1953 Supreme(Pat) 140

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Das and Rai JJ.
Debi Soren
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1951 ; 306 of 1951 ; 312 of 1951 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 24, 1953

The provisions of Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code, are not void by reason of Article 13(1), Constitution of India, as they impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - Sections 124A, 153A, Penal Code - Speeches at annual conference of Bhagalpur Adibasi Mahasava - Whether speeches brought or attempted to bring into hatred or contempt and excited or attempted to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India - Whether speeches promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes or the citizens of India - Interpretation of Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code - Whether provisions of Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code are void by reason of Article 13(1), Constitution of India - Whether provisions of Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order - Whether speeches come within the mischief of Section 124A or Sec.153A, Penal Code.

Fact of the Case:

Three appellants, Debi Soren, Mrs. Hanna Bodra, and Yunus Soren, were convicted under Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code, for making speeches at the annual conference of the Bhagalpur Adibasi Mahasava that allegedly brought or attempted to bring into hatred or contempt and excited or attempted to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India. Against two of the appellants, Mrs. Hanna Bodra and Yunus Soren, it was further alleged that by the speeches they delivered they promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes or the citizens of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the speeches made by the appellants did not come within the mischief of Section 124A or Sec.153A, Penal Code. The court interpreted Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code, and held that the provisions of these sections were not void by reason of Article 13(1), Constitution of India, and that they imposed reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order. The court also held that the speeches made by the appellants did not create disaffection towards Government established by law or bring or attempt to bring that Government into hatred or contempt, or promote feelings of class hatred.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code are void by reason of Article 13(1), Constitution of India? 2. Whether the provisions of Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order? 3. Whether the speeches made by the appellants come within the mischief of Section 124A or Sec.153A, Penal Code?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provisions of Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code were not void by reason of Article 13(1), Constitution of India, as they imposed reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order. The court interpreted the provisions of Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code, and held that they did not impose unreasonable restrictions on the guaranteed right of freedom of speech and expression. 2. The court held that the provisions of Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code imposed reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order. The court interpreted the expression "in the interests of public order" in Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and held that it had a wide connotation and should not be confined to only one aspect of public order, viz., incitement to violence or tendency to violence. 3. The court held that the speeches made by the appellants did not come within the mischief of Section 124A or Sec.153A, Penal Code. The court considered the speeches as a whole and in a fair, free, and liberal spirit, and held that the general effect of the speeches was that the Adibasi Mahasabha, of which Debi Soren was the President, wanted a separate State or region called Jharkhand with a separate administration for the Adibasis, and that the criticisms made of certain administrative and legislative measures of the Government of Bihar were in support of such a claim or demand.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.