No Reasons for Rumblings

In an atmosphere of complete cordiality and in the ordinary and orderly course, the Indian Parliament passed the Press (Objectionable Matter) Bill at about midnight on Saturday the 6th October, 1951. The opposition had collapsed so completely that when the final motion was put up for the approval of the House, there was hardly any dissentient voice. Pragmatically stated, the problem is not of earth-shaking proportion, though symbolically the matter, perhaps, is of considerable importance.  The literal reading of the Act has been grounded exclusively on six points :  No newspaper shall contain and publish matters which will incite or encourage men to overthrow or undermine Government through violence or sabotage. No newspaper shall contain matter which will incite or encourage any person to commit murder, sabotage, or any offence involving violence. No matter should be published which incites or encourages a person to interfere with the supply and distribution of food or other essential services or commodities. No matter should be published which tends to seduce any member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of the police forces. No matter should be published which would promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different sections of the people of India. No matter should be published which contains matters which are grossly indecent or are scurrilous or obscene or intended for blackmail. We have to follow the example of Solon, who gave the Athenians not the best Government he could devise, but the best they would receive. The fundamental objection to the implementation of the Press Act is that apart from the ordinary law, there should be no separate treatment of the Press. Some of the American papers strenuously argue that there are no like precedents in the other advanced countries of the world. Precedents are, of course, not lightly to be disregarded. But when the situation of a particular country or a long experience discloses the fallacy of a precedent, nothing remains but a bare technicality, likely to perpetuate inequity, hardship and wrong. Only the gravess abuses endangering paramount interest of the country are likely to result by thoughtlessly pursuing the antecedents.  However, it is wrong to say that in England there is little in the Statute Book which can be called a Press law. In U. K., there grew up slowly a distinct law of the Press. By way of illustrations three statutes of the 19th century can be cited;  Lord Camplell’s Libel Act, 1943; the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881, and the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888. The title ‘Press and Printing’ in Halusbury’s Laws of England, (II Edition) vol XXVI (1987), pp. 131-153 deals with several headings of the statutory Press Regulations. In the first place, there are a number of formal statutory requirements relating to registration, the title of a paper, imprint of the printer, the preservation of copies, and so on. Further, more, there are a number of restrictions an publication to check the spread of social evils. Section 34 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, provides that it is illegal to incur expenditure to promote or to procure the election of a candidate at a parliamentary election, without the authority of an election agent. Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act, 1926 prohibits the reporting by the Press of indecent details Section 3, Summary Procedure (Domestic Proceedings) Act, 1937, restricts the reports of the matrimonial causes in the High Court. The identity of any child or young person who is accused or who appears as a witness may not be disclosed in a Press report in accordance with S. 49, Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. Section 41. Criminal Justice Act, 1925, debars photographing and sketching in Courts of justice. In France, Press has for centuries been considered as the particular concern of the State. The Press laws always formed a special department of the law of France. Press offences have been treated as a particular class of crimes. A law passed under the Republic, 6-7-1871, reimposed on the proprietors of newspapers the necessity of making a large deposit with the proper authorities, as a security for the payment of fines or damages incurred. A still later law of 29-12-1875, provides to submit certain Press offences to the judgment of a jury, and subjected others to the cognizance of Courts. The law of 28-7-1894, suppressed the advocacy of the anarchical principles by the Press. The law of 16-8-1893, gave to the French Government special powers with regard to the circulation of foreign newspapers or newspapers published in a foreign language.  Having given the toilers freedom of Press, the Soviet Government explicitly excluded the non-labour classes from the enjoyment of this freedom. Concerning freedom of the Press, the Soviet Constitution of 1918 provided that:  “To the end of assuring in behalf of the toilers actual freedom to express their opinions, the RSFSR annuls the dependence of the Press upon capital and hands over to the worker class ....”  The decree concerning the Press, issued by the Council of People’s Commissars, dated 9-11-1917 raised a hullahaloo, screaming about violation of the freedom of the Press. The law, concerning the Chief Administration for Literature and Publication (6 6 1931), affords political ideological control of the press. The RSFSR Criminal Code (Arts. 182, 185) stipulates punishment for those who violate the Soviet Press Laws. A number of circulars of the USSR Public Prosecutor’s Office impress upon prosecutors the need of the utmost endeavour to request the Courts to impose stern punitive measures upon those who transgress the Press laws.  In India, freedom of speech or expression is fully guaranteed by the State under Art 19 of the Constitution of 1950 In conformity with the interest of the people and to the end of strengthening the democratic form of Government the people of the Union are guaranteed by law:  freedom of speech and expression and freedom of assembly and meetings. No society can be called democratic which does not afford its citizens freedom of Press or expression. But in our State, naturally we cannot confer Snob freedom on those who are the foes of the democracy. The Indian Press Act, 1951 is meant for protecting the democratic principles embodied in our Constitution. The duty of the Press is to educate the people and not to incite them to commit crimes or sabotage the independence or liberty of our country. Freedom of press, speech, or assembly depend upon the power of the Constitutional Government to survive If it is to survive, it must have power to protect itself against unlawful conduct and incitements to commit unlawful acts. Freedom of Press does not comprehend the right to publish any subject at any time; or the right to overthrow the Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods. Force may and must be met with force to prevent danger of any substantive or relatively serious evil.  The Preas Act, 1951, expresses honest desire to promote the welfare of all the members of the Union. It is not a skilful device to cut the freedom of the people. There is not the remotest suggestion that the Act is other than what it purported to be. On the other hand, the Act repeals all the previous Press laws. It has chosen the sessions Courts as the appropriate instrumentality through which to exercise the judicial functions incidental to the law Again, there is no pre-censorship and a complaint has to be lodged after the publication of an objectionable matter. It has reduced the status of the Government to that of common complainant, and has assured trials by jurors, consisting of experienced journalists A thoroughly considered utterance was given by the Hon’ble the Home Minister, Rajagopalachari, a lawyer of learning and astuteness, that:  “Let us tell the world that the freedom of the Press is a good slogan, but the duty of the Press in educating the people is a bigger slogan.”  The Statute does not prevent or punish by criminal sanctions the publication of any matter, the affiliation with any party, or the holding of any belief. It does not aim at suppression of ideas, or the regulation of conduct. The Act, again, does not suppress or outlaw the belief in the overthrow of the Government. Nor it prohibits those, who hold that belief, from engaging in any above board activity No one is penalised for writing in favour of such philosophy. Its manifest purpose seems to be to bring within the terms of the Statute only those persons whose beliefs strongly indicate a will to engage in direct and violent action, designed to weaken are divide the Indian Nation. It is to these persons that it is intended to apply arid only to them, whose sole object is to overthrow, by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional method the Government of India, as it would exist under the Constitution and laws thereof.

Author Name: Hon’ble Justice Lehar Singh Mehta