YUSUF SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions judge, Delhi up-holding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 153-A IP.C. but reducing the sentence. In the early part of 1968. communal riots between Hindus and Muslims took place in various parts of the Country. Organiser, an Fnglish weekly published from Delhi, in its issue dated April 7, 1968 wrote a leading article under the caption "A Lasting solution for Hindu Muslim Problems". It purported to analyse the reasons for such communal troubles. While criticising the government for suppressing the enquiry reports. on various riots and for its pro-Muslim policy for fixing the blame of every riot on R.S.S. and/or Jan Sangh and criticising the Muslims as being apostates and chiefly responsible for the partition of India and still supporting the Islamic State in Pakistan, as a solution it suggested that "While Hindus must and do accept the fact of five crore Muslim co-citizens, Muslims must dissociate themselves completely from Pakistan in thought, wor and deed. And Government instead of offending the Hindus or appeasing Pakistan-to please the Indian Muslims, must stop this separatist game and accept the fact that we in India are as much a Hindu nation as England and America are Christian nations."

(2.) Radiance, another English weekly, published from Delhi by the petitioners, in its issue dated April 14, 1968 published an article on its front page, under the caption "Rationale for Roits-A challenge to the Muslims" by a Critic'. In this article, certain passages from the aforesaid issue of the Organiser were published and commented upon. However, those passages only in which the Muslims were criticised by the Organiser, in addition to the solution suggested, were printed. This article suggested that the article in the Organiser analyses the Hindu mind in general. At this stage it may be pointed out that various types of print have been used by Radiance. Whereas extracts from the Organiser are printed in italics, the general comments are in ordinary print while the conclusions arrived at are in various types of bolder prints. The article opens with bold prints in capital letters in the following terms : Although it is patently true that the active participants in a communal riot never constitute the majority of Hindu community in any affected locality yet the fact stilt stands that it is their inactivity in the face of the roiters which is chiefly responsible for the situation getting out of hands and the Muslims suffering on such a large scale. It is obvious that there is something at the back of lueir minds which makes them so complacent about the looting, burning and killing of their next door neighbour?." Thereafter under the head "Jana Sangh Analysis" after commenting that that something has been declared publicly by the Jana Sangh press, it concludes in bold letters "We, however, feel that it is largely correct, because even the most Secular minded of our leaders have been found saying similar things on one occasion or the others." After exporting the Indian Muslims to take the Jana Sangh Analysis seriously and chalk out ways and means to ensure their own safety and the safety of their culture and religion in India in the light of this writing on the wall, it reproduces in italics certain extracts from the Organiser and ends this heading thus : "The analysis of the Hindu mind in the above diagnosis seems to be largely correct and we are thankful to Jana Sangh Press for allowing the Muslims to have a peep into the real Hindu mind.

(3.) Then follows the heading "Justification of Riots" After stating that Organiser regards the persisting communal roits in India as something quite natural, comes in bold prints "As long as G. 0. I. and the Muslims do not change themselves totally, the riots will not and perhaps should not stop. The more frequent and destructive the anti-Muslim roits, the brighter will be the Organiser seems to imply-the prospects of the G.O.I. and the Muslims learning the lesson which the rashtrawadis are bent upon teaching them". After stating that Hindus have absolutely nothing to do in view of the diagnosis made by the Organiser, it enumerates the more fundamental things which the Muslims have to do than merely dissociating themselves from Pakistan. These, printed in bold letters, are : 1. Since the first Hindu grievance against the Muslims is that they are apostates who renounced their ancestral faith, the Muslims have obviously to go back to their ancestral faith renouncing Islam, in order to be at peace with the Hindus. 2. Since it was mainly the Indian Muslims who pressed for partition inflicting a grievous wound on the Hindus thereby, they too must come forward to destroy Pakistan and heal this wound. 3. Since Pakistan is an Islamic State and Pak Hindus have been re- duced to the position of serfs, Indian Muslims must not insist on Secular State In India and must not want more (like Oliver Twist), even if it be not possible for them to live like serfs. 4. Muslim-majority Kashmir must cease to be a headache for the Hindus and Sheikh Abdullah must be transformed. 5. No Muslim should ever listen to Radio Pakistan. 6. Muslims-particularly in Kerala and Tamilnad-must give up their espousal of the cause of Urdu. 7. No cow should even appear to have been slaughtered by any Indian Muslim anywhere. 8. Muslims must see to it that the G.O.I, never comes second best' in its relations with Pakistan.