N V NATARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised in this petition is as to the constitutional validity of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, Madras Act XIV of 1957 The petitioners who are accused 6 and 7, stand charged before the Court of the District Magistrate Madurai with having committed offences under Section 5 of that Act read with Sections 120-B and 109 I. P. C. The 6th accused is said to be the organising secretary of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and a member of Anti Hindi Agitation committee and the 7th accused is the treasurer of the Kazhagam and chairman of that committee besides being the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Madras Legislative Assembly. The Parliament passed the Official Languages Act, Act 9 of 1963, which received the assent of the President on 10. 5. 1963 The object of the Act is to provide, with reference to Article 143 (3) in Part XVII of the Constitution of India for the languages which may be used for the official purposes or the Union of India for transaction of business in Parliament, for Central and State Acts and for certain purposes in High Courts. Section 3 of this Act enacts that notwithstanding the expiration of the period of 15 years from the commencement of the Constitution, the English-language may, as from the appointed day, continue to be used, in addition to Hindi for all the official purposes of the Union as before and for transaction of business in Parliament This section is to come into force on 26. 1. 1965. The rest of the provisions, which are to come into force on and from the dates appointed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, provide for the setting up of a Committee on Official language publication of a translation in Hindi it Central Acts. Ordinances, Orders, rules, regulations or by-laws under the Constitution or any Central Act as also Bills in English introduced in the Parliament, authorised Hindi translation of State Acts in certain cases, optional use of Hindi or other official language in judgments of the High Courts and power to make rules.

(2.) THE petitioners before us state that the policy of their party is to protest against the imposition of Hindi as an official language and "hindi neo-imperialism" and, in furtherance of such policy, to burn openly and publicly Part XVII of the Constitution of India and to announce in public the names of persons places, date and hour for doing it. The prosecution has attributed to the sixth accused the act of burning part XVII of the Constitution of India on 6. 12. 1963 and the 7th accused a similar act on 19. 7. 1963 at Tanjore both acts as-having been done openly and publicly Actually the charges framed against them at the trial before-the Dist Magistrate are that they with others conspired to wilfully burn part XVII of the Constitution and also abetted by delivering public speeches and instigating certain other accused to wilfully burn that part of the Constitution punishable respectively under Section 5 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act read with Section 120-B of the I. P. Code and under the same section of that Act read with Section 109 of that Code While their trial is pending before the District Magistrate, they have moved this Court to quash the charges against them.

(3.) THE ground on which they seek the relief from this Court is that S 5 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act is ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature and is in any case, violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution Mr. K. Narayanaswami Mudaliar, who appears for the petitioners contends that the subject matter of the Act is national honour and its purpose is to protect it from insults and that the only head of legislative power under which the subject can be brought, is the residuary entry 97 of the Union List of the VII Schedule to the Constitution. He refers to the use of the words 'nation or national' in the preamble, Article 249 (1) "national highways" in entry 23, "national waterways" in entry 24, and "national importance" in entries 63 and 64 in the Union List and argues that the Constitution has intended that anything of a national character or importance can be the subject matter of legislation by the Parliament only under the Union List and not by the State Legislature under the State or Concurrent list. He invites attention to the heading of the Act An Act to prevent insults to National Honour and say that as the pith and substance of the Act is the concert of the entire country and as none of the enumerated entries in any of the Lists specifically covers it. It necessarily belongs to the residuary power of the Union legislature. Learned Counsel is right in invoking the aid of pith and substance doctrine in testing the vires of the impugned section. But beyond that, we are unable to appreciate his contention In our view, his approach to the problem of vires is incorrect as it has, as its basis, a wrong assumption that a subject, which is of a national character and of country-wide importance, is not for that reason within the province of die State Legislative power and that only Parliament can legislate on the subject of national honour.