LexBRIJ BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF DELHI.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) -! S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 605 undermine the security of the State, but to this line of argument there is a two-fold answer :- ( 1) The Act, as its preamble shows, is not intended for petty disorders but for disorders involving menace to the peace and tranquillity of the Province, (2) There arc degrees of gravity in the offence of sedition also ahd an isolated piece of writing of mildly seditious character by one insignificant individual may not also, frotn the layman's point of view, be -a matter which undermines the securitv of the State, but that would not affect the law whi~h aims at checking sedition. It was also said that the law as it stands may be mis- used by the State executive, but misuse of the law is one thing and its being unconstitutional is another. We are here concerned with the latter aspect only. I shall not pursue the matter further as I have said enough on the subject in the connected c~se. Petition allotved. Agent for the petitioner :-K. /. Kale. Agent for the opposite party :-P. A. Mehta. BRIT BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER ti. THE STATE OF DELHI. [SHRI HARILAL KANIA C.J., SAIYID FAZL Au, PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MuxHERJEA and DAs JJ.J Constitution of India. A1·t. 19. els. (I )(a) and (2)-Fundamental right of freedom of speech and expreuion-Law imposing pre-censor- ship on newspapers for securing public safety and preventing public disorder-Validity-Matter disturbing public safety or causing pub- lic disorder, whether "undermines the secut·ity of, or tends to over- throw, the State"-Scope of Art. 19. cl. (2)-East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949, sec. 7 (I) (c)-Validity. Section 7 (I) ( c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949, as extended to the Province of Delhi provided that "the Provin- cial Government or any authority authorised by it in this behalf, if satisfied that such action is necessary for preventing· or combat- ing any activity prejudicial to the public safety or the mainten- ance of public order may, by order in writing adGresscd to a printer, publisher or editor require that any matter relating to a 1950 Romtsh T hap/HJ• v. The Stau qf Madras. Faz.I Ali,]. 1950 May 26. 1950 Brij Bhus""' &I A'1t1lhtr v. T Ju S1au ef n.lhi. 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1950] particular subject or class of subjects shall before publication be submitted for ~crutiny." Held per KANIA C. J., PATANJALI S1i.sTRI, MEHR CHAND ·MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA and DAs JJ.-(FAZL ALI J. dissenting) that inasumch as s. 7 ( l) ( c) authorised the imposition of restric- tions on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expres- sion guaranteed by art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution for the pur- · pose of preventing activities prejudicial to public safety and main- tenance of public order, it was not a law relating to "a matter which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the Stace'' within the meaning of the saving provisions contained in cl. (2) of art. 19 and was therefore µnconstitutional and void. [Romesh Thappm· v. The State 1950 S.C.R. 594] followed. Per FAZL ALI J.-The expression "public safety"_ has, as a result of a long course of legislative practice acquired a well- rccognised meaning and may be taken to denote safety, or security of the State; and, though the expression "public order" is wide enough to cover small disturbances of the peace which do not jeopardise the security of the State yet, prominence given in the Act to public safety, the fact that the Act is a piece of special legislation providing for special measures· and the aim and scope of the Act in general, show that preservation of public safety is the dominant purpose of the Act~ and .. public order" may well be paraphrased in the context as "public tranquillity". Public J disorders which disturb the public ~ranquillity do undermine the security of the State and as s. 7 ( 1) ( c) of the impugned Act is aimed at preventing such disorders it is difficult to hold that it falls outside the ambit of Art. 19(2) of the Constitution. Held by the Full Court.-The imposition of pre<ensorship on a journal is a restriction on the liberty of the press which is an essential "part of the right to freedom 0:£ speech and expression declared by art. 19 (1) (a). Blackstone's Commentaries referred .to. ORIGINAL JuR1SDICTioN : PETITION No. XXIX of 1950. Application under article 32 of the. Constitution of Ind
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.