Civil Court should not entertain suits related to banning religious books as they involve constitutional issues and are not of civil nature. Specific provisions under law exist for banning books, and in this case, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. This petition gives rise to a question whether Civil Court can entertain a suit for banning/issuing an injunction on publication of a book, which is in existence and being published and read for last 135 years, on the ground that its publication was likely to disturb public tranquility and public order.

2. The brief facts leading to this question are that the two respondents considered themselves public spirited persons and filed a suit with ostensible object of protecting the religious feelings of other persons of same religion seeking a declaration that publication and distribution of the Satyarth Prakash written by Swami Dayanand was injurious to the religious faith of Muhammadan Community and they wanted a perpetual injunction to be issued against the publishers and certain Arya Samaj Organizations, restraining them from publishing, printing and distributing The Satyarth Prakash in any language.

3. Section 9 of CPC provides that Civil Court in India have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which the cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

4. It is evident that every Court while entertaining suit must be cautious that it should entertain only those suits which are of civil nature and have the characteristic of affecting ones rights of civil nature. Where no civil right or monitory loss or any function of the plaintiff connected with his civil rights have been affected, the Court should not entertain a suit, nor should fall in a trap of allowing someone to use it as a tool for public disturbance. Putting restrictions on religious books or banning publication of certain works, involves constitutional issues and cannot be entertained by Civil Courts and can be raised only by way of Writ Petitions. Taking cognizance of matters of religious nature, where no civil rights are affected is fraught with danger. Today two persons from Muslim Community have filed a suit for banning Satyarth Prakash, tomorrow another two persons from any other community may file a suit for banning The Bible, The Quran, The Gita or such other religious books which are revered by one or the other section of the society. It is not the province or duty of the Court to pronounce on the truthfulness of religious tenants or reasonableness of the contents of religious books or to regulate the religious sentiments and feelings of the sections of society. A suit by Hindus against the The Quran or by Muslims against The Gita or The Satyarth Prakash claiming relief of permanent injunction on the ground that these religious books are likely to arouse or injure the religious feelings and disturb peace and harmony are in fact meant to play mischief in the society and by filing such suits the plaintiffs would get nothing, but cheap publicity and create some more dis-harmony and disturbance in the society. The questions involved in such kind of suits are not of civil nature and are purely of religious nature, involving rights under Article 225 of the Constitution of India.

5. The Civil Court, in this case ignored the fact that there are specific provisions under law in respect of banning of books and Section 95 Cr.PC confers a power on the State to declare certain publication forfeited if it appears to the State that any matter in the publication was in violation of the provisions of IPC as mentioned in the Section. Under Section 96 Cr.PC, the High Court could set aside such declaration of forfeiture made by the State under the circumstances given there in. In view of the specific provisions made by law for forfeiture of such publications, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

6. Even otherwise the suit could not have been entertained. The Satyarth Prakash admittedly was written 135 years ago and has been in publication/distribution for this much period. It had not caused any ill-will and damage to the fraternity in the society. Perhaps the plaintiff snow, after 135 years,