PETITIONER:
KARTAR SINGH & OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF PUNJAB.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
26/04/1956
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.
AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA
CITATION:
1956 AIR 541 1956 SCR 476
ACT
Punjab Security of the State Act, 1953 (Punjab Act XII of
1953), s. 9-Members of procession shouting defamatory
slogans against Ministers of State Government-Prosecution
under s. 9 Whether Justified.
HEADNOTE
The appellants were members of a procession taken out to
protest against the policy of the Punjab Government to
nationalise motor transport and raised the slogans "Jaggu
mama hai hai (Jaggu, maternal uncle be dead)" and "Khachar
Khota hai hai (mule-cumdonkey be dead)". The words were
directed against the Transport Minister and the Chief
Minister respectively and were defamatory. The appellants
were prosecuted and convicted under s. 9 of the Punjab
Security of the State Act, 1953.
Held that the statements could not be said to undermine the
security of the State or friendly relations with foreign
States nor did they amount to contempt of Court or
defamation prejudicial to the security of the State nor did
they tend to overthrow the State and that the prosecution
had failed to establish that the act of the appellants
undermined public order, decency or morality or was tant-
amount to an incitement to an offence prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order and consequently the prosecution
under s. 9 was not justified..
Public men may as well think it worth their while to ignore
such vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled against them,
rather than give importance to the same by prosecuting the
person responsible for the same.
Seymour v. Butterworth ([1862] 3 F. & F. 372, 376, 377), B.
v. Sir B. Carden ([1879] 5 Q.B.D. 1), Kelly v. Sherlock
([1866] L.R. 1 Q.B. 686, 689; 35 L.J. Q.B. 209) referred to.
JUDGMENT
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 49 of
1955.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated the 9th July,
1954 of the Punjab High Court at Simla in Criminal Revision
No. 778 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and order dated
the 30th June 1954 of the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge,’ Amritsar in Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 1954.
477
Ram Das and Raghu Nath Pandit, for the appellants.
Jindralal and P. G. Gokhale, for the respondent.
1956. April 26. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI J.-This appeal with special leave involves the
interpretation of section 9 of the Punjab Security of the
State Act, 1953 (Punjab Act XII of 1953), hereinafter called
"the Act".
The appellants were members of the Amritsar District Motor
Union which took out a procession on 23rd March, 1954 to
protest against the policy of the Punjab Government to
nationalise motor transport. The procession started from
Gul Park and was taken on lorries and jeeps. It stopped
near Chitra Talkies and then started on foot. When it
reached near Prabhat Studio, the appellants raised slogans
"Jaggu mama hai hai (Jaggu, maternal uncle be dead)" and
"Khachar Khota hai hai (mule-cum-donkey be dead)". The
first slogan was alleged to have been directed against the
Hon’ble Shri Jagat Narain, Transport Minister, Punjab State
and the second slogan against the Hon’ble Shri Bhim Sen
Sachar, Chief Minister, Punjab State. The uttering of these
slogans was considered objectionable and the appellants were
charged in the Court of the Magistrate, First-Class,
Amritsar:-"that you, on or about the 23rd day of March 1954
at Amritsar, while being members of a procession, raised
slogans "Jaggu mama hai hai" "Khachar Khota hai hai" which
besides being indecent amounted to defamation and was pre-
judicial to the security of the State and the maintenance of
public order and thereby committed an offence punishable
under section 9 of the Security of the State Act".
The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
They also led evidence in defence. The learned Magistrate,
however, disbelieved the defence and, accepting the
prosecution evidence, found that the appellants did raise
these slogans. In the opinion
478
of the learned Magistrate, the slogans were in fact abuses
hurled at the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of
the Punjab Government which besides being indecent amounted
to defamation and were prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order.
The appeal taken by the appellants before the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, was unsuccessful. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge also found against the
appellants and observed that the slogans were highly
objectionable and they fell within the ambit of section 9 of
the said Act, that by raising those slogans the appellants
-undermined the public order as well as decency and they
also amounted to defamation. He, therefore, maintained the
conviction of the appellants and the sentences of 3 months’
rigorous imprisonment which had been imposed by the learned
Magistrate upon them.
