SRI BARAGUR RAMACHANDRAPPA AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 1086 · Decided: 02-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SRI BARAGUR RAMACHANDRAPPA AND ORS. 
v. 
STA TE OF KARNA TAKA AND ORS. 
MAY2, 2007 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND H.S. BED!, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 95 and 96. 
Farfeiture of certain publications-Novel "Dharmakaarana "-
C Forfeiture of copies of-Petitioner published a novel entitled 
"Dharmakaarana" portraying the story of a great saint of the 12th Century 
narrated in first person, the narrator being the saint himself-The family of 
the saint consisted of individuals of progressive thought who sought to 
promote social reform in Hindu society and for that purpose preached that 
D all were equal-The novel was selected by the Karnataka Sahitya Academy 
for its annul award as the best novel for the year 1995--Some eminent figures 
in the field of literature and otherwise, including a former Vice President of 
India, wrote to the State Government that some of the statements made 
therein were objectionable, inflammatory, hurtful and insulting to the 
sentiments and feelings of the followers of the said saint and suggested that 
E the novel should be forfeited-The State Government issued a Notification 
under S. 95 Cr.P.C. ordering forfeiture of the novel-A petition under S.96 
Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner on which the matter was referred for 
decision to a Bench of 3-Judges of the High Court-The Judges examined 
the matter in exrenso and dismissed the petition-The High Court held that 
F an order under S. 95 Cr.P.C. was justified if it appeared to the State Government 
that the published material contained objectionable matter and that such a 
matter was maliciously intended to promote feelings of enmity and hatred 
between different classes of the citizens of India-Correctness of-Held: India 
is a country with vast disparities in language, culture and religion and 
unwarranted and malicious criticism or interference in the fail of others 
G cannot be accepted-The Government, thus, has the power of nulli.fY a 
publication which endangers public order-The State Government had applied 
its mind to the contents of the novel and the allegations made therein aud 
taken a balanced and reasoned decision on the matter--Section 95 of the 
Code is not violative of Article 19(J)(a)-Chapter 12 is not in sync with the 
H 
1086 
-
BARAGURRAMACHANDRAPPAv.STATEOFKARNATAKA 
1087 
rest of the novel and has been deliberately designed to be hurtful and to A 
,. 
bring the family of the saint to shame-Hence, but justified-Constitution of 
India, I950, Arts, l9(J)(a) and 51-A(h)-Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 124-A, 153-
A, 153-8,292, 293 and 295-A. 
Petitioner No. 11 published a novel entitled "Dharmakaarana" 
portraying the story of a great saint of the 12th Century narrated in first B 
person, the narrator being the saint himself. The family of the saint consisted 
of individuals of progressive thought who sought to promote social reform in 
Hindu society and for that purpose preached that all were equal. The book 
was selected by the Karnataka Sahitya Academy for its annual award as the 
best novel for the year 1995. Some eminent figures in the field of literature c 
and otherwise, including a former Vice President oflndia, wrote to the State 
Government that some of the statements made therein were objectionable, 
inflammatory, hurtful and insulting to the sentiments and feelings of the 
followers of the said saint and suggested that the novel should be forfeited. 
The State Government issued a Notification under Section 95 of the D 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ordering forfeiture of the book. A petition 
under Section 96 of the Code was filed by petitioner No. II on which the matter 
was referred for decision to a Bench of 3-Judges of the High Court. The 
Judges examined the matter in extenso and dismissed the petition. 
, ... 
The High Court held that an order under Section 95 of the Code was E 
justified if it appeared to the State Government that the published material 
contained objectionable matter and that such a matter was maliciously intended 
to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of the 
citizens of India. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
t 
HELD: 1. It is true that the inclusion 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 recognizes this principle. Likewise, Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution G 
gives eve

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