Joginder Singh Sahny and anr. vs Union Territory, Chandigarh

J.M. Tandon, J.

A Sikh Convention (meeting) attended by about 1000/ persons was held between 9.30 A.M. to 1 P.M. on June 16, 1984, in Gurdwara Singh Sabha, Sector 19, Chandigarh. The petitioners attended and addressed the congregation. Rajinder Singh, SubInspector (C.I.D) covered this meeting and on the same day reported the gist of the Speeches made by the speakers and resolutions passed to the higher authorities. The C.I.D. report regarding the speeches made by Joginder Singh Sahny and Manjit Singh Khaira petitioners reads :

Joginder Singh Sahny in his speech stated that we have gathered here to mourn what has happened in the premises of Harmandar Sahib. Sikhs should be united because they are torn on the point of sword. I request that June 17, 1984 be observed by all Sikhas as Ardas Divas. They should wear black turbans and our women folk should wear black Chunnis and they should also pray for the peace of the souls of Martyrs.

Manjit Singh Khaira in his speech stated that the fight has just started and has not ended. At this juncture we should unite and decide how to fight. Think within yourself and discuss with your friends. We should not give up fight nor be trapped in the enemy tactics by getting emotional. If we do so we would cause more harm to ourselves. We need not sit at home merely by out of fear of loss. The dictate of Akal Takht is binding on us. I request you not to blame anybody. Nobody can become leader by merely taking out procession or holding gathering. It is not yet known who is to be our leader.

According to the C.I.D. report, the persons attending the meeting passed resolutions by raising hands including :

We boycott those radio and television programmes which are aimed to defame and divide our leaders.

The ban on A.I.S.S.F. and Dal Khalsa should be withdrawn.

We pay our heartiest tribute to those Army Jawans who revolted against the Indian Army or were killed. On every Sangrant (start of Desi month) the Amrit Rasam should be celebrated."

On receipt of the C.I.D. report dated June 16, 1984, F I.R. No. 298 dated June 22, 1984, was registered at P.S. East Sector 26, Chandigarh, under sections 124A and 152A, Indian Penal Code. The petitioners having made speeches in the meeting on June 16, 1984, are named in the F.I.R. They have filed the present petition, under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying that their names be deleted from the F.I.R.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the speeches made by the petitioners during the convention held on June 16, 1984, are innocent and harmless. The petitioners did not preach or incite violence. They advised the audience to remain peaceful though they expressed resentment against what had happened in the recent past. The argument proceeds that the speech can be termed objectionable inviting penal action if it incites or tends to incite violence in a reasonably normal person and in this context the reaction on an extra sensitive individual is irrelevant. There is hardly any justification to assume that the prevailing atmosphere at the time the speeches were made was such that the same are capable of being interpreted to incite or tend to incite violence or disturb law and order or create disorder. In the speeches made by the petitioners, no overt act was suggested directly or indirectly. The speeches at best reflected their injured feelings. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be taken to have committed any offence including one under section 124A, I.P.C by publicly airing their resentment against the Army action in the State and the unfortunate consequences that followed. They have been wrongly named in F.I.R. No. 298 dated June 22, 1984. Their names should be deleted therefrom. Reliance has been placed on Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R 1962 SC 955.

The learned counsel, for the Union Territory Administration has argued that the Sikh convention was held on June 16, 1984, in connection with the Army operation in the State of Punjab a few days earlier and its repercussions. Some of the speakers during the convention preached outright violence. One speaker said that for one Sikh killed one hundred would be liquidated. Another said that the need of the hour was Udham Singh who can kill Mrs Indira Gandhi. The conviction passed resolutions including one paying tribute to the members of the Armed forces who did not maintain Army discipline expected of them and revolted. The argument proceeds that the speeches made by the petitioners tend to incite violence and develop contempt for the Government resulting in disturbance of law and order when interpreted particularly in the background of the prevailing atmosphere in the State.

In Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. Emperor, AIR (29) 1942 Federal Court 22,their Lordships examined the scope of section 124A, I.P.C. and made the following observations:

"The first and most fundamental duty of every Government is the preservation of order since order is the condition precedent to all civilization and the advance of human happiness. This duty has, no doubt, been sometimes performed in such way to make the remedy worse than the disease, but it does not cease to be a matter of obligation because some on whom the duty rests have performed it ill. It is to this aspect of the functions of Government that in our opinion, the offence of sedition stands related. It is the answer of the State to those who, for the purpose of attacking or subverting it, seek (to borrow from the passage cited above) to disturb its tranquility to create public disturbance and to promote disorder, or who incite others to do so. Words, deeds or writings constitute sedition, if they have this intention or this tendency; and it is easy to see why they may also constitute sedition, if they seek, as the phrase is, to bring Government into contempt. This is not made an offence in order to minister to the wound vanity of Governments, but because where Government and the law ceased to be obeyed because no respect is felt any longer for them only anarchy can follow. Public disorder, or the reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder, is thus the gist of the offence. The acts or words complained of must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that that is their intention or tendency."

In Kedar Nath Singh''s case (supra) the amplitude of sections 124A and 505, IPC. again came up for consideration and their Lordships made the following observations :

"The provisions of the sections read as a whole, along with the explanations, make it reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, of a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. As already pointed out, the explanation appended to the main body of the section make it clear that criticism of public measure or comment on Government action, however, strongly worded, would be within 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 etc which have the pernicious tendency or intention or 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, the section, in our opinion, strikes the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and interest of public order. It is also 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 mischief it seeks to suppress vide. Viewed in that light, we have no hesitation in so construing the provisions of the sections impugned in these cases as to limit their application to acts involving, intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order or incitement to violence."

The ratio of the two authorities mentioned above is admittedly applicable to the facts of the instant case. The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the Union Territory Administration is that this part of the country had been declared Disturbed Area and the extremists activities were going on large scale in June, 1984. The law and order situation had so deteriorated that the Army had to spread. In this background it would be reasonable to infer from the text and tenor of the speeches made by the petitioners that the same were intended and they did tend to bring the Govt. into contempt with the likelihood of eruption of violence and public disorder in terms of the ratio of the two authorities referred to above.

I have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have yet to undergo trial, if challaned. The fact of the matter is that the challan against the petitioners has not been filed so far. It may not be appropriate to dilate on the merits of this case at this stage. Suffice it to say that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference under section 482, Cr.P.C. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.