Bhanashanker L. Joshi vs The State

This is an application by one Bhanushanker L. Joshi, who is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a newspaper called ''Fariad'' in Rajkot. An

order had been served on him on 18th February 1950, u/s 7(3), (Indian) Press Emergency Powers Act, 1931, as adapted and applied to the state

of Saurashtra, in as much as certain words printed and published by him in the articles appearing in his paper constituted a deliberate attempt to

bring the Government established by law in the State of Saurashtra into hatred or contempt. He was, therefore, asked to deposit a security of the

amount of Rs. 1000. It is against that order that the Petitioner has made this application under the provisions of the Press Act.

In the statement, attached to the notice, there is a summary from some and extracts from other articles appearing in the issues of the newspaper

published on 26th November 1949, 17th December 1949, 19th January 1950, 24th January 1950, and a cartoon appearing in the issue of 16th

November 1949. The relevant provisions under which these extracts are impungned are contained in Section 4(1)(d), Press Act, viz., to bring into

hatred or contempt the Government established by law.

The heading of the first article appearing in the issue of 26th November 1949 is ''Do the people take advantage of their influence in Saurashtra?''

In the statement the actual words which come under the section are not quoted, but some words are taken from one sentence, and some from

other sentences, and the impungned words are to the effect that

Big Sahebs getting big pay are employed in the Public Service Commission; what is their age. It appears that people who can exercise influence)

take advantage of their influences in Saurashtra.

We do not think that those words in any way come under the relevant provisions of Section 4. It us merely a suggestion that influential persons

takes advantage of their influence. That is a grievance everywhere, and even if the words used may not be strictly justified, we do not think that

they tend to bring the Government into hatred, or contempt.

The second article in the issue of 17the December 1949 is as regards the mismanagement of the Food Department. The article begins with a

parable of a wild eat devouring the young ones of birds in a tree and giving excuses for the disappearance. The criticism is against the Food

Department and not generally against the Government. The gist of the criticism is that some part of the grain stored had deterionated, land that

people had suffered for want of good grain, and they ware also given grain of inferior quality. This grievance appears to be exaggerated, and

expressed in flowery language but not such as to bring the Government into hatred or contempt.

The third article is in the issue of 19th January 1950 and it relates to the robbery committed by the outlaws in Jetpur. It says that the nose of the

Police has been cut on account of such a daring robbery committed in a big town like Jetpur. The criticism is that the Saurashtra Government has

failed in protecting the people, and the statements issued from time to time by the Government are hypocritical. This may be somewhat strong

language to use, but nothing more than that. As has been held in In re Anandbazar Patrika 61 Cal. 827 : (A.I.R. (22) 1935 Cal. 74 : 36 Cr.L.J.

432 S.B.) :

Mere disapprobation, however strongly and flagrantly expressed, does not imply that the intention was to excite disaffection.

The last article is in the issue of 24th January 1950, the substance of which is that the Ministers of the Saurashtra Government are boasting of

their achievements, but the incidents that are taking place do not justify such boasts. Then some, incidents are mentioned such as business houses

being looted in daylight, the chastity of woman being spoiled at the hands of the Police, and nationalist-minded Girasdars being imprisoned under

the Public Security Act, etc. This criticism is against the statements issued by the Ministers. It is true that the Ministers are a part of the

Government, but it has been held in In the matter of Jang.i Azadi, Lahors, 49 P.L.R. 235 : (A.I.R. (35) 1948 Lab. 6 ; 48 Cr.L.J. 931 S.B.) that

the Ministers belong to one or more political parties, and a criticism of their doings or policy, even if it be strongly worded, cannot be said to bring

into hatred or contempt the Government established by law.

In order to bring the case u/s 4, the criticism must be against the Government and not merely against the Ministers.

The last thing impugned is not an article, but only a cartoon appearing in the issue of 16th November 1949. In the cartoon there is an oversized

figure of on outlaw in the Jungle of Gir, and side, by side, there is an under sized figure representing the Police Department of Saurashtra, and as

compared with the size of the outlaw, the figure representing the Police Department is described as ""Vaman"" i.e., a pigmy or a short figure. The

idea is to convey that the Police Department is not strong enough to check outlawry. We are unable to see how this cartoon would bring the

Government into hatred or contempt. It only shows that in the opinion of the drawer of the cartoon, the Police Department is too small to check

the number of outlaws in Saurashtra. Ordinarily a cartoon is never meant to be taken seriously. In any case this cartoon merely suggests the

inadequacy of the police force to suppress outlawry.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that none of the articles or the cartoon mentioned in the statement are covered by the words of Section 4(1),

Press Act.

On this view, we do not think it necessary to deal with the argument urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the Press (Emergency Powers) Act is

ultra vires of the provisions of Section 19(1) Clauses (a) and (g) of the Constitution Act. We, therefore, allow this application, and set aside the

order of security passed by the Government. No order as to costs.