STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. LALAI SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some Cases, apparently innocent on their face - and this appeal is one such - may harbor beneath the surface profoundly disturbing problems concerning freedoms, the unfettered enjoyment of which is the foundation for a democracy to flourish.

(2.) The present appeal, by special leave, relates to the forfeiture of a book captioned Ramayan:A True Reading in English and its translation in Hind, by the late political figure and leader of the Rationalist Movement, Periyar EVR. of Tamil Nadu, by an order of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, purporting to be passed under Section 99A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the view of the appellant-government this book was sacrilegiously, outrageously objectionable, being deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India, viz., Hindus by insulting their religion and religious beliefs and the publication whereof is punishable under Section 295A IPC. This notification contained an appendix setting out in tabular form the particulars of the relevant pages and lines in the English and Hindi versions which presumably, were the materials which were regarded as scandalzing. Thereupon an application was made by the respondent who was the publisher, under Section 99C of the Code, to the High Court which, by its special Bench, allowed the application and quashed the notification. The aggrieved State has appealed to this Court, by special leave, and counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the Government notification does not suffer from the vice which, according to the High Court, invalidated it and that the impugned book makes a foul assault on the sacred sentiments of the vast, Hindu population of the State since the author anathematised in unvarnished language the great incarnations like Sree Rama and disdainfully defiled the divinely epic figures like Sita and Janaka all of whom are worshipped or venerated by the Hindu commonalty. Side-stepping this issue the High Court, by majority judgment, struck down the order on the short ground that the State Government did not state the grounds of its opinion as required in S. 99A of the Code. For that reason alone the petition has to be allowed and the order of forfeiture set aside in Court.

(3.) The anatomy of S. 99A falls to be studied at the threshold so that the pathology, if any, of the impugned order may be discovered. Shorn of phraseological redundancies (from the point raised in this case) the pertinent components of the provision, empowering forfeiture of materials, manifesting written expression by citizens, are threefold, as flow from a reproduction of the relevant parts;