A J FARIDI Vs. UNION OFINDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayer in the petition is that the following notification dated 18th August, 1966 published in the Gazette of India dated 27th August, 1966 be quashed:

(2.) AS Is well known Indo-Pakistan war broke out in September, 1965. It came to an end as a result of an agreement reached between India and Pakistan in January, 1966 popularly called "Tashkent Declaration". The petitioner published the booklet entitled "Tashkent Declaration and the Problem of Indo-Pak Minorities" in February, 1966. According to the petitioner, Jan Sangh which is a communal body, started propaganda against the said booklet so much so that a calling attention motion regarding it was admitted by the Speaker of the U.P. Legislative Assembly on llth April, 1966. Organizer, a weekly newspaper issued from Delhi commented adversely on this booklet in its issue dated 12th June, 1966 characterising it as a communal propa ganda. Sri Atal Behari Bajpayee, one of the leaders of the Jan Sangh party and a member of the Raiya Sabha gave notice on 20th June, 1966 of the question reproduced in paragraph 17 of the petition to be answered on the floor of the Rajya Sabha. The Deputy Minister answered that question on 20th August, 1966 stating that the Government of India had proscribed the booklet. The impugned notification was actually published subse quent thereto on August 27, 1966. From these facts the inference drawn by the petitioner as formulated in paragraph 21 of the petition is that the Central Government in taking the impugned actioji was influenced by the propaganda carried on by the Jan Sangh party and its action was arbitrary and mala fide.

(3.) THE petitioner alleges that the booklet in question does not contain any objectionable matter and no reasonable person on its examination can come to a conclusion that it contains prejudicial reports as defined in clause (7) of Rule 35 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. In his affidavit dated 6th September, 1968 the petitioner points out that much worse publications extracts from which have been filed as annexures 'A' to 'F' to the said affidavit escaped action at the hands of the Central Government and accordingly the impugned action deserves to be struck down as discriminatory. The main ground on which the impugned notifica tion is challenged is that the Central Government issued it without applying its mind and, as such, acted mala fide.