(1.) "A criminal case was registered against petitioner Balbir Singh Saini, practising lawyer in Civil Courts Ambala on 31-8-1984, in Police Station Ambala Cantt. under section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9 of the Punjab Security of State Act, 1953, on the basis of a Hindi pamphlet under the caption, "Atrocities of Army on Students", alleged to have been published at the instance of the petitioner, relevant portion of which reads as follows :-
(2.) THE case came before Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala for trial and charges were framed against the petitioner on 16.2.1987 vide order annexure P-2. Through this petition, petitioner Balbir Singh Saini has sought quashing of proceedings in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, with regard to the said case, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(3.) THE allegations in the first information report of this case, as quoted above, taken at their face value, cannot be said to constitute the alleged offences, as there is complete absence of any exhortation with regard to use or violence or disturbance of law and order still less public order or any "incitement with regard to activity prejudicial to the security of the State. Every citizen in this democratic country enjoys right to freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Criticism or even condemnation of any agency of the Government made in exercise of that right, in the absence of any suggestion with regard to use to violence, cannot possibly attract provisions of Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code or Section 9 of the Punjab Security of State Act, particularly then that agency of the Government dealt with assembly of unarmed students within the campus of Punjabi University, Patiala where they regularly assemble together for many lawful purposes such as to attend to classes or in the mess to take dinner or to play in the play grounds. It is now well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 Supreme Court 955, that words, deeds or writings constitute sedition punishable under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code only if they incite violence or disturb law and order or create public disorder or have the intention or tendency to do so. The words and writings in question do not incite violence or create public disorder nor they have the intention or tendency to do so. No call for alteration of the Government has either been made therein. Explanation 3 of Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code says that comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under that section. The provisions of the section as a whole along with explanations make it reasonably clear "that the section aims at rendering penal only such activity as would be intended or have a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. The explanations appended to the main body of the section make it clear that criticism of public measures or contempt on Government action, however, strongly worded, would be within a reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It is only when the words, written or spoken which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps, into prevent such activities in the interest of public order. So construed section strikes the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and the interest of public order. The provisions contained in Section 9 of the Punjab Security of State Act, 1953, also require the statement or report to undermine the security of the State or incitement of an offence prejudicial to the Security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or a tendency to overthrow the State. It is well settled that in interpreting an enactment the Court should have regard not merely to the literal meaning of the words used, but also take into consideration the antecedent history of the legislation, its purpose and the mischief it seeks to suppress. A citizen has a right to say and write whatever he like about the Government by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder. In the present case, as the matter reported in the pamphlet does not incite, people to violence against the Government, and also it does not point out "to an intention of creating public disorder, the alleged offences cannot be said to have been made out from the facts alleged in the first information report. Whatever the petitioner said in the pamphlet amounts to nothing more than the exercise of the right guaranteed to him in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution and the reliance on the public disorder by the State is wholly mis-placed.