R. V. Bhasin vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(Bom) 20

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RANJANA DESAI, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. MOHITE
R.V. Bhasin Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Another (Intervenors: Indian Union Muslim League & Others) Respondent
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1421 OF 2007
Decided on: 06-01-2010

Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant:J.P. Cama, senior counsel with Mr. R.J. Cama i/b. Mr. R.V. Bhasin, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. S.R. Borulkar and Mr. P.A. Pol, Public Prosecutor with Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, Advocates.
For the Intervenors:Y.H. Muchhala, senior counsel with Mr. Amin Solkar, Mr. Shaikh Yakub and Mr. Mubin Solkar i/b M/s. Judicial Law & Associates, Advocates,
I.G. Khandelwal in Person.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 153, 153-A, 153-B and 255-A read with Section 34 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 95(1) and 96 Banning and forfeiting a book "Islam" book banned Applicant writer seeking release of ban Government notification not specific on Sections of IPC It mentions as apprehension of hatred against Muslims, may promote enmity between classes Forfeiture on basis that it contains matter publication of which is a offence under Sections 153-A and 153-B, IPC Book in circulation since 2003 Now action barred by limitation State argument that applicant cannot contend matters which are not specified Enaction of Section 95, Criminal Procedure Code is to empower State to deal with emergent situation which may lead to breach of public order Court found though Sections of IPC are not mentioned they directly refer to ingredients of Sections 153-A and 295-A of IPC Cannot be accused of not containing required opinion Several false and derogatory statements found in book Application’s pleas rejected Author is allowed to criticize Islam on pure and simple evidence based criticism Insulting comments cannot be allowed Large Section of Indian Muslims felt hurt Imposed needs no relaxation. The grounds do not merely quote the pages or rely on the Schedule. The grounds give the gist of the derogatory remarks and to help identify those remarks page numbers are given. The Schedule merely supplements the grounds. The Notification does not entirely rest on the Schedule. In Court’s opinion, the Notification answers the test of a valid notification inasmuch as it states the opinion of the Government, it states the grounds of the Government’s opinion and outlines the ingredients of the penal provisions which are attracted to the present case. The grounds may be called brief. They are certainly not blank. We, therefore, reject these submissions of the applicant.
        Section 295-A and Section 153-A of the IPC cannot be applied unless language employed is strictly in terms of these sections. Relying on Gopal Godse’s judgment, Counsel submitted that the order of forfeiture must at the very best show that the language of the writing is of nature calculated to promote feelings of enmity and hatred. Counsel submitted that the Notification falls short of this requirement and, hence, must be set aside.
       The Notification identifies the classes of people who are likely to be affected by the book as Muslims and non-Muslims. It quotes the derogatory references to Muslim religion and inter alia states that the said references are likely to create hatred against Muslims in the minds of non-Muslims thereby promoting enmity between classes. It further states that the book maliciously insults Muslim religion which is likely to lead to acts of violence and disharmony and breach of peace and public tranquility between classes. In view of these averments, it is not possible for us to accept this submission of the applicant.
        The author must be allowed to criticize Islam. Pure and simple criticism without any intention to hurt religious feelings of a particular community must be allowed. But, here the criticism is not academic. The author has gone on to pass insulting comments on Muslims with particular reference to Indian Muslims. That is most objectionable.
        The author has said that the Muslims in fact considered even conspiring against the soil of India, forgetting the role played by several Muslim leaders in the freedom struggle of India as followers of Mahatma Gandhi. It cannot be denied that misguided Muslim youth have indulged in acts of terrorism. But misguided youth are there in other religions also and there are instances where they have indulged in acts of violence. Because of such instances the entire Muslim community cannot be branded as terrorists. The author could not have painted the entire Muslim community with the same brush. The author has insulted a large section of Indian Muslims who are part of the mainstream of the nation’s life and who are contributing to India’s development in all fields.
       The State Government is justified in imposing a ban on the circulation of the book. The application is therefore dismissed.

Judgment :-

Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties and at the request of the counsel, taken up for hearing.

2. The applicant, who is an advocate, is the author of a book entitled “Islam – A concept of Political World Invasion By Muslims” (“the book”). The book was published in 2003 by National Publications, 76, Bajaj Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai of which the applicant claims to be the proprietor. The book was translated into Hindi by Dr. Anil Misr.

3. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification dated 9/3/2007 (“the Notification”) and declared that every copy of the book as well as of the translation thereof shall be banned and forfeited to Government. The Notification is as follows:

“NOTIFICATION

General Administration Department

Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032

Dated the 9th March, 2007.

Code of

Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

No.PUB2007-C.N.15/07-XXXIV –

WHEREAS the national Publications having its office at 76, Bajaj Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021, has published a Book, in the year 2003, captioned as “ISLAM

– A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims” written by one R.V. Basin, Advocate Supreme Court of India, containing 166 pages and translated in Hindi by Dr. Anil Mishra captioned as “ISLAM RAJNAITIK VISHWA PAR MUSLIM AKRAMAN KI AVADHARANA” containing 180 pages (hereinafter referred as the said Book” and “the translated Book” respectively).

AND WHEREAS the author of the said book (and in the relevant translation thereof as “the translated Book”) has made several derogatory and false statements about Muslim religion, Muslim community, Mohammed Paigambar and Muslim priests, as specified in Schedule appended hereto.

AND WHEREAS the author of the said Book (and in the relevant translation thereof as “the translated Book”) has made derogatory and false statements on page number 4 referring to Muslim religious Book Quaran that, Muslims should kill Kafirs (Non – Muslims) and if they do so it is stated on page number 4 that, they would be given 72 beautiful girls and 72 handsome youth; similarly, the author has stated on page number 5 further that, where-ever Muslims are ruling other religious people be killed and on page number 10 thereof it is stated that, Muslims do not consider and accept other religious people equal to them and that where-ever Muslim population is less they are increasing it in an attempt to make themselves equal with others, therefore it is said that “Hum Panch, Hamaare Pachhis”.

AND WHEREAS the author of the said Book (and in the relevant translation thereof as “the translated Book”) has made derogatory and false statements about Jihaad, Quaran, Mohammed Paigambar, Indian Muslims and conversion on page numbers 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 25, 28, 43, 45, 104, 136, 150, 151, 152, 155, 159 and 160 etc. which poses danger to social harmony as well as law and order situation;

AND WHEREAS on page number 23 of the said Book in the relevant translation thereof as the translated Book”, “Khatme Nawabac” (Nabuwat) has been written as sentiments of Muslims;

AND WHEREAS this might raise a question mark about the basic aim and objective behind writing the book without taking the Muslim sentiments into consideration and without giving a thorough consideration to the subject, the Government has taken serious note of this derogatory, tasteless and malicious writings;

AND WHEREAS in column of Hindi evening newspaper “Dopahar Ka Saamana”, dated 20th January 2007 an article is published captioned as “Dharmki Aadme Apna Hee Jugad” has referred the translated Book, and an offence has been registered against the Editor, Executive Editor, Printer and Writer of the said Book under sections 153A, 295A, 505 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in Dadar Police Station as C.R. No.34/07;

AND WHEREAS for the reasons aforesaid the Government of Maharashtra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(Bom) 20

Cases Referred (16)