The appellants filed a Revision Application before the High
Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla but the
same was summarily dismissed by the learned Chief Justice.
The appellants thereafter applied for and obtained from this
Court Special Leave to appeal and the appeal has accordingly
come on for hearing and final disposal before us.
On the evidence on record, there is no doubt that the
appellants were members of the procession and did utter
those slogans against the Transport Minister and the Chief
Minister of the Punjab Government,. The question, however,
remains whether, in uttering these slogans, they committed
an offence under section 9 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act
reads as follows--
"9. Whoever-
(a) makes any speech, or
(b) by words, whether spoken or written, or
by signs or by visible or audible representations or
otherwise publishes any statement, rumour or report,
shall, if such speech, statement, rumour or report
undermines the security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or
amounts to contempt of Court, defama-
479
tion or incitement to an offence prejudicial to the security
of the State or the maintenance of public order, or tends to
overthrow the State, be punishable with imprisonment which
may extend to three years or with fine or with both".
It cannot be denied that the appellants by words spoken
published statements in relation to the Transport Minister
and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government. A futile
argument was advanced before us by the advocate of the
appellants that this condition was not satisfied but we need
not pause to consider the same. The sole question for our
determination is whether such statements (1) undermined the
security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States, public order, decency or morality or (2) amounted to
contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence
prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of
public order, or (3) tended to overthrow the State.
The appellants were no doubt affected by the policy of the
Punjab Government to nationalise motor transport and the
Transport Minister and the Chief Minister were really
responsible for sponsoring that policy. Their tirade,
therefore, was against both these individuals and, in the
demonstration which the appellants held against that policy,
they gave vent to violent expressions of opinion against
them and, in the slogans which they uttered, used expres-
sions which were certainly objectionable. The slogan "Jaggu
mama hai hai" could be translated as "Jaggu, whose sister is
my father’s wife is dead, woe betide him" and was in that
sense a vulgar abuse burled against the Transport Minister.
The slogan "Khachar khota hai hai" could be translated as
"mulecum-donkey is dead, woe betide him" and it was directed
against the Hon’ble Shri Bhim Sen Sachar, Chief Minister,
Punjab Government, whose name Sachar was caricatured into
khachar being mule and was also combined with khota, a
donkey. This was again a vulgar abuse burled against the
Chief Minister, Punjab Government.
The appellants’ conduct in this behalf could not at
480
all be justified. Whatever their grievances against the
Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab
Government were, they were entitled to ventilate them in a
decent and dignified manner and they were certainly not
justified in hurling such vulgar abuses against these
individuals howsoever prejudicial to the interest of the
appellants the policy of nationalised motor transport
sponsored by them might have been. No decent citizen should
have uttered such slogans and the State authorities were
well within their rights in proceeding against the
appellants.
The difficulty, however, in the way of the State authorities
is that they misconceived their remedy. Howsoever
provocative and indecent or unbefitting a responsible
citizen of the State the conduct of the appellants was, the
charge which was levelled against the appellants was one
under section 9 of the Act and before the prosecution could
succeed they bad not only to prove that what the appellants
did was against decency and was defamatory of these indi-
viduals but also was such that it undermined public order,
decency or morality or was tantamount to an incitement to an
offence prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The
learned counsel for the State very rightly conceded that the
statements could not be said to undermine the security of
the State or friendly relations with foreign States nor did
they amount to contempt of Court or defamation prejudicial
to the security of the State nor did they tend to overthrow
the State. Howsoever reprehensible these slogans were, they
certainly would not have that effect. The only way in which
he sought to bring these slogans uttered by the appellants
within the mischief of section 9 of the Act was by urging
before us that the statements undermined public order,
decency or morality and that they were tantamount to an
incitement to an offence prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order. In support of this contention be referred us
to the evidence of Ram Rakha, P.W. 2, Sub-Inspector, C.I.D.,
who had accompanied the procession:-
"There was a sufficient, number of public men
481
there and they felt annoyed over these slogans. The police
had sufficient arrangements and had there been no
arrangement there might have been a dispute". There was
also the evidence of Gurdit Singh, P. W. 3:
"There were many other persons of the public with the
procession. People took these slogans ill" and Sunder
Singh, P.W. 4:-
"There were many other persons of the public. The slogans
had a bad effect on the public".
