This is an appeal by one Mr. C.V. Rajagopalachari who has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under section 18 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931, for having published an unauthorised “newssheet” entitled “Save the country from the totalitarianism”, which is a pamphlet or tract of four pages without any cover. Copies of this pamphlet or news-sheet, he sent to the Prime Minister of India, the President, Indian National Congress, and also, according to him, to every Minister of the Congress Government in Madras and every prominent congressman, besides public men and institutions of standing; and also sent a copy to the “Baltimore Sun,” in the United States of America. He enclosed copies of a prior pamhlet “Creed and Camouflage in Congress politics” when sending this second pamphlet. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 and, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. After an elaborate discussion, the Chief Presidency Magistrate rejected the appellant’s contention that this pamphlet was not a “news-sheet”. He found that the document in question was not a newspaper and did not contain public news or comments on public news but contained matters covered by section 4(1)(d) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, that is, matters which tend directly or indirectly to bring into hatred or contempt His Majesty or the Government established by law in British India or the administration of justice in British India or any class or section of His Majesty’s subjects in British India, or to excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the said Government, and would, therefore, constitute “news-sheet”. It is admitted by Mr. Rajagopalachari that he did not take any permission of the Magistrate to publish this pamphlet under section 15 of the Act. Therefore, the only question that remains to be considered is whether this document will be an unauthorised “news-sheet” punishable under section 18. There is no doubt whatever that he made and published this pamphlet. But he contends that he is always publishing pamphlets, and that these will be “books” and not “news-sheets”.

The main point which falls to be determined when considering this question is whether the matters contained in this document will fall within the purview of section 4(1)(d) in which case, the conviction will be correct, as this pamphlet is “a document other than a newspaper” within the meaning of section 4(1), whatever the case be with regard to the sentence. Mr. Rajagopalachari contended that his intention and motive in publishing this document was not to bring into hatred or contempt the Government, or the Congress, or the administration, or any class or section of His Majesty’s subjects, or to excite disaffection towards the Congress or the Government or anybody else, but only to make Congressmen think deeply over the principles and policies of Mahatma Gandhi and see that the Congress organization is brought back to a state of strength and sacrifice as in its heydays. His contention is that, to achieve this object, he had to speak out whatever he felt, without fear or favour, and that the fact that he sent copies of the pamphlet to the Congress President and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who wrote a letter thanking him for it, and to other prominent Congressmen, shows that his motive in writing and distributing it was the same motive as had actuated Mahatma Gandhi and is actuating some other Congress leaders in Madras Province and elsewhere to express strong and fearless criticism of the Congress and the Government. He contended that he was a staunch and veteran congressman and the Secretary of the Civil Liberties Union and a back-bencher democrat. He argued that an intention to bring the Government into hatred or contempt was essential, as in the case of sedition, and relied on the ruling in Public Prosecutor v. Subba Mudaliar1, and Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King Emperor2, for this contention, and vehemently urged that the pr