P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

INAMULLAH, J.

This is a petition under section 23 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, against an order passed under section 7 (3) of the Press Act, 1931, by the Chief Commissioner of Karachi ordering Mr. S. M. Ilyas Rashidi, publisher of Urdu Weekly "Nigar", Karachi, to deposit with the District Magistrate, Karachi a security in the sum of Rs. 3,

000. The said order demanding to furnish security was passed under the following circumstances :- Mr. Ilyas Rashidi, who is the publisher of an Urdu Weekly known as "Nigar" published a poem under the caption "Censor Board" and also an article under the caption "Naya Censor Board" on 18th November 1956. This paper, as would appear from the petition, publishes matters relating to films only. The poem and the article appeared immediately after the Chief Commissioner of Karachi had announced the names of the personnel of the Censor Board. The purport of the poem and the article admittedly was to critically examine the personnel of the Censor Board, as the Editor of the paper thought that the persons who have been appointed on the Board were not appointed strictly on merits. The poem and the article both criticised the action of the Chief Commis sioner in appointing the personnel of the Censor Board on the ground that deserving persons were not appointed. The petitioner has contended that the criticism was a fair criticism of the action of the Chief Commissioner and that neither the poem nor the article is an attempt to excite any feeling of hatred or contempt against the Government. The order demanding to furnish security was passed on the ground that the impugned poem and the article had the effect of what is mentioned under section 4 (1) (d) of the Press Act, 1931. In other words, the poem and the article had the tendency to bring into hatred or contempt the Provincial Government of Karachi. We have carefully perused the poem and the article, and we are definitely of the view that certain references in the poem and the article to the Chief Commissioner, though they may be of a disparaging nature, have not the effect as mentioned under section 4 (1) (d) of the Press Act. A distinction has to be made between the effect of an article which is merely disparaging in nature and one which has the effect of bringing the Government into hatred or con tempt. "Hatred" and "contempt" are very strong terms. "Hatred" means "abhorrence or ill will" and "contempt" means "scorn or disdain". A feeling of hatred or contempt does not necessarily follow from a disparaging remark that may be made against the Government or against its executive officers. For the reasons given above we would set aside the order of the Chief Commissioner ordering the applicant to deposit the security. We do not award costs of the petition, as on the perusal of the counter-affidavit of the respondent we find that the publication of the Article was actuated by an unwarranted personal reason. A. H. Order set aside,