SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner trust is the publisher of the Punjab Daily 'ajit'. It has been stated in the petition that the aforsaid paper has followed a fully independent policy and has made serious efforts to act as a watch-dog of the rights and interests of the citizens and in that process has often asked inconvenient question of the administration. It has also been stated that the situation in the State being extremely volatile and tense, newspapers such as the Ajit, that have to reflect the view points of various sections of the society, are working under extreme pressures. It has further been averred that the opinion of the administration is also divided on the question of the policy that is to be followed towards finding a solution of the Punjab problem. It has been stated that one part of the administration is lobbying for taking a very hard line on this problem and with this background, the vernacular press, particularly the Ajit, is being singled out for specially harsh treatment as a theory has been propounded that it is the vernacular press which is largely responsible for the deteriorating situation in the State. It has also been stated in the writ petition that being unable to face or tackle the independent line persued by the AJIT, the Government has issued instructions, dated 20th February, 1991, Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter called the Code), with the specified object to muzzle the free press and to toe the official line. It has further been stated that subsequent to the issuance of the instructions, Annexure P-2, the State Government in order to pressurise the AJIT has forfeited and seized the copies of t he newspaper published on various dates, the details whereof are given in the body of the petition. The instructions Annexure P-2 have been challenged by the petitioner as being violative of Arts. 14, 16, 19 (1-A) and 19 (1-G) of the Constitution of India, and on the ground that the State Government was not authorised to issue such instructions. It may, however, be mentioned here that the challenge to that constitutional validity of the instructions, Annexure P-2, that have been issued for the guidance of the District Magistrates, who are exercising the powers of the State Government as its delegatees, has been given up at the stage of arguments.

(2.) IN the reply to the petition, a preliminary objection has been taken that as the notification Annexure P-2 has been issued in view of the power conferred by Section 95 of the Code, an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 96 of the Code to challenge any action taken under the former section. It has also been stated that a reading of paragraph 4 of Annexure P-2 would reveal that the aforesaid instructions are merely guidelines with the discretion having been left with the District Magistrates concerned to apply their minds independently de hors the aforesaid instructions. It has been emphatically denied that any special or harsh measure has been ordered against the AJIT and on the contrary, it has been asserted that the policy perceived by Annexure P-2 has been uniformally followed with regard to all the newspapers published in the State. It has also been pleaded that the guidelines were issued after careful deliberation and after no consensus would be reached with the representatives of the press with regard to the policy that they ought to follow. It has been highlighted that the State Government has, in fact, exercised utmost restraint in taking action only under Section 95 of the Code against the newspapers, as extreme steps could have taken under the Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act, 1956 and other relevant Acts.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, the learned Attorney-General, appearing for the respondent-State of Punjab, has reiterated the preliminary objection raised in the written statement. Additionally, he has argued that the guidelines Annexure P-2 flow from the terminology of Section 95 of the Code and, as such, they cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or unauthorised. He has candidly stated that the District Magistrates concerned, while exercising the powers of the State Government under Section 95 of the Code (which have been delegated to them and are quasi-judicial in nature are not bound to follow the instructions mechanically but have to apply their independent minds while deciding on the action that has to be taken.