New Delhi: A book containing material maliciously intended to promote enmity and hatred among different classes can be seized by the state under Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such action will come within the purview of reasonable restrictions to freedom of speech and expression, the Supreme Court has held.

A Bench consisting of Justices B.P. Singh and H.S. Bedi upheld an April 16, 1998 Karnataka High Court judgment dismissing a petition challenging a notification issued by the State government on June 27, 1997 for seizing all copies of the novel Dharmakaarana. It portrays the story of Basaveshwara, Akkanagamma and Channabasaveshwara, narrated in first person, the narrator being Basaveshwara himself. The government action followed representations that the novel contained material inflammatory, hurtful and insulting to the sentiments of Veerashaivas and followers of Basaveshwara.

Dismissing the appeal preferred by Sri Baragur Ramachandrappa and others, the Bench said: "It is true that forfeiture of a newspaper or a book or a document is a serious encroachment on the right of a citizen, but if forfeiture is called for in the public interest it must without doubt have pre-eminence over any individual interest."

No common yardstick

Justice Bedi, writing the judgment, said: "The Government has the power to nullify a publication which endangers public order, although the freedom of expression in this situation is undoubtedly restricted even though such freedom is an indicator of the permanent address of human progress. It must also be noted that it would be difficult to examine all publications on a common yardstick and what may be a laughable allegation to a progressive people could appear as sheer heresy to a conservative or sensitive one."

The Bench said, "It is true that inculcation of a scientific temperament and a spirit of enquiry is essential for human development and is a sine qua non for progress and for social change and Article 51-A (h) of the Constitution clearly recognises this principle. Likewise Article 19 (1)(a) gives every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression and this freedom is yet another vehicle towards the same direction and goal."

The Bench said, "It is, however, clear that the freedom of speech and expression is not unfettered and Section 95 of the Code exemplifies this principle on the understanding that this freedom must be available to all and no person has a right to impinge on the feelings of others on the premise that his right to freedom of speech remains unrestricted and unfettered.

"It cannot be ignored that India is a country with vast disparities in language, culture and religion, and unwarranted and malicious criticism or interference in the faith of others cannot be accepted."

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail