P. Venkateswarlu and Another vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rama Rao, J.—These conjoint Crl. Miscellaneous Petitions are under S. 96 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the declaration made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh contained in G.O. Ms. No. 72, Home (S.C.B.) dated 6th February, 1982 and published in A.P. Gazette dated 1-4-1982 forfeiting the passage containing objectionable material at pages 150, 151, 184, 203, 204, 206 to 208, 237, 245, 249, 250, 256, 260, 262, 268, 293, 304 and 313 in the Telugu novel entitled "Mareechika" written by Kum. Vasireddy Seeta Devi, Deputy Director, Youth Services, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh.

Crl.M.P. No. 1347/82 is filed by Sri P. Venkatesarlu, advocate and General Secretary, All India Democratic Lawyers Association, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad stating that he is evincing interest in the novel and Cr.M.P. Number 2169/82 is filed by Kum. Vasireddy Seetha Devi the author of the book.

The book was published in January, 1979, after it was serialised in the Telugu Magazine "Andhra Bhoomi" during the years 1977-78. The Government in exercise of the powers ordered that book containing objectionable materials in the English translation set out in the G.O. shall be forfeited to the Government on the ground that the publication of the same is punishable u/s 124-A and Section 153-A of the Penal Code. The provocation for the impugned order is that the book contains objectionable passages which are calculated to generate disaffection towards the Government and its armed forces and the promotion and fostering of class hatred by projecting annihilation programme of class enemies. Violent upheaval and armed revolutions by extremists in the country and exciting adolescents to adopt the cult of violent philosophy of extremism which are punishable u/s 124-A and S. 153A I.P.C.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is vitiated in view of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 95(1) Cr.P.C. as the grounds for formation of opinion have not been set out and the substantial repetition of the language employed in the concerned sections under the guise of stating the grounds is not in consonance with the mandate in Section 95, Cr.P.C. and irrelevant grounds cannot be equated to setting out grounds warranted under the relevant provision.

To appreciate the twofold contention of Mechanical reproduction of the provisions of the relevant sections and the trespass of irrelevant grounds it is necessary to have close-up of S. 124-A and Section 153-A I.P.C. to the extent they are relevant.

"124-A. Section.

Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings, or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years to which fine may be added, or with fine.

EXPLANATION : I. The Expression "Disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feeling of enmity".

153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. (1) Whoever -

(a) by words, either, spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or, regional groups or castes or communities, or.

(b) xx xx xx xx

(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in that activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force of violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community".

The nucleus of G.O. omitting the schedule may be extracted :-

"Forfeiture of the book entitled "Mareechika" written by Smt. Vasireddy Seeta Devi, Deputy Director, Youth Services, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad containing objectionable passages :

(G.O. Ms. No. 72, Home (S.C.B.) 6th February, 1982. Whereas, it appears to the Government of Andhra Pradesh that the book ''Mareechika'' (Telugu Novel written by Smt. Vaseireddy Seetha Devi, Deputy Director of Youth Services, Office of the Director of Youth Services, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, printed at Ravi Printing Press, Vijayawada-2 and published by Navajyothi Publications, Eluru Road, Vijayawada-2 contains material referred to in the schedule below which tends to excite disaffection towards the Government and its armed forces and promotes class hatred and conflict accentuating the annihilation programme of class enemies, violent struggles and arms revolutions by extremists in the country, besides luring many young minds of impressionable age to the dengerous violent philosophy of Extremism; the publication of which is punishable u/s 124-A and Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Criminal P.C., 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby declare every copy of the aforesaid book ''Mareechika'' containing objectionable material at pages 150, 151, 184, 203, 204, 206, to 108, 237, 249, 250, 256, 260, 261, 262, 268, 293, 304 and 313 be forfeited to the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh".

Section 95 Cr.P.C. confers wide power on State Government to prescribe the publication provided the matter published therein is punishable u/s 124-A, Section 153-A, Section 153-B or Section 292 or Section 293 or S. 295-A I.P.C. by issue of a notification. The in-built safeguard or check is embedded in the provision whereby the State Government is obligated to state the grounds founding the opinion. The reasons or grounds in support of the conclusion of the violation of the concerned provision of Penal Code is a basic and initial step for initiating action under S. 95 Cr.P.C. The object is to abet the Government to apply mind with an objective approach and state the grounds explicitly and thereby integrate the nexus between the offending material and the related provisions of Penal Code.

The initial portion of the notification namely, "which tends to excite disaffection towards the Government and its armed forces" is traceable to Section 124-A, I.P.C. The same language is employed in Section 124-A of the Act read with inclusive coverage of "disaffection" in Explanation I. The only significant departure from the identity of language is the use of expression "Armed Forces". This expression in the context can be sustained as being comprehended in the expression of the Government and the hostile posture to armed forces can be equated to disloyalty or enmity to Government. If this expression cannot be brought within the purview of the section it should be considered as alien to Section 124-A. The promotion of class hatred and conflict accentuating the annihilation programme of the class enemies, violent struggles and armed revolutions by extremists and luring young minds of impressionable age to dangerous violent philosophy of extremism in the later portion of G.O. can be considered as replica of Section 153-A which is concerned with the promotion of enmity, hatred and disharmony among religious, racial and caste groups etc. The learned counsel states that the expressions "class enemies" "armed revolution by extremists" are associated friction between haves and have nots comprising capitalists, proletariats and bourgeoise etc., and the class struggle containing perennial seeds of revolution aiming at classless human society. The violent philosophy of extremism, says the learned counsel, is associated with Naxalism and this expression pertaining to liquidation of feudal and capitalist set up by violent methods gained currency. Though there appears to be accent on class struggle and armed revolutions these expressions are within the purview of the broad category envisaged u/s 153-A. The essence of the G.O. is that the passages in the book highlights cleavages in the society and demolition of the same by recourse to violent methods. According to the G.C. the ultimate object of the offending passage is to foster hatred among certain segments in the society and incite young people to set at naught the present state of affairs which are detrimental to the interests of the society at large. The G.O. merely adopts the general language and tenor of the provisions of Section 124-A and Section 153-A I.P.C. but did not endeavour to give reasons or grounds on the facts and circumstances in support of the formation of opinion.

The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Lalai Singh Yadav, . In this decision the book "Ramayan" written by Periyar EVR of Tamil Nadu was forfeited by the Government of Uttar Pradesh purporting to be u/s 99-A Cr.P.C. analogous to Section 95 Cr.P.C. The notification contained an appendix setting out in tabular form the particulars of the relevant pages and lines in the English and Hindi versions which are regarded as scandalizing and the statement that the book is intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens of India i.e., Hindus by insulting their religion and religious beliefs. The Allahabad High Court quashed the notification and the appeal was filed at the instance of State of U.P. After considering in depth the diverse facets of Section 99-A Cr.P.C. analogous to Section 95 Cr.P.C. and Section 295-a I.P.C. analogous to Section 124-A and Section 153-A Krishna Iyer, J. held as follows :-

"Explicitly the section compels the Government to look at the matter which calls for action to consider it as to the clear and present danger to constitute in the shape of promoting feelings of enmity and hatred between different segments of citizens or as to its strong tendency or intendment to outrage the religious feelings of such segments (there are other proclivities also stated in the section with which we are not concerned for the present purpose) and quite importantly, to state the grounds of its opinion. We are concerned with the last ingredient. When the section says that you must state the grounds it is no answer to say that they need not be stated because they are implied. You do not state a thing when you are expressively silent about it. To state "is to declare or to set forth, especially in a precise, formal or authoritative manner, to say (something), especially in an emphatic way, to assert" (Random House Dictionary). The conclusion is inescapable that a formal authoritative setting forth of the grounds is statutorily mandatory. If you laze and omit, the law visits the order with voidness and this the State Government must realize especially because forfeiture of a book for a penal offence is a serious matter, not a routine act to be executed with unconcern or indifference".

The facts and circumstances in this case have close affinity to the situation considered in the Supreme Court case. In the instant case also the particulars of the offending passage and the ingredients of relevant sections have been set out. It is not possible to discern the reasons in support of the decision arrived at in the G.O. It is sufficient if the broad features of the grounds are given and detailed programme of the grounds is not envisaged under the Act and sifting the grounds to test the propriety or otherwise at this stage does not arise. The epitome of grounds is a fore-runner to the formation of opinion. It is possible to infer the objective assessment of the situation from the reasons or grounds only and mere inference or conclusion does not satisfy the requirement of Section 95 Cr.P.C. The G.O. indicates the mere reproduction of the ingredients of the relevant sections without applying mind to the crucial aspect whether the passages in the book tend to incite or promote the feelings envisioned (envisaged) in the relevant provisions. The G.O., is substantial reproduction of Section 124-A and Section 153-A I.P.C. and even if certain inferences in the G.O. cannot (can) be brought within the fold of either of the sections they have to be considered as irrelevant and outside the brackets of the said sections. According to the learned counsel the caption of the book "Marrethika" in Telugu means "illusion" and the book in any event pertains to illusion and propensities of teen aged persons only and does not violate the provisions of either Section 124-A or Section 153-A, IPC. It is not necessary to have in-depth survey of the book in the view taken that the G.O. does not contain the grounds. It must be stated that the G.O. is a mix up of several aspects and is loaded with violent deviations from the relevant provisions and no less illusory.

In the circumstances, G.O. Ms. No. 72, Home (S.C.B.) dated 6th February, 1982, is quashed, Crl.M.P. allowed.

Petition allowed.