It is significant to observe that, in the initial report
made by the Sub-Inspector Ram Rakha as also the Diary Report
prepared by him, no mention had been made by him of the
members of the public having felt annoyed over these
slogans. The two other witnesses Gurdit Singh, P.W. 3 and
Sunder Singh, P.W. 4, were shown in their cross-examination
to have been the associates of the police in the investiga-
tions which they used to carry on and were not at all worthy
of credence. These statements, therefore, in regard to the
members of the public having felt annoyed over these slogans
uttered by the appellants, were liable to bediscredited.
Even assuming that some members of the public who had
congregated near the Prabhat Studio felt annoyed at these
slogans and took them ill it is a far cry from that
annoyance to undermining of the public order, decency or
morality or incitement to an offence prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. The only offence prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order which could be thought of
in this context was that of rioting and there is not the
slightest evidence on record to justify an inference that
the effect of the utterance of these slogans by the
appellants against the Transport Minister and the Chief
Minister would, but for the police arrangements, have led to
the undermining of the public order or would have led to
rioting which would be certainly prejudicial to the mainten-
ance of public order. Indecent and vulgar though these
slogans were as directed against the Transport Minister and
the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government, the utterance
thereof by the appellants who were the members of the
procession protesting against
482
the scheme of nationalised motor transport was hardly
calculated to undermine decency or morality the strata of
society from which the appellants came being habituated to
indulge freely in such vulgar abuses without any the
slightest effect on the persons hearing the same.
These slogans were certainly defamatory of the Transport
Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government but
the redress of that grievance was personal to these
individuals and the State authorities could not take the
cudgels on their behalf by having recourse to section 9 of
the Act unless and until the defamation of these individuals
was prejudicial to the security of the State or the mainten-
ance of public order. So far as these individuals were
concerned, they did not take any notice of these vulgar
abuses and appeared to have considered the whole thing as
beneath their notice. Their conduct in this behalf was
consistent with the best traditions of democracy. "Those
who fill a public position must not be too thin skinned in
reference to comments made upon them. It would often happen
that observations would be made upon public ’men which they
know from the bottom of their hearts were undeserved and
unjust; yet they must bear with them and submit to be
misunderstood for a time" (Per Cockburn, C.J. in Seymour v.
Butterworth(1) and gee the dicta of the Judges in R. v. Sir
R. Carden(2). "Whoever fills a public position renders
himself open thereto. He must accept an attack as a
necessary, though unpleasant, appendage to his office" (Per
Bramwell, B., in Kelley v. Sherlock(3)). Public men in such
positions may as well think it worth their while to ignore
such vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled against them rather
than give importance to the same by prosecuting the persons
responsible for the same.
While commending thus the conduct of the Transport Minister
and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government, we cannot
help observing that the step
(1) [ 1862] 3 F. & F. 372, 376, 377; 176 E. R. 166, 168,
169.
(2) [1879] 5 Q B.D. 1.
(3) [1866] L.R. 1 Q B. 686, 689.
483
which the State authorities took against the appellants in
prosecuting them under section 9 of the Act was unjustified
as the slogans uttered by the appellants did not under the
circumstances set out Above fall within the mischief of that
section.
Deprecating as we do the conduct of the appellants in
uttering these slogans, we cannot help feeling that the
prosecution has failed to establish that the appellants were
guilty of the offence with which they had been charged with
the result that the appeal of the appellants will be
allowed, their convictions and sentences passed upon them
will be set aside and they will be set at liberty forthwith.
We only hope that the observations made by us here will be
an eyeopener to the appellants and they will behave them-
selves better in the future.