RAMJI LAL MODI versus THE STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 860 · Decided: 05-04-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1957 
Bhagwan Das 
v. 
The State of 
Rajasthan 
Kapur ]. 
1957 
April 5. 
860 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the 
judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, restore that of 
the Sessions 
Judge 
and order the acquittal of the 
accused. 
Appeal allowed. 
RAMJI LAL MODI 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. 
(S. R. DA5 C.J., JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAs, GoVINDA 
MEN0"1 and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) 
Insult to Religion-f_,atu making such insult an offence-Conrti-
tutional validity-If violates 
freedo1n of speech and express;.011-
lndian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), s. 295A-Constitm1011 of 
fodio, Arts. 19(1)(a), J9(2), 25, 26. 
This \Vas a petition challenging the constitutional validity of 
s. 29'5.\ of the Jndi;in Penal Code and for quashing the pcfitioner's 
con\"iction 
thereunder for 
publishing 
an 
article in a 
1-:ionthly 
rnag:.izinc of \Vhich he \Vas the printer, publisher and the editor. 
It 
\',"ls 
contended on 
his 
behalf that 
the 
impugned 
section 
infringed his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expres-
sion conferred by Art. l~(l )(a) of the Constitution and \Vas not a 
hnv 
i1np~sing reasonable restrictions on the right in the interests 
of public order under d. (2) of Art. 19, which alone could have 
afforded a justification for it. 
field, that s. 295A of the Indian Penal Code was well with 
the protection of cl. (2) of Art. 19 of the Constitution and 
its 
validity \Vas beyond question. 
The expression "in the interests of" occurring in the amended 
cl. (2) of Art. J 9 had the effect of making the protection afforded.. 
by that clause very wide and a law 
not 
directly 
desigr.ed 
to 
maintain public order would well be 
within 
its 
protection 
if 
such acti\•ites as it 
penalised had a 
tendency to 
cause p·ublic 
disorder. 
Debi Soron v. The State of Bihar, A.LR. ( 1954) Pat. 254, 
referred 
to. 
It was absurd to suggest that insult to religion as an offence 
could have no bearing on public order so as to attract cl. (2) of 
Art. 19 in view of the provisions of Arts. 25 and 26 of the con-
stitution which, while guaranteeing freedom of religion, expressly 
made it subject to public order. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
861 . 
Nor, having regard to the language and ingredients of s. 295A 
of the Indian Penal Code, could it be contended that the restnc-
tions imposed by it _could be used for purposes other than those 
falling within the limits of the Constitution. 
Romesh Thappa1· v. The State of Madras, (1950) S.C.R. 594; 
Brij Bushan v. The State of Delhi, (1950) S.C.R. 605 and Chintaman 
Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1950) S.C.R. 759, held , 
inapplicable. 
ORIGINAL 
CRIMINAL 
JuRrsDrcnoN : Petition 
No. 
252 of 1956. 
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the 
enforcement of fundamental rights. 
Veda Vyasa, S. K. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, for the 
petitioner. 
G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent. 
1957. April 5. The Judgment of the Court was 
deliverd by 
DAs C.J.-This is a petition fiied under Art. 32. of 
the Constitution of India praying for a declaration that 
s. 295A of the Indian Penal Code is ultra vires and un-
constitutional and for a writ in the nature of certiorari 
quashi11g the petitioner's .mnviction under that 
section 
and for ancillary reliefs. 
The material facts lie within a narrow compass. The 
petitioner is the editor, printer and 
publisher of a 
monthly magazine called Gaurakshak. The 
magazine 
is devoted to cow protection. In July or August, 1954, 
a Hindi Daily newspaper named 'Amrit Patrika' of 
Allahabad printed and published an article or a cartoon 
about a donkey on which an agitation -was started by 
the muslims of Uttar Pradesh. The editor and printer 
and publisher of 'Amrit Patrika' were prosecuted by the 
State, 
but 
they 
have 
been 
eventually 
acquitted 
by the High Court of Allahabad. 
In the meantime, 
in its issue for the month of Kartik Samvat 2009, 
corresponding 
to 
November, 
1952, 
an article 
was 
published in the petitioner's magazine 'Gaurakshak.' On 
December 12, 1952, the State Government ordered the 
prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of the said 
article._ Accordingly on June 8, 1953, a complaint was 
filed in •he court of the District Magistrate, Kanpur, 
1957 
Ramji Lal Modi 
v. 
The State of U.P, 
DasC,J. 
1957 
Ramji Lal Modi 
v. 
The State of U.P. 
DasC.j. 
862 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
by 
the 
Senior 
Superintendent 
of 
Police, 
Kanpur, 
against the petitioner for 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.