SHRIDHAR MAHADEO JOSHI Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these two writ petitions filed under art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners (Shri Shridhar Mahadeo Joshi, managing trustee of 'Sadhana Trust', Shri Dattatraya Ganpat Dengle, keeper of 'Sadhana Press' and Shri Yadunath Dattatraya Thatte, editor, printer and publisher of 'Sadhana', a Marathi Weekly) are seeking to challenge and quash the penalties of forfeiture of certain issues of 'Sadhana' and closure of 'Sadhana Press' visited upon them by the respondent (State of Maharashtra) under R. 47 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971. The undisputed facts leading to the imposition of the aforesaid penalties upon the petitioners may be stated: late Pandurang Sadashiv Sane, popularly known as 'Sane Guruji', was a man of many facets. A participator in the Salt Satyagraha and other struggles launched by Mahatma Gandhi, an educationist connected with many educational institutions founded for all communities for instilling in the youth values of patriotism and secularism, a social worker and crusader against social inequalities, a fighter for upliftment of the down -trodden and backward communities of the society, a selfless political worker with an outstanding ability of organising political movement for freedom, he was a man of great literary merit having several outstanding publications to his credit. He always championed the cause of personal liberty and cherished a wish throughout his life that socialism should flower with individual freedom in this country. For propagating his ideals and ideas Sane Guruji founded a Marathi weekly entitled 'Sadhana' whose first issue was published on August 15, 1948 in Bombay; he purchased a small printing press in Bombay called 'Sadhana Press' by raising loans and donations for the purpose of publishing his weekly and his books; he was the editor of the said weekly till he died on June 11, 1950. Prior to his death he had addressed a letter containing a message to his friends and colleagues, which has been regarded as his last testament, exhorting them "to uphold the ideal of democratic socialism based on truth and to have a non -communal, nonviolent, democratic satyagrahi outlook". His last wish was "May India attain socialism without violence (blood -shed) and may socialism with individual freedom flower in the country". After the death of Sane Guruji his friends and colleagues by a deed dated May 26, 1951 settled a trust called 'Sadhana trust' with the main object of propagating his ideals, ideas, teachings and works. The said trust, has been registered as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. In or about 1954 the printing press and its activities were shifted t6 Pune. Since then the trust has published several unpublished writings of Sane Guruji, has brought out fresh editions of his published works and has continued the publication of the said Marathi weekly from Pune. At about the time when the impugned orders herein have come to be passed, the said weekly 'Sadhana' has been in its twenty eighth year of publication. It is claimed by the petitioners that 'Sadhana' has made outstanding contribution in educating the people on various political, social, economic, religious and moral issues, that 'Sadhana' has been impressing upon the people that political independence is not an end in itself, that real democratic socialism based on individual freedom cannot be achieved unless there is cultural renaissance which alone can bring about change in the mental outlook of the people, and that all the issues of 'Sadhana' including the special issues on various subjects brought out on special occasions have been acclaimed as being thought -provoking and as having made a distinct contribution towards the achievement of the ideals for which Sane Guruji lived and died. It is further claimed by the petitioners that 'Sadhana' pursues responsible journalism and objectivity, probity and self -imposed restraint as well as high ethical standards and is miles away from yellow journalism or journalism which caters to the baser emotions of human beings. It must be stated that except for the proscribed issues which allegedly contain 'prejudicial reports', even this latter claim made by the petitioners has not been disputed by the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioners have averred that following upon the Proclamation of Emergency by the President of India under art. 352(1) of the Constitution on June 26, 1975 declaring that grave emergency exists whereby the security of India is threatened by internal disturbances, the respondent on that very day issued its Censorship Order under R. 48(1) of the then Defence of India Rules, 1971, imposing precensorship and consequently the trustees of Sadhana Trust had to consider as to what should be done in regard to future publication of 'Sadhana' and ultimately the trustees decided that the publication of 'Sadhana' should continue in consonance with the philosophy of Sane Guruji and it was further decided to bring out issues of the weekly in the same manner in which the founder himself would have done if he were alive, not to forsake the path of responsible journalism, to maintain the same high standards of probity and ethical values for which 'Sadhana' had been known since its inception, and to keep the flag of individual liberty flying so that the dreams of Sane Guruji became realties of life and pursuant to this decision the petitioners continued the publication of the weekly as before.

(3.) THE petitioners are seeking to quash the aforesaid impugned orders on several grounds, but the principal or the main ground on which these are challenged is that none of the issues of 'Sadhana' proscribed and forfeited to Government under these orders contains any 'prejudicial report' as per cl. (7) read with one or the (sic) of the sub -clauses of cl. (6) of R. 36 as mentioned in the impugned orders. It has been contended that there is complete misconception on the part of the State Government about what a 'prejudicial report' is as per the definition given (sic) R. 36(7) read with R. 36(6) of the said Rules, and that there is also complete (sic) application of mind on the part of the State Government before it issued (sic) said impugned orders forfeiting the various issues inasmuch as none of the said issues contains any matter which could be said to be 'prejudicial report' within the meaning of R. 36(7), read with R. 36(6), of the said Rules. It has been further contended that none of the said issues of 'Sadhana' contains any matter relating either directly or indirectly to the security of India and civil defence and/or public safety, and/or internal security and/or maintenance of public order, and/or efficient conduct of military operations, and/or maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community and as such the State Government has acted beyond the scope and limits of the Defence and Internal Security of India Act, particularly s. 3 thereof and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for (a) a declaration that none of the proscribed and forfeited issues of 'Sadhana' contains any 'prejudicial report' within the meaning of R. 36(7), and (b) quashing the aforesaid eight impugned orders proscribing and forfeiting the concerned issues. As regards the impugned order dated November 3, 1975 directing the closure of the Press with immediate effect under R. 47(1)(h) the petitioners have contended that the said order and the penalty imposed thereunder are liable to be quashed if the Court comes to the conclusion that none of the issues referred to in the said order contains any 'prejudicial report' and have prayed for quashing the same.