

Click Here to Read the rest of this document