EMPEROR Vs. MANIBEN LILADHAR KARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the accused against her conviction by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Secs.124A. and 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The charge against the accused is that she made two speeches at a labour meeting on " May day " which constituted offences under those two sections. The accused in the written statement she put in before the learned Magistrate says that she is a social worker and has studied social science in England and elsewhere. I am bound to say that; the speeches with which we have to deal do not suggest that she has studied more than one side of the subject, but perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect a labour leader on May day to deliver anything in the nature of an impartial address.

(2.) The first speech which she delivered the learned Magistrate held was unobjectionable, and as that finding has not been challenged in this Court, I need not refer to that speech. The second speech is the one which the learned Magistrate holds to come within the two sections I have mentioned. In determining the question, we have to look at the speech as a whole, and! not pay undue regard to any particular sentence or phrase. And looking at the speech as a whole we have to gather from the language used what the intention of the speaker was. It is obviously not open to a speaker to say that he did not intend his language to bear the meaning which it naturally does bear. The speech in question was not very long, and in order to determine what its real effect was, I would shortly summarise it. The speaker starts by moving a resolution which in substance expresses the solidarity of the working class, and its determination to fight and destroy the capitalist system. Then it refers to a resolve of the workers to fight the offensive of retrenchment and wage-cut launched by the capitalists by organising mass resistance in the form of general strike. In support of that resolution the speaker says that labourers must unite to fight the two enemies of Government and capitalists, A general strike, so she says, can only be declared when all labourers unite. Then she eulogises in a somewhat partial spirit the effects of a general strike. Then she says Government and capitalists have weapons, workmen have no weapons, but they have their labour which is stronger than weapons. Labourers she says, do all the work, and are starving: is this justice ? The rule of labour should be established by all labourers combining. Police and soldiers will join because they are really labourers. Everything is in the hands of labour, who want to break the powers of capitalists and imperialists, Then she says this can be done not by the methods of the terriorists of Bengal, or by the methods of Congress, but by the way of M. N. Roy, Then she says that Government are getting afraid of labour, and that labour leaders are sent to jail for long terms of imprisonment and that Congress leaders get much shorter terms, and then she ends by exhorting all labour to unite to destroy the capitalist system. So that the speech taken as a whole seems to be an exhortation to labour to unite with the object of being in a position to declare a general strike though there is no suggestion that a general strike should be declared at the present time, and the ultimate object seems to be to establish labour raj by the methods of M. N. Roy. The question is whether that speech is an offence under either of the sections, and I will deal with Section 153A first.

(3.) The offence under that section is constituted by promoting or attempting to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of His Majesty's subjects. The first point taken by Mr. Talyarkhan on behalf of the accused is that capitalists are not a class of His Majesty's subjects. He says that Section 153A was designed to prevent people from promoting feelings of hatred between classes of the community divided either by race or religion. He says that we should construe the section as not extending beyond that. I agree with the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate that it is not possible to limit the section in that way, I think that any definite and ascertainable class of His Majesty's subjects will come within the section, although the classes may not be divided on racial or religious grounds. But I differ from the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate when he says that capitalists are a sufficiently defined class. Capitalist in the literal sense of the word is, I suppose, any one who possesses any accumulated wealth, and practically every one possesses some accumulated wealth, though some people do not possess very much. On that definition practically everybody will be within the capitalist class. No doubt in the region of economic discussion capitalists are referred to in a more limited sense, In reference to divisions between capital and labour, the capitalist generally means a parson with a considerable amount of property invested in industry. But if you take any definition of that sort, it is impossible to say what amount of capital would bring a man within the class. He might be within the class one day, and without it the next. He may be a capitalist in one country and not in another. It seems to me that capitalist is altogether too vague a phrase to denote a definite and ascertainable class so as to come within Section 153A, I may say that even if I were wrong on that construction of the Act, I should say that this speech was not sufficiently strong to promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred against the capitalists. The capita-lists are referred to in the speech as "blood-suckers ", but that after all is a figure of speech. The only real charge against them is that they are exploiting labour, taking advantage of the labourer's work and paying inadequate wages. But the speaker, and I think her audience, must have appreciated that the wages of labour depend on the ordinary laws of demand and supply. People, whether they are capitalists or not, usually pay for labour the price at which they can obtain it and not more, and I do not think it can be said to be exciting feelings of enmity or hatred to suggest that capitalists are paying too little. It is quite open for a labour leader to say that out of the proceeds of industry capital is getting too big a share, just as it is open for the capitalists to say that labour is getting too big a share end that until wages come down there will be no improvement in industry. These are points of view which are perfectly legitimate, and charging your opponent with getting too big a share of the proceeds of industry is not, I think, calculated to inspire feelings of hatred or enmity towards him. I think, therefore, the charge under Section 153A fails.