V ALPHONSE VAZ Vs. TAMIL NADU STATE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Tamil monthly magazine, going by the name THEN OLI it is said, is regularly published from Nagercoil. Its office is situate at Assisi Press, Nagercoil 620 001. Its owner is Arch Bishop M. Arokiasamy (fourth respondent). Its editor is Rev. Pt. Maria Alphonse (fifth respondent). Its printer and publisher is Rev. Fr. Andrew Selvaraj (sixth respondent). The Manager of the Assisi Press is one Colestine (seventh respondent).

(2.) The said journal, it is said, in its 1985 December issue caused publication of certain disparaging and scurrilous statements about mother Mary and Jesus Christ in Tamil, a translated version in English of which is reflected as below:

(3.) V. Alphonse Vaz, A. Sirumalar Lawrence and X. Soosai Alexander (petitioners) and respondents 4 to 7 profess Roman Catholicism. The publication in the said journal about Mother Mary and Jesus Christ was stated to have outraged the religious sentiments and beliefs of the petitioners and other like-minded people professing Roman Catholicism. The petitioners were, therefore, stated to have requested respondents 4 to 7 to withdraw the 1985 December issue of the magazine from circulation and publish as amended statement, which should be in consonance with the Christian belief and repeated requests made there for were not paid heed to by them. They, therefore, caused a lawyers notice sent to them on 27.6.1986 calling upon them to tender unconditional apology and to withdraw from circulation, the said monthly magazine and to issue a fresh publication amending the impertinent statement within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. But the respondents 4 to 7 were stated to have sent a reply through their lawyer on 24.7.1986 reiterating their stand and refusing to publish any regret in the subsequent issue of the journal. Consequently, Sirumalar Lawrence (second petitioner) filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil on 27.11.1986 for alleged offence under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.CT) impleading respondents 4 to 6 as accused. The complaint so presented had been retuned on the same day of presentation for want of sanction under section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974.