( 1 ) A fundamental question of far reaching importance going to the root of administration of justice as adopted in our country is raised in this group of Criminal Revision Applications. The applicant in each of the applications who is original accused is the editor of a daily news paper JAI HIND published simultaneously from Rajkot and Ahmedabad In the Rajkot edition of the JAI HIND daily published on 21 January 1969 22 January 1969 23 January 1969 25 January 1969 and 4th February 1969 there appeared certain articles adversely reflecting upon the purity and efficiency of administration in Police Department of Rajkot district. One Mr. P. G. Navani was the District Superintendent of Police Rajkot District at the relevant time. Certain passages in the said articles in particular and all articles in general were considered to be per se defamatory of Mr. Navani a public servant in of his duty. The State Government accordingly directed the Public Prosecutor of Rajkot to file five different complaints against the applicant for having committed an offence under sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Sessions at Rajkot. The Public Prosecutor filed five separate complaints against the applicant in the Court of Sessions at Rajkot. When the trial of the offence was about to commence the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case on behalf of the State gave a single line application in each case:- that the case be held in camera purporting to be under sub-sec. (5a) of sec. 198b of the Criminal Procedure Code. The present applicant contested the application on various grounds. The learned Sessions Judge even though he was satisfied that the case is not of such a nature which will serve any public purpose by holding the trial in camera was constrained to grant the request to hold trial in camera at the desire of the Public Prosecutor in view of the language of sub-sec. (SA) of sec. 198b. The applicant preferred five separate Revision Applications challenging the aforementioned order inter alia on the ground that a portion of sub-sec. 5a of sec. 198b is ultra vires Art. 14 and Arts. 19 (1) (a) 19 and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. In view of the importance of the question raised in these applications our learned brother S. H. Sheth J. referred the applications to the Division Bench. That is how these applications have come up before us for hearing.

( 2 ) SECS. 190 to 198b grouped together under Part B of Chapter XV headed Conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings provide for taking cognizance of offences by Courts generally and in certain specified offences at the instance of persons directly affected by the offence. The general rule is that anyone can move a Criminal Court for taking cognizance of an offence which is committed. There are well recognised exceptions to this general rule. Sec. 198 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence falling under Chapter XIX or Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code or under secs. 492 to 496 (both inclusive) of the same Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offence. There is a proviso to the section which is not material for our purpose. Sec. 198b (1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed against the President or the Vice President or the Governor of a State or a Minister or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of the conduct in the discharge of his public functions a Court of Sessions may take cognizance of such offence without the accused being committed to it for trial upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. Therefore when any one complains that he is defamed he alone can move the Court for taking cognizance of the offence and the offender can be brought to book on his complaint alone. Since some years past a tendency