RAMA KURUP Vs. SIRKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reference arises under Section 9, Travancore Newspapers Act (V [5] of 1101) upon a petition presented by the printer and publisher of the newspaper called the Malayans questioning the legality of an order passed by Government whereby the license granted to the said newspaper wan cancelled. The notice given Under Section 6 of tha Act indicated fourteen different articles of several dates, which were said to be seditious and lively (i) to excite disaffection against, and to bring into hatred and contempt, the Government of Travancore, (ii) to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between the several classes of the people in Travancore, (iii) to involve habitual publication of defamatory matter punishable Under Section 603, Travancore Penal Code, (iv) dissemination of false information, and (v) publication of matter which is obsoene in character These, if correct, would bring the publications within the miachief Section 5 of Sub-section (i)(a), (i)(a), (ii)(iii) and (iv) of the Act. Under Section 10 this Court ia bound to deoida whether "the articles were or were not in fact of the nature described in the section." The relevant provision of the Travancore Newspapers Act is as follows

(2.) It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that tbe notice issued Under Section 5, Travanoore Newspapers Act, was insufiioieafc in law and that the order of forfeiture was void and liable to bs revoked for that reason. According to him, it was incumbent on Government when they issued the notice to indicate with precision the respective articles whioh fell within the mischief of the respective provisions of tha section and that a statement that all the publications (in this case fourteen in number wita a large number of minor news items) contravened all the several clauses of tbe section except; Sub-clause (o) of Clause (1) was insufficient oomplianoe with the statutory requirements of the section. We do not see the force of this contention, Such particularity and analytical statement may probably help the party in bitter explaining their views when they approach Government for reconsideration of the order Under Section 9 It may alats perhaps enable this Court to make a more effective pronouncement on the tendenoy or nature of the publications when after reference this Oourt hears the petition under Section 10. Beyond thcue possibilities it does not seem to advance the petitioner's case. Section 6 merely provides that when it appears to the Government that any newspaper contains artioles which are likely oar may have a tendenoy to exoite disaffection etc. etc , they may with or without previous warning cancel by notice in writing indicating or describing such words or matter. The section does not lay down any other requirement to be fulfilled, The requirements of the section would be satis. fiei by indicating or describing suoh woMa whioh in the opinion of Government contravene one or all the several provisions of this section. Moreover the jurisdiction of this Oourt is oiroum-smbed by the words of Section 10 which authorise this Oourt only to decide whether the words signs, visible representation or matter contained in the newspaper in respect of which the order in question was made "were or were not in fact of the nature described in Section 6." Thus where the ordt-r is couched in general terms and no one ol the offending publications is indicated &9 contravening any particular clause in the section but all artioles are referred to as contravening all the several provisions contained in the sec-lion the Court's duty is to consider whether each of the alleged offending artistes contained words, signs etc, which are or are not in fact of the nature described in the several clauses of the section. Section 15 of the Act further provides that no order passed or action taken under the Act shall be called in question in any Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that Aat and the permissible course is tint which is indicated by Section 9. Hence we overrule ihh objection. Further discussion has also become unnecessary in view of the statement made by the Government Pleader, apparently for faoili-tating tha bearing of the matter before us, that the newspaper articles described in the notice as items 1 to 12 and U may be said to be seditious and falling within Section 5 Sub-section (i) Clause (a) and item 13 as falling within the mischief of Section 5 Sub-section (i) Clause (a) He also pointed out that ArtSection 1,13 and 14 were obscene in character and Articles 3 and were defamatory of two Ministers of Government. The charge of habitually disseminating false information falling under Sub-section (iii) of Section 5 was not pressed as, according to him, the time and labour involved in the diaoovery of the truth or falsity of a particular news item was not justified by the requirements of the ease. Beyond pointing out that the caption "unconfirmed news" (Caption in Malayalam omitted) was in itself indicative of the unfounded nature of the sews, he stated that he had nothing to urge in support of that charge.

(3.) The first point for consideration therefore Is whether Under Section 5 (i)(a) the publications NoSection 1 to 12 and 11 are likely or have a tendency to excite disaffection against the Government or bring into hatred or contempt the Government of Travancore. It was contended that to constitute sedition the worlds complained of should incite people to rebellion and that any publications which falls short of it would not be hit by the Newspapers Act There is no warrant for this contention. The explanation to the section which has to be construed as containing the exceptions, provides that ExplSection 1, 2 and 3 under K. 117, Travancore Penal Code, shall be deemed to be applicable. Thus a comparative Study of the two provisions shows that the case contemplated is the aim under the two provisions except ihafc while Section 117 puniBhea words which excite disaffection or bring into hatred or contempt the Government, the Newspaper Act is wider in BOope as it hits not only cases contemplated by the Penal Code but also other cases which are "likely" or may have a "tendency" directly or indirectly to excite disaffection etc, See Bhag-wati Charan v. Provincial Government C. P. and Berar, 1947 AIR(Nag) 1 "Pratap" Netv Delhi v. The Crown,1919 AIR(EP) 335and In re Pothan Joseph, 1932 AIR(Bom) 438S. B. The Federal Court laid down in Niharendu v. Emperor, 1942 AIR(FC) 22that to constitute sedition the words oomplained of must tend to public disorder. Observed Their Lordships: