(Syed Shah) Mohamed Usman Ghani vs Govt. of Bihar and Orrisa

Mohammad Noor, J.—This is an application u/s 23, Indian Press (Emergency powers) Act 23 of 1931 as amended by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 23 of 1932. The Petitioner Syed Shah Mahammad Usman Ghani was the publisher of a newspaper called "Imarat" published from Phulwari Sharif in the District of Patna. The local Government considered that a certain article published in that newspaper came within the mischief of Section 4(1)(d) of the Act as amended and called upon the petitioner to deposit with the District Magistrate of Patna within fifteen days of the service of notice security to the amount of one thousand rupees.

This order was passed u/s 7, Sub-clause (3), Indian Press (Emergency powers) Act of 1931. The Petitioner has moved this Court to set aside that order, and the only question before us whether the article does not contain words of the nature described in Section 4(1)(d) of the Act which runs as follows:

To bring into hatred or contempt His Majesty or the Government established by law in British India or the administration of justice in British India or any class or section of His Majesty''s subjects in British India, or to excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the said Government.

There is an explanation added to Section 4 Which says that

comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection shall not be deemed to be of the nature described in Clause (d) of this subsection.

I have read the article in Urdu, copies of which were supplied to us by the petitioner. A translation of it made by the official translator is in the paper-book and another translation is appended to the application of the petitioner. There are slight variations in the two translations which for the purposes of this case are not material. By reading the article and its translations even as supplied by the petitioner I have no doubt in my mind that it clearly comes within the section. The article says that the Indian Musalmans think that they are the only religious Muslims on the earth and that the Muslims of the rest of the world are misguided and irreligious, and that in fact the Musalmans of no other country are so much removed from religion as the Indian Musalmans are.

Then the writer proceeds to give his reason for his holding that opinion. It is to the effect that according to the Quran infidels have no sway over the Muslims, but the Musalmans of India are allowing a non-muslim Government to dominate them and are submitting to the irreligious laws made by that Government. Then the writer gives instances of the irreligious laws as he calls them, and in conclusion says that not taking steps to remove the domination of that Government is irreligiousness. Further on he says that our first duty should be to make every effort to free the country from the domination of non-Muslims--a country which has already been in possession of the Muslims.

The article clearly excites the Indian Musalmans to take steps to turn out the non-Muslim Government. Mr. Y. Yunus, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, attempted to draw a distinction between Government and domination of Government, and contended that what the author of the article asked the people to do was not to turn out the Government but to turn out the domination of the Government. I am however unable to accept this contention.

Every Government Whatever its form may be, dominates over the country in as much as it controls the actions of the people inhabiting that country in one way or the other. Calling upon the people to remove the domination of a Government, in my opinion, amounts to calling upon them to turn out the Government itself.

The author is not criticising the measures passed by Government nor appealing to the Musalmans to take steps to have them measures amended or changed, but he uses the laws, or to be more correct what be states, to be the laws, as a reason for taking steps to turn put the Government itself. I do not wish to refer to the distortion of facts in stating what the author calls to be the law of the land. Almost everyone of them suffers with the maxim suppressio very suggestio falsi.

In my opinion there is a good deal of distinction between a comment upon the measures of Government and asking that steps be taken to have them changed and an exhortation to people to turn out the Government which has promulgated those measures. The one is innocent, and the other is offence. The article undoubtedly comes within the section, and I would decline to interfere and reject the application with costs. Hearing fee two gold mohurs.

Courtney Terrell, C.J.

I agree.

Varma, J.

I agree.