P L D 1952 Lahore 573 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.‑On 9th of January 1950, the Provincial Government issued notices (a) to Chaudhri Ali Muhammad, keeper of the Narindra Electric Press, Lyallpur, under subsection.(3) of section 3, and (b) to Maulvi Abdul Ghani, son of Dr. Badar‑ud‑Din, publisher of the "Insaf" Urdu daily, Lyallpur, under subsection (3) of section 7 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act XXIII of 1931 calling upon, each of them to deposit security to the amount of Rs. 3,000 or its, equivalent in securities of the Government of Pakistan the press had been used for the purpose of printing two articles published in the daily "Insaf" in its issues, dated the 10th of November 1949 and 25th of November 1949, respec tively, which contained words of the nature described in subsection (1) of section 4 of the aforesaid Act. The keeper of the press has made an application, Criminal Original No. 3 of 1950, and the publisher of the "Insaf" has made a similar application, Criminal Original No. 4 of 1950, under section 23 of the Act to this Court to set aside the order of the Government. Both these petitions shall be disposed of by this judgment. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the notice in each case issued by the Government was defective inasmuch as it did not clearly specify the clause of subsection (1) of section 4 under which the offending articles fell. Reliance was placed on Vishnu Gangadhar v. Government of Bombay A I R 1945 Bom.

207. In the Bombay case the notice clearly specified the clause which was said to have been offended against. At the trial the learned Advocate for the Crown maintained that it was open to him to go beyond the specified clause and to prove that the articles in question fell under some other clause as well. This contention was not accepted. The learned judges observed :‑ "The statement is a part of the notice itself under section 3 (3) which requires a `notice in writing to the keeper of the press stating or describing such words, etc.' The statement is, therefore, a statutory provision and is in the nature of a charge which gives particulars about the specific clauses of the subsection that are alleged to have been infringed. The petitioner has come to this Court to set aside an order which purports to be based on that charge. We do not think, therefore, that Government can now go behind or enlarge those particulars which are an integral part of the notice." In the present case no particular clause was mentioned and the articles were said to fall under subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act. The Bombay case is not, therefore, in point. In order, however, to give the petitioners a chance to know clearly the clauses relied upon by the Government in support of their demand of security, the learned Advocate‑General, who appeared for the Crown, was required to specify the different passages to which exception was taken on behalf of the Government and the clauses which they were said to have infringed. This was done and it was not the plea of the petitioners that they were taken by surprise and were not in a position to continue with the case. This contention is, there fore, overruled. The article published on 10th of November 1949, is a statement given by Kh. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate, to the special correspondent of the daily "Insaf" which referred to the raids made on the offices of the Islam League. The object of the Islam League was explained as a determination to bring the Muslim League and the non‑Muslim League elements in Pakistan on a common platform and save the oppressed Muslims of India from the jaws of death and it shall continue to perform this sacred duty regardless of all fears. It was pointed out that if the officers of the Government had not lost their sense of duty, they should use their Safety Act against the persons due to whom interests of the country are in jeopardy. In Lyallpur the well‑known rendezvous of Sewa Sanghis was established under the .leadership of Murli Dhar who frequently paid visits to India. Sir Shankar Lal was said to have special relations with some officers of the Centre and they (Sewa Singhis) have been let loose to hatch all sort of conspiracies on the soil of Pakistan. It was added, "All this shows how deplorable the intