THE STATE OF BIHAR versus SHAILABALA DEVI

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 654 · Decided: 26-05-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
Joshi Girjadharji 
and Another 
v. 
Lachmanji Panth 
and Others. 
Das/. 
1952 
May 26. 
654 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1952] 
mortgagees were the same in both the mortgages .. 
Although in the petition of appeal to the High Court 
it was alleged that the mortgagees were different and 
the accounts could not be reopened from 
1922, 
that 
ground was not specifically urged before the High 
Court. 
The determination of that 
question 
must 
necessarily 
involve 
an investigation 
into facts. 
We 
do not think, in the absence of a plea in this behalf 
in the decree-holders' petition of objection and also in 
view of their failure and neglect to raise this 
question 
before the High Court, it will be right for this final 
court of appeal, at this stage and in the circumstances 
of this case, to permit the appellants to raise this 
question of fact. 
The result, therefore, 1s that this appeal must stand 
dismissed with costs. 
:-
Appeal dismissed. 
Agent for the appellants : C. P. Lall. 
Agent for the respondents : N atmit Lall. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
SHAILABALA DEVI 
[PATANJALI 
SASTRI C.J., MEHER 
CHAND 
MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA, DAs and BosE, JJ.] 
Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXlll of 1931), s. 4 (I} 
(a)-Constitution of India Arts. 19(1) 
and 
19(2)-Restrictions 
imposed by s. 4(l)(a) on freedom of speech and expression-Whe-
ther fall within Art. 19 (2)-Validity of s. 4 (!)-Speeches of 
political demagogues-Construction-Burden of prosecution . 
. Section 4 (!) (a) of the Indian Press 
(Emergency Powers) 
Act (XXIII of 1931) is not unconstitutional as the restrictions 
imposed on freedom of speech and expression by 
the 
said 
sec· 
tion are solely directed against the undermining 
of 
the security 
of the State or the overthrow of it and are within the ambit of 
Art. 19 (2) of the Constitution. 
Romesh Thapar's case 
( [1950] 
\ 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
655 
S.C.R. 594]) and Brij Bhushan's case ( [1950] S.C.R. 605) do not 
1952 
lay down any wide proposition that restrictions of the 
nature 
imposed by s. 4 (1) (a) are outside the scope of Art 19 (2) as 
'fhe ~fate of 
they are conceived generally in the interests of public order. At 
B1har 
any rate, the amendment made to Art. 
19 (2) by the Constitu-
. 
v. 
. 
tion 
(First Amendment) 
Act which is retrospective in operation Shatlabala Devi~ 
makes the matter clear. 
In order to determine whether a particular document falls 
within the ambit of s. 4 ( 1) the writing has to be considered as a 
whole in a. fair, free and liberal spirit, not dwelling 
too 
much 
on isolated passages or upon a strong word here and there, and 
an endeavour should be made to gather the general effect 
which 
the whole composition would have on the minds of 
the 
public. 
Expressions which are the stock in trade of political demagogues 
and 
have 
no 
tendency 
to 
excite 
anybody, 
and 
exaggera-
tions in languages, cannot lead to that result. 
Rhetoric of this 
kind might in conceivable 
circumstances 
inflame 
passions, 
as 
for example, if addressed to an excited mob, but if such cir-
cumstances exist it is for the Government to establish the fact. 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : Case 
No. 
273 
of 
1951. 
Appeal under Arts. 
132(1) 
and 
134(1)(c) of 
the 
Constitution of India from the Judgment and 
Order 
dated 13th October, 1950, of the High Court of Judi-
cature at Patna 
(Shearer, Ramaswami 
and Sarjoo 
Prosad JJ.) 
in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 220 of 
1949. 
S. K.. Mitra (K. Dayal, with him), for the appellant. 
Basant Chandra Ghosh and Arun Chandra Mitra for 
.,... 
the respondent. 
1952. May 26. The Court delivered judgment 
as 
follows:-
MAHAJAN J.-This appeal has been preferred by the 
State of Bihar against the judgment of a Special Bench 
of the High Court of Judicature at Patna allowing the 
application of the respondent under section 23 of the 
Indian Press 
(Emergency Powers) Act, XXIII of 1931. 
It appears that the ·petition was argued by both the 
sides as it was one made under article 226 of the Cons-
titution. 
The respondent was the keeper at all relevant times 
of the Bharati Press at Purulia. A pamphlet under 
1952 
The State of 
Bihar 
v. 
Shailabala Devi. 
Mahajan T. 
656 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
the heading "Sangram" was printed at the said press 
and is alleged to have been circulated in the town of 
Purulia in the district of Manbhum. 
The Government 
of Bihar considered that the pamphlet 
contained 
ob-
jectionable matter of the natur

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