ANANT JANARDHAN KARANDIKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 491 of the Cr. P. C. and Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of Habeas corpus. The District Magistrate, Poona, passed an order on 31-3-1965 detaining the petitioner under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The District magistrate stated in his order that he felt it necessary to pass the order of detention with a view of prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order. The petitioner has given his antecedents, past history and the profession he has been following in some detail in his petition. The petitioner is an old man of 64 years of age and is a bachelor. He has alleged that he does not belong to any political party, not has he any affiliations with any political party. He has gone a step further and stated that he is not even a member of any social or cultural institutionor organisation. He has not taken any part in any public activity. He has averred that he is only a profession writer. He started writing articles for newspapers in the year 1921. He has made regular contributions in 'kesari' from 1922 to 1962. The petitioner has then referred to his association with 'agrani', a Marathi daily founded by Nathuram Godse and Apte. He sayd that he used to write articles in that paper. He also wrote articles in 'hindu Rashtra', which was started by Godse and Apte, after suspension of the publication of their original daily 'agrani'. The petitioner made regular contributions to these two papers from March 1944 to August 1947. He has then referred to the editorial article published under his signature under the caption "warning to those who are devoted to the cause of Hinduism". According to the petitioner, this article led to a difference d opinion between himself and the management of the paper. Nathuram Godse was of the view that violence should be preached through the paper, and the petitioner was not agreeable to that view. He had, therefore, to sever his connections altogether with the paper and the editorial staff thereof. he has then stated that he contributed articles to another paper known as 'bharat' from 1950 to 1952, and he wrote a series of aritcles on the subject "historical Pages of Partition". the petitioner has stated that from 1956 to 1957 he served on the staff of 'tarun Bharat', a Marathi Weekly. He was a columnist of that paper and used to contribute different features on several topics including share bazar and speculative market. He has also written stray articles in a monthly magazine known as 'maharastra'. The petitioner has written articles in a magazine known as 'painjan' published from Poona from January 1963 to April 1965. He used to write monthly reviews and political articles during the said period. He has then stated that he has written and published as many as seven books. He has mentioned the names of the books and the years of publication. His averments in paragraph 11 are very important and, therefore, we are quoting them verbatim: "that in the issue of January 1965 of Marathi magazine 'painjan' the petitioner wrote one article under the caption "re-narration of the Exciting History". It is a brief historical survey of pre-partition days. The petitioner also wrote one article each in the months of February and March 1965 in the same magazine. The subject of February article was "gandhism and Nationalism" and the topic of March article was Nathuram's conspiracy whether Maharashtrian or Inter-State". In paragraph 12, 13 and 14, he has referred to the questions put in the Legislative Assembly about the objectionable writings in a Marathi weekly 'margdeep'. The said paper was conducted by a Muslim gentlemen. Shri Atre and others demanded onthe floor of the Assembly that stern action should be taken against the said paper. Mr. d. S. Desai, the Honourable Home Minister, promised to look into the matter and assured the House that appropriate steps would be taken. According to the petitioner, no question was asked regarding the articles written by the petitioner in 'painjan'. The editor of 'margdeep' was arrested on the same day as the petitioner, i. e. 31-3-1965 and the petitioner has suggested that he has been arrested with a view to show that the Government holds the balance even between Hindus and Muslims and that they are completely impartial and non-partisan. At paragraph 15, the petitioner has explained the occasion of the writing of the three articles in 'painjan'. He has said that Godse and karkare were released on 13-10-1964, that some friends of godse and Karkare arranged a Satyanarayan Mahapuja to express pleasure and satisfaction at the release, and that soon after the release they were again kept detained. He has explained that this was a topical subject, and he wrote the aforesaid articles in his capacity as a professional writer. The petitioner has alleged that he has been a critic of the policies of the Congress Government, and that he had also condemned Mahatma Gandhi's policies in the past. According to him, this is the reason why government have thought it fit to detain the petitioner. The petitioner has asserted that whatever was written in these articles was based on the books written by Pyarelal, the Secretary of Mahatma Gandhi and his birgrapher, the autobiography of Shri N. V. Gadgil, the Ex-Governor of Punjab, 'sources of History of Freedom Movement', a government publication and the book written by Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad under the caption 'india Wins Freedom'. In other words, it is the petitioner's case that the articles were well-documented and based on the information and views expressed by the authors referred to above. The petitioner has pointed out that notwithstanding his association with Nathuram Godse, he was not arrested in the course of the aftermath of Gandhi assassination and the subsequent investigation. He has then suggested two reasons as to why he must have been arrested. According to him, his detention was the result of the pressure brought to bear upon the Government of Maharashtra by certain persons within and without the State of Maharashtra. It is also the result of a centrally determined policy of the Government. The averments contained in paragraph 24 deserve to be cited in full: "the petitioner states that he has not engaged himself in any activity other than his normal activites which he is doing since last so many years and the petitioner has done nothing prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, and that he had contemplated no such action". In para 28 he has alleged that he is a peaceful and joyal citizen of the country and that his activities are peaceful and democratic and in no way prejudicial to the maintenance of the law and order. The petitioner has then referred to the state of his health and pointed out that he has not been keeping good health