Tests to determine crimes involving moral delinquency.

These two cases raise certain interesting and important questions, particularly the competency of the State Legislature to enact Madras Act XIV of 1957, Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and whether section 5 of the Act is invalid as violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (1)(f) of the Constitution. A further question for consideration and one of some difficulty is, whether a conviction under section 5 of the Act for burning a copy of the Consititution taints a candidate for election as a member of a Panchayat under Madras Act XXXV of 1958 with moral delinquency, and under section 25(1) of the Panchayat Act disqualifies him for election. Another plea is raised that the disqualification as imposed under section 25(1) is discriminatory and offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

We shall first briefly set out the facts in the two cases. W.A. No. 260 of 1965 arises out of the election held in January, 1965 of members for the Namagiripet Town Panchayat, Salem District. The nomination of the appellant Tamizhazhagan, a voter in the electoral rolls for the Panchayat, was rejected by the Returning Officer on the sole ground that he had been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sankari, in C.C. No. 294 of 1964 on 6th October, 1964 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under section 5 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act. The Returning Officer took the view that the offence was one involving moral delinquency and therefore the appellant was disqualified for election as a member. Section 25(1) of the Panchayat Act Madras Act( XXXV of 1958) runs thus:

“A person who has been sentenced by a criminal Court to imprisonment for any offence involving moral delinquency such sentence not having been reversed) shall be disqualified for election as a member while undergoing the sentence and for five years from the date of the expiration thereof.”

From the order of rejection the appellant preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, provided under the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Election of Members, and failing in the appeal, brought up the matter to this Court by -way of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in W.P. No. 2141 of 1965. The further details as to the offence and the conviction will be considered later. But it may be stated for the present that the appellant had pleaded guilty of the offence with which he was charged, wilfully burning Part XVII of the Constitution of India on 4th October, 1964 at about 5 p.m. in the Shandypet Maidan at Rasipuram. When the writ petition came up before our learned brother Srinivasan, J., the validity of the Act has already been the subject of consideration in another case by a Division Bench in In re N. V. Natarajan1. The learned Judges Veeraswami and Kunhamed Kutti, JJ., before whom the constitutionality had been raised on an application to quash charges under section 5 of the Act read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, upheld the constitutionality of the impugned section 5 of the Act. On the question whether the offence under the Act involved moral delinquency, considering the nature of the offence, Srinivasan, J., held that here was a case of wilful and callous disregard of the feelings of the public and indeed a positive injury to their feelings in the shape of burning the Constitution, and that it cannot be lightly regarded as an offence not involving moral delinquency. On the view and following the Division Bench’s decision above referred to on the question of the validity of legislation, the learned Judge discharged the rule nisi. Hence the appeal.

The other case W.P. No. 751 of 1965 relates to the election of members to the minor village panchayat of Kambarajapuram, Kancheepuram Taluk, Chingleput District. There are only two wards for the panchayat, each ward to elect three members, the total strength of the panchayat being six.