EMPEROR Vs. MORARJI PADAMSEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 23 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, for setting aside an order of the Government of Bombay dated March 22, 1945. The order forfeited the security of Rs. 1,500 deposited by Vishwanath Ramchandra Savant, the keeper of the press known as the Associated Advertisers and Printers, Limited, The reason why the Government made this order is stated in the body of the order itself, and it points out that whereas the Associated Advertisers and Printers, Limited, Press, has been used for the purpose of printing a book in English entitled Denationalisation of Goans " which contains certain words which are set out at the foot of that order and whereas it appeared to the Government of Bombay that those words were likely to prejudice His Majesty's relations with the Portuguese Government and, as such, constitute a prejudicial report and come within the scope of Clause (bb) of Section 4(1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, the Government of Bombay were moved to forfeit the security deposited by Vishwa-nath Ramchandra Savant. Section 4(1), Clause (bb), of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, refers to words, signs or visible representations which directly or indirectly convey any confidential information any information likely to assist the: enemy or any prejudicial report , as defined in the rules made under the Defence of India Act, 1939, or are calculated to instigate the contravention of any of those rules.

(2.) The case of Government is that this particular book " Denationalisation of Goans " contains a prejudicial report as denned in the Defence of India Rules. " Prejudicial report" is denned in Rule 34, Clause (7), as any report, statement or visible representation, whether true or false, which, or the publishing of which, is, or is an incitement lathe commission of, a prejudicial act as defined in this rule; and "prejudicial act" is denned in Rule 34, Clause (6), and the only definition with which we are concerned is the one contained in Sub-clause (a) which is to prejudice His Majesty's relations with any Indian State or with any foreign power. Now; it is the contention of Government that by publishing this book the relations between His Majesty and the Government of Portugal have been prejudiced. It is to be noted that the word " prejudice " is not defined anywhere in the Defence of India Act or the Rules framed thereunder. " Prejudice " is not a term with any definite connotation, and in order to construe it one is entitled to look at the purpose for which the Rules under the Defence of India Act are to be framed. We agree with the learned Advocate General that if one of the Defence of India Rules prohibits a certain act specifically, then we must give effect to that prohibition; but where the word used is ambiguous and is not defined and is not clear as to its interpretation, it is open to us to look to the object with which the Rules were framed under the Defence of India Act; and when we turn to Section 2, the Defence of India Act provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make such rules as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for securing the defence of British India, the public safety, the maintenance of public order or the efficient prosecution of war, or for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. Therefore it is clear that in order that a publication or a book should prejudice His Majesty's relations with a foreign power, the publication must be such as in some way to affect one of the objects referred to in Section 2 (1) of the Defence of India Act to which we have just referred.

(3.) Mr. Drewe, Secretary to the Government of Bombay in the Home Department, has made an affidavit in which he points out that complaints were made to the Government of Bombay by the Portuguese Government drawing the attention of the former Government to this particular publication; and pointing out that that publication was resented. Now we have; nothing to do with the view taken by the Portuguese Government as to the nature of this book, and in that sense the affidavit of Mr. Drewe is not very helpful. As a matter of fact, in the affidavit Mr. Drewe says that various other books published by the Goa Congress Committee, which has also published the book in question entitled "Denationalisation of Goans," have brought about unpleasant relations between His Majesty and the Portuguese Government, and it is not specifically stated that the cause of the strained relations is this book itself. But as we are pointing out the affidavit of Mr. Drewe is not very helpful because it is for us to decide on a perusal of the book itself and after carefully considering the objected passages whether the publication comes within the mischief of Section 4(1), Clause (bb), of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act. As a matter of fact if one were permitted to look at the affidavit of Mr. Drewe for the purpose of deciding whether the book falls under Clause (bb) of Section 4(1), it would be equally relevant to consider what Morarji Padamsey says in paragraph 1 of his affidavit dated August 2, 1945, that though the Government of Bombay have taken action under the Press Act against this book, this book has not been proscribed in Goa by the Portuguese Government and that the book is being freely and openly sold in Goa. This statement has not been denied or disputed by Mr. Drewe in his affidavit to which I have just referred.