LexBABU RAO PATEL versus STATE OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... B c 0 E 1082 BABU RAO PATEL v. STATE OF DELHI February 21, 1978 [R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J Penal Code, Seorion 153A(1), Scope of-Whether political thesis or hi.slo- rical truth so presented be said· to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ilf- will between different religious groups or communities so as to attract the pro- visions of Section 153A of the Code. Dismissing the appeals, by special leave th'e Court, HEID : Section 153A(l) is not confined to the promotion of feelings of enmity etc. on grounds o~ religion only, but takes in promotion of such feel- ings on other grounds ns well such .as race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. [1083G] In the instance case : Both the articles do promote feelings of erun:ty, hat1ed and ill-will between the Hindu and Muslim communities. (J()S6C] (i} The first article "A tale of two Communalisms" is not even thinly veiled as a political thesis; it is an undisguised attempt to promote feelings of enmity, hatr'ed and ill-will between the Hindu and the· Muslim communities-. It is designed to fain the sparks of ill-will and hatred on ground of contmuni.ty. The reference to the alleged Muslim tradition of rape, loot, violence and murder and the al1eged terror struck into the hearts of Hindu minority in a neighbouring country by . periodical killings, in the context of his thesis that communalism is the instrument of ::i militant minority can lead to no other inferenoe. [1084E-F] (iij The second article 'Lingering disgraice of history' go'es further and i.s calculated to rouse feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between Muslims and Hindus. It was \vrong to present the :f\.Ioghuls as ,the ancestors of today's Muslim'! F and to willify the l\fuslims as the proud discendants of the "foul" Moghuls. [1084G, 1086A, B, CJ G fl Feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious groups or coipmunities cannot be promoted in the guise of political thesis of histori- cal truth. [!086C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal "fos. 237- 238 of 1974. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 14-8-1973 of thei Delhi High Court in Cr!. Revision Nos. 146 and 153 of 1971. A. K. Sen, Gobind Das, A. N. Karkhanis, Sridharan and Mrs. S. Bhandare for the Appellant. Tl. S. Marwah and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent. J • ~'. .. BABURAO PATEL v. DELHI STATE (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) ros:1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Can political thesis or historical truth be so presented as to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will bet- we~n different religious groups or communities, is the question wh:ch we are called upon to answer in these two crim;nal appeals. The appellant in the two criminal appeals is the editor, publisher and printer of a monthly magazine going by the name 'Mother India'. He wrote two articles under the captions "A tale of two communalisms' and "Lingering disgrace of history". On complaints filed by the Superintendent of Police, Delhi, under section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, he was convicted in respect of each of these articles in separate cases and sentenced in each case to suffer simple imprison- ment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi. On appeal the learn- ed Sessions Judge, Delhi, confirmed the conviction in both the cases bnt reduced the sentence of fine to Rs. 500/- in each case. This was confirmed by the High Court. The appellant has preferred chese appeals by Special Leave of this Court. Shri A. K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the articles were read as a whole it would be patent that the article "A tale of two communalisms" was no more than a political thesis and the second article "Lingering disgrace of history" was no more thallj a protest based on historical truths against the naming of roads in Delhi after Moghul emperors. He contended that neither article contained any attack on any religion and, therefore, there was no question of pro- moting and attempting to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-w11! between different religious groups on grounds or religion. The convic- tions under section 153-A were, therefore, wrong, he suBmitted. Section 153-A(l)(a) provides, "whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visibk representations or otherwis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.