Kunnikkal Narayanan vs State of Kerala

T.C. Raghavan, J.—The petitioner, Kunnikkal Naravanan. a detenu under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act and the Kerala Security Prisoners'' Order, questions the order of the Government prohibiting the supply of two books to him. The petition contains a prayer for relief regarding a letter written be him to the Chief Minister and the reply thereto of the Chief Minister which the Govt. Pleader has submitted before us the Government has agreed to supply to the petitioner, so that the petition is now confined to the two books. The first book is "Four Essays on Philosophy" by Mao Tsetung; and the second book is. "Mao Papers an Anthology and Bibliography" by Jerome Chen published by the Oxford University Press.

The provision under which these works are denied to the petitioner is Clause 19 of the Kerala Security Prisoners'' Order, 1971 as amended on 23rd December 1971. The relevant Sub-clause of Clause 19 is Sub-clause (1) which reads.

(1) Security Prisoners may receive such books. newspapers and periodicals as are not (a) proscribed by the Government; or (b) considered by the Government as not permissible.

The petitioner who has argued the petition himself has submitted that the books come only within (b) of the Sub-clause extracted above, viz. works considered by the Govt. as not permissible: in other words, the books are not proscribed.

Two arguments have been advanced before us: (1) that the books are not ''Mao literature'' which alone are denied to the petitioner (that seems to be the case of the Government): and (2) that there is discrimination in not supplying the books to the petitioner. We shall now consider the two books separately.

The first book. "Four Essays on Philosophy by Mao Tsetung" certainly comes within the expression ''Mao literature,'' because that contains the Mao Philosophy. Therefore there cannot be any doubt as to why the Government denied this books to the petitioner.

The next book is the publication by Jerome Ch''en a copy of which is not before us. But even according to the petitioner the book is "Mao Papers An Anthology and Bibliography." Anthology means in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary "a collection of the flowers of verse. i. e. small choice poems esp epigrams: ..Any other literary collection": and ''bibliography'' means in the same dictionary. "The systematic description and history of books, their authorship printing publication. editions, etc.. A book containing such details; A list of the books of a particular author. printer. country." Therefore if the book consists of Mao ''Papers an Anthology and Bibliography of the Mao Papers. evidently it must also come within the term ''Mao literature''. The book contains Mao Papers in the sense that it contains select Quotations or passages from Mao Papers: evidently then the book is ''Mao literature''. In our opinion. therefore the second book must also come within the expression ''Mao literature'' though the book has not been written by Mao Tsetung himself and even if the author of the book criticises Mao Tsetung and his philosophy.

The next argument as already indicated is that there has been discrimination against the petitioner in denying these books to him. It is not contended that any other detenu similarly placed like the petitioner is given these books the contention is that the other detenus who do not believe in Mao Philosophy are encouraged or benefited by the denial of these books to them. This is obviously no discrimination. As observed by the Supreme Court in Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer. Kasaragod AIR 1963 SC 591 "If there is equality and uniformity within each group the law will not be condemned as discriminative. though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of a peculiar situation some included in a class get an advantage over others so long as they are not singled out or special treatment." There is no such singling out in this case all the detained persons are treated alike to all these books are denied. Moreover, such detenus who do not believe in Mao Philosophy would not have read ''Mao literature'' even if they were free not detained. Thus, this contention has also no force.

The petitioner has produced before us the certified copy of a Full Bench decision of the Guiarat High Court (Special Criminal Appln. No. 24 of 1971 etc. reported in Jugal Kishore and Another Vs. State, In that case a book titled ''Quotations from Mao Tsetuns was forfeited by the Government; and the action of the Government was challenged. A Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that the forfeiture was illegal and set aside the order. Evidently this case cannot have any application to the case before us because the books before us are neither proscribed nor forfeited; the order only says that the Government considers these books as not permissible to the detenus as the books are ''Mao literature''.

We may also point out in this connection that in this petition the constitutional validity of the Act or the order framed under the Act has not been challenged.

We dismiss the petition.