for many years past, that he has become very weak and that he is under medical treatment and advice for many years, and also onstrict diet for very many years. In his additional affidavit, the petitioner has stated that since 1960 he has been suffering from an enlarged postrate gland and heart disease. He is suffering from hernia for the last 20 years. he is also suffering from liver trouble. Mr. M. D. Pathak for the petitioner mentioned an additional factor to indicate that the petitioner is a man of learning and is interested in the dissemination of knowledge. Mr. Pathak says that the petitioner knows as many as sixteen languages, which include most of the leading languages of India, and as many as 7 or 8 foreign languages. In short, the petitioner's case is that he has been detained by the District Magistrate, Poona, on account of the three articles written by him and published in 'painjan' for January, February and March 1965. His case is that the subjects discussed in these articles are of historical importance, and for every statement made by him he has relied on some weighty authority. According to him, there is nothing in these articles which is capable of producing a belief in the mind of any reasonable man that his activities, namely, the writing of the articles, would be prejudicial to the public safety and public peace. He has also alleged malafides, and for that purpose has made three specific points. The first is that the author of 'margdeep' had to be detained because questions were asked in the Legislative Assembly about the objectionable writings appearing in that paper, and the Government wanted to put up an appearance that they are impartial and hold the scales even between the two major communities, Hindus and Muslims. He has also averred that considerable pressure was brought to bear upon the Government of Maharashtra which resulted in the petitioner's detention. According to him, it is also the result of a centrally determined policy of the Government and the petitiner is a victim of the State policy. The three aritcles have been placed on record along with their translations in English.

(2.) THE District Magistrate, Poona, has put in his affidavit. He has denied knowledge about the truth or otherwise of the petitioner's averments that he is an old man of 64 years, that he is a bachelor, and that he is the son of Shri J. S. Karandikar who was the editor of 'kesari' from 1931 to 1947. In regard to the allegation that the petitioner does not belong to any political party, the District Magistrate says "i deny that he is not a member of any political party". In regard to the details given by the petitioner in paragraphs 3 and 10, about his articles in newspapers and books, the District Magistrate says that he has no knowledge in regard to them. The district magistrate has not referred to the allegations continued in paragraph 11 wherein the petitioner has referred to the three articles written by him in 'painjan' in the issue of january , February and March 1965. The District Magistrate has denied that the detention of the editor of "margdeep" has anything to do with the detention of the petitioner. According to the District Magistrate, the editor of "margdeep" had been detained for reasons unconnected with the petitioner. At paragraph 7, the District Magistrate refers to the allegations made by the petitioner at paragraph 15, wherein the petitioner has explained the occasion for writing the three articles, and stated that the articles are not as innocent as the petitioner has tried to make out. He adds: "the petitioner belongs to a group of individuals who consider that Nathuram Godse had rendered a valuable service to the country by putting an end to the life of Mahatma Gandhi 'the Father of the nation'. This group of individuals had organised and held in Poona two public functions one on 12-11-1964 and the other on 15-11-1964 at which speeches were made eulogising Nathuram Godse as a martyr and even though the petitioner was not personally present at these two functions the articles which he wrote in the magazine 'painjan" clearly indicated that he fully shared the view that Nathuram Godse had committed a laudable act in assassinating Mahatma Gandhi. At para 8, the District Magistrate says that the record before him showed that the petitioner was engaged in and was likely to be engaged inactivites prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order. "i had before me the report of a responsible Police Officer regarding the activities of the petitioner. After applying my own mind to this report and to the other material placed before me I was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in activities prejudicial to the public order, it was necessary to detain the petitioner and after being so satisfied I issued the detention order dated 31-3-1965". At para 9, he has denied that the articles are based only on authorities. According to the District Magistrate, the articles "clearly expressed his own views appreciating the act of Nathuram Godse in killing Mahatma Gandhi as a laudable act. From the material placed before me, I was satisfied that the activities of the petitioner if not prevented by his detention were likely to be prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order" At para 14, he had given a reply to paragraph 24 of the petition and said 'i deny that the petitioner had done nothing prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order and that he had contemplated no such action. "

(3.) MR. Pathak, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, contended on a proper construction of the averments contained in the petition and the petitioner's affidavit of the District Magistrate, it is clear that the District Magistrate took the action of detention against the petitioner only on the basis of the three articles contributed by the prtitioner to "painjan" in the months of January, February and March. He further contended that if that is the position, it is opened to the Court to scrutinise those articles and find out whether on the basis of the veiws expressed therin or the opnions propagated therein any reasonable man could be satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner. He argued that on a fair reading of the articles, it is impossible to hold that there is any incitement to commit acts of violence by one community as against the other. There is no attempt made to promote or foment ill-feeling between one community or the other. There is also nothing in the article which is intended or calculated to spread hatred or contempt or dissatisfaction against the Government. According to Mr. Pathak, the District Magistrate had not applied his mind and has not considered the effect which the articles are like;y to produce on the mind of the readers therof. Consequently, he argued that the detention is bad and must be set aside.