P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

ORTCHESON, J.‑

This is a petition under section 23 (1) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act XXIII of 1931 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Mr. Obaidullah Anwar, publisher of the Urdu weekly `Khuddam‑ud‑Din', Watton Building, Lahore, and Mr. Sultan Muhammad keeper of a Printing Press known as the Punjab Press, Lahore, against the Government of West Pakistan, praying that two orders of the said Government dated the 23rd of July 1959, be set aside By the first of these orders Mr. Obaidullah Anwar was required, in his capacity of publisher of the newspaper to deposit with the District Magistrate, Lahore, on or before the 6th of August 1959, security in the amount of Rs. 3,0'00 or the equivalent thereof in securities of ,i,e Government of Pakistan, while by the second a sum of Rs. 500 out of a security of Rs. 1,000 deposited by Mr. Sultan Muhammad on the 10th of January 1955, was forfeited to the Pakistan Government.

2. The action complained of was taken on the basis of an editorial appearing in the issue of the newspaper dated the 8th of May 1959, which, in the opinion of the Government, contained three passages calculated to bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in the Provinces and the capital of the Federation within the meaning of section 4 (1) (d) of the Act. As, in such cases, it is important that the alleged objection able passages should be read in their proper context, we reproduce the said editorial in full. The English translation appearing on the record runs‑- "Constitution of Pakistan and the somersaults of Ministers. On the 8th October 1958, the object of the promulgation of Martial Law in Pakistan as expressed was that this step had been taken to rid the country of selfish statesmen. (1) Sometime thereafter the ex‑President nominated ministers from both the wings of the country and expressed the view in respect of them that they were unparalleled in ability, honesty and trust but now it appear that the ex‑President had nominated ministers of his own temper and disposition. (2) the nation tested these ministers on the touchstone of truth and justice for seven months, and now it is compelled to form the opinion that our new ministers also are the chips of the same block of which their predecessors were. We mean that the present ministers too are boasters and not men of action and to crown it, even their talk is not harmonious. In addition to the President, the Law Minister and the Foreign Minister have recently expressed two different views in connection with the Constitution. In one of his speeches, the President gave the good news to the nation regarding the Constitution that a Constitution Commission would be appointed in November, 1959. No mention was made in this speech regarding Islamic Constitution or the American form of Government, but the Law Minister publicly made mention here of the enforcement of Islamic Constitution and also got evation thereat. Now the Law Minister in his zeal for Western ways has harped upon the song of the American form of Government :‑ `What a wonderful thing it is. `Even the wings of reason got burnt out of surprise.' (3) This difference in the viewpoints, of our ministers is com pelling us to say that they do not want to enforce Islamic Con stitution in Pakistan, and like their predecessors sometimes use the name of Islam in order to deceive the masses. We have already said many times that whosoever would go against the object for which Pakistan was achieved, would never be successful. We sincerely request our learned Ministers not to follow in the footsteps of their predecessors, but learn a lesson from their exemplary end. They should take full advantage of the opportunity given them by God to serve the nation and the country, and prosper in this world and be blessed and in the next by serving the nation and the country in the true sense. Our duty is only to tell." The passages italicised and numbered 1 to 3 in the above transla tion are those considered by the respondent Government to be objectionable. We have no hesitation in holding that, when they are read in their context, they amply justify the action taken by the respondent. After explaining that the object of the promulga tion of Martial Law was to rid the country of selfish statesmen, the article declares the Ministers chosen by the ex‑President to be of the same type as their predecessors. Not content with this, the writer accuses the Ministers of using the name of Islam to deceive the masses. In our view, the inevitable effect of the above allega tions must be to bring Government into hatred or contempt. The petitioners have relied upon Muhammad Saleem v. Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1960 Lah. 206), a Full Bench decision of this Court, in which it was held that too sensitive an appraisal of offending material in an article is to be deprecated and that it is particularly necessary at this juncture for Government to "display large hearted‑ness, create goodwill and dispel suspicion." With great respect, we are in entire agreement with these observations, but we are firmly of the opinion that in holding that the article now in dispute is calculated to bring it into hatred or contempt, Government cannot possibly be accused of showing abnormal sensitiveness.

3. Two technical objections have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. The first is that as a result of the abrogation of the 1956 Constitution and the promulgation of Martial Law, there is now no Federation in existence and conse quently no Government "established by law in the Capital of the Federation" within the meaning of section 4 (1) (d) of the Act. This contention cannot be accepted. In the first place, sub clause (1) of clause 2 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, lays down that not withstanding the abrogation of the Constitution of the 23rd of March 1956, the Republic, to be known henceforward as Pakistan, shall be governed as nearly as may be in accordance with the late Constitution. Further, the expression "Federation" is defined in Article 218 of the 1956 Constitution as meaning the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The expression "the Government established by law in the Capital of the Federation" is, therefore, to be construed as meaning the Government established by law in the Capital of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan while clause 2 (1) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, substitutes for the expression "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan" the one word "Pakistan". We have accordingly no hesitation in holding that the present Government is that established by law in the Capital of the Federation within the meaning of section 4 (1) (d) of the Act, that any article bringing that Government into hatred or contempt is hit by sections 7 (3) and (4) (1) (i) of the Act, and that the action taken by the respondent Government cannot be challenged on the ground advanced by the petitioners.

4. The second objection raised by the petitioners is that the Ministers have no collective responsibility, their role being only that of advisers to the President of Pakistan in the discharge of his functions. This argument is based on clause 2 of the Govern ment (Presidential Cabinet) Order, 1958, which runs‑ "The President may appoint persons to hold charge of the ministers of the Government of Pakistan and to advise him in the discharge of his‑functions," but it is without substance. On the plain wording of the clause, the primary object of appointing the persons referred to is that they should hold charge of the ministeries of the Government of Pakistan, their advisory function being placed only second. By clause 3 of the Order in question they are given the title of `Ministers', while clause 4 lays down that they shall collectively be known as the Presidential Cabinet. The cumulative effect of these provisions is to make it impossible to contend with any show of reason that the Ministers are merely individual advisors, having no collective responsibility. By bringing them into hatred or contempt, therefore, the offending article has ipso facto brought into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in the Capital of Pakistan.

5. In the result we hold that the petition is without force. It is accordingly dismissed. A.H. Petition dismissed.