LAWS(MAD)-2016-7-38

S. TAMILSELVAN Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On July 05, 2016
S. Tamilselvan Appellant
V/S
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death, your right to say it", said the author Voltaire (Attributed to Voltaire by S.G. Tallentyre in "The Friends of Voltaire", 1907). Prelude India has the benefit of one of the most modern and liberal Constitutions. It is reflective of its rich and diverse heritage, yet enunciating the modern principles of democracy, as distinguished from a feudal society. One of the most cherished rights under our Constitution is to speak one's mind and write what one thinks. No doubt, this is subject to reasonable restrictions, but then the ambit of what one can do is wide.

(2.) Whether the society is ready to read a particular book and absorb what it says without being offended, is a debate which has been raging for years together. Times have changed. What was not acceptable earlier became acceptable later. "Lady Chatterley's Lover" is a classical example of it. The choice to read is always with the reader. If you do not like a book, throw it away. There is no compulsion to read a book. Literary tastes may vary ­ what is right and acceptable to one may not be so to others. Yet, the right to write is unhindered. If the contents seek to challenge or go against the very Constitutional values, raise racial issues, denigrate castes, contain blasphemous dialogues, carry unacceptable sexual contents or start a war against the very existence of our country, the State would, no doubt, step in.

(3.) The ban on books has been a mixed bag. In a number of cases, it did not receive the nod from the Court ­ See Ranjit D. Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra, 1965 Cri L.J. 8; Samaresh Bose vs. Amal Mitra, 1986 Cri L.J. 24; State of Maharashtra vs. Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate, (2010) 7 S.C.C. 398 and Abdul Ali vs. State of Kerala, (2016) Crl. L.J. 433 (Ker).