SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(Online)(All) 29

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
, J
Dr. A. J. Faridi v. Union of India
Writ Petition - No. 123 of 1968



Advocates:
For the Petitioner:[Petitioner's Advocate(s)]
For the Respondent:[Government Advocate(s)]

The court underscored the executive's authority to restrict publications under emergency conditions, reaffirming the principle that governmental actions taken within the scope of law are not subject to judicial review unless proven arbitrary.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14, Article 21, Article 22, Article 352, Article 359(1) - Notification proscribing a booklet - The petitioner challenges the Government's action as arbitrary and mala fide. The Government claims bona fide exercise of its powers under R.45 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. (Paras 1-11)

(B) Mala fide action - The court ruled that the satisfaction of the Government reflected its lawful judgment, not arbitrary action. The criteria for determining prejudicial content under the relevant laws were adequately met according to the Government's assessment. (Paras 7-10)

(C) Emergency powers - The suspension of constitutional rights during the emergency period is validated, and actions based on past performance do not equate to discrimination. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash a notification banning his booklet, alleging mala fide intent and abuse of powers by the Central Government. The booklet triggered controversy amidst prevailing tensions post-war with Pakistan.

Findings of Court:
No grounds for finding mala fide action or discrimination; the Court upheld the Government's authority to restrict material that may jeopardize public order.

Issues: The legitimacy of the book ban under public safety considerations and the Government's alleged mala fides.

Ratio Decidendi: The Central Government's opinion on the potential for communal unrest justified the notification, with the court affirming that such judgments can fall within the ambit of executive discretion.

Result: Petition dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. challenge to government notification under emergency provisions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. allegations of mala fide against the government were presented. (Para 4)
3. government's defense of the notification's legality. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's assessment of executive discretion and mala fide claims. (Para 7 , 8)
5. conclusion affirming dismissal based on lawful government action. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. The prayer in the petition is that the following notification dated 18th August, 1966 published in the Gazette of India dated 27th August, 1966 be quashed:
"Whereas in the opinion of the Central Government the book entitled"Tashkent Declaration and the Problem of Indo - Pak Minorities" written by Dr. A. J. Faridi, and printed at Chowdhury Press, 7 Zamir Mansion, Gwynne Road, Lucknow, contains prejudicial reports as defined in clause (7) of R.35 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by R.45 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 , the Central Government hereby -
(a) prohibits the sale or distribution of the said book or any extract therefrom or of any translation thereof, and declares the said book and every copy or translation thereof or extract therefrom, to be forfeited to Government; and (b) directs every person possessing any copy of the said book to deliver the same to the local police authorities."
It is a matter of common knowledge that on September 8, 1962 the Chinese attacked the northern border of India and that constituted a threat to the security of India. That is why on October 26, 1962 the President issued a Proclamation under Art.352 of the Constitution. This Proclamation declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by external aggression. On the same day the Ordinance was promulgated by the President. This Ordinance was amended by Ordinance No. 6 of 1962 promulgated on November 3, 1962. On this day, the President issued the Order under Art. 359(1), suspending the rights of citizens to move any Court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Art.21 and Art.22 of the Constitution for the period during which the proclamation of emergency issued on October 26, 1962 would be in force. On November 6, 1962 the rules framed by the Central Government were published. Then followed an amendment of the Presidential Order on November 11, 1962. By this amendment for the words and figures"Art.21" the words and figures"Art.14 and Art.21" were substituted. On December 6, 1962 R.30 as originally framed was amended and R.30 - A added. Last came the Act on December 12, 1962. S.48(1) of the Act has provided for the repeal of the Ordinance Nos. 4 and 6 of 1962. S.48(2) provides that notwithstanding such repeal, any rules made, anything done or any action taken under the aforesaid two Ordinances shall be deemed to have been made, done or taken under the Act as if this Act had commenced on October 26, 1962. That is how the rules made under the Ordinance continued to be the rules under the Act and it is under R.45 that the impugned action was taken when the emergency was still in force. It may here be noted that the emergency came to an end in January, 1968.




2. As is well known Indo - Pakistan war broke out in September, 1965. It came to an end as a result of an agreement reached between India and Pakistan in January, 1966 popularly called"Tashkent Declaration". The petitioner published the booklet entitled"Tashkent Declaration and the Problem of Indo - Pak Minorities" in February, 1966. According to the petitioner, Jan Sangh which is a communal body, started propaganda against the said booklet so much so that a calling attention motion regarding it was admitted by the Speaker of the U.P. Legislative Assembly on 11th April, 1966. Organizer, a weekly newspaper issued from Delhi commented adversely on this booklet in its issue dated 12th June, 1966 characterising it as a communal propaganda.




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top