LexRAILWAY BOARD, GOVT. OF INDIA versus M/S OBSERVER PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
B
E
F
G
H
865
ltAJLWAY BOARD, GOVT. OF INDIA
v.
MIS OBSERVER PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD.
March 16, 1972
[S. M. SI~RI, C.J., A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR
AND M. H. BEG, JJ.]
Constitution of India Art. 14-Indian Railway Code, Clause 742-
iVel~s-weekl,v-Sold by licensees at rai/wc..y bookstalls-Ban on sale
of
sucll ilews-wPekly-Ban is no1
ju.~·ti{i:Jd under c.'ause 742 sub-clause (V)
if. the matter is not found tip be obscene but only bordering on obscenity-
S1milar publications not banned-Ban is violative of Art. 14 of Constituiion.
The sale of the Indian Observer, a news "v-eekly, at railway platform5
was bunn-ed by an order of the appellant board in March 1965. The
respondent \Vho was owner '3Ild publisher of the lndian Obse~r filed
a writ petition in the High Court alleging that the ban had been imposed
because the
I!CV.'.~ weekly had carried certain articles which were critical
of the Railway administration. The appellant's case in the High Court
was that the ban had been imposed because the news ~eekly carried
sexy and obsc~ne matter. The High Court allowed the writ
petition
holding that similar publications were cllowed to be sold by the licencees
of railway bookstalls and the ban on Indian Observer was tberefore dis-
criminatory. The High .Court also held that under clause 742 of the
Indian Railway Code the appelhnt had no authority to impose the ban.
-In appeal again·st the High Court's decision.
HELD : (i) In the Indian Railway Code the policy and principle laid
down in categorical terms in sub-clal!M> (viii) of Clause 74~ is that tlul
contractor should Provide equal
opportunity to a1J the popular news--
papers for £ale in lbeir atal!S on the same terms. This was subject to
certain conditions one of wbil:l! in sub.clause (v) was t)lat tlul sale of
obsc~ne books and pictures and publications by the government should
be strictly b!l!llled.
fj:~ver lhP letter written by tho railway dared
March 26, 1965 did not imDOSe the Inn on the 2round that Indian· Ob-
server was an obscene publication which had
been prohibited by ·the
government.
Jn that letter there wa. first a recital of what had come
to the Board's notice i.e., that the articles written in the said news weekly
well' in v~ry low taste bordering on obsi:eqity.
Tpere was no finding or
d~cisipn Jbat it w::is '
pul>!ic.at~on Wh.iCh J'I~ obscene.
Tlie conclusion
of the Board simply was that the lndjap. Obsorver was not fit for ~al.e
at Railway stations.
The other condition laid down in sub-clause (v)
that its sale has been prohibited by the Government was neither m.en-
tione~ nor had it l!een shown th~ anysuch order had been made by the
gpvernment prol)ibiting the sale of t)le lndjan Observer on the ground
that it was ·obscene.
The Central Government was not shown to have
any po\\·er under the Railways Act or rules thereunder to ban the sale
of anv obscene book or publication and it was not claimed t})'3t the Rail-
way Board could impose the ban under any other enactment. For the
above reasons the order imp0sing the ban could not be justified under
clause 742 of the Indian Railway Code.
(ii) The High Court had found as a fact that publications which were
freely on sale :on the bookstalls to whom iicenc_e~ has been given were
l!66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
•uch that they were hardly distinguishable from the Indian Observer on
the ground of obsctmity. . It was not disputed before the High Court that
1he news weekly in question had been sold on railway platforms
since
1963 nor .was it suggested that the Railway Board had ever acoorded in-
dividual sanction .for the· sale of every single book and publication at
the book stalls of the Railway Administration. The Railway Administra-
tion had itself directed th".lt the boOk stall cOntractors who were its licen-
cees should provi<:le equal opportunity to all the popul!ll" newspapers for
~ale in their stalls.
These vefy Cori~ractqrs were now being directed to
discriminate between- the respondent and owners or publishers of other
popular n~wspap~rs on grounds whi_ch had no legal basis or justification.
The administrative ~ct or order of the Railway Board ( whic\ll fell within
the definition of 'State' in Art. 12 of the Constitution), could, therefore
be
challeng.ed by the
appellant in a petition under Art. 226 of the
Constitution as violative of Art. 14.
Since no proper or valid grounds
had been shown for sustaining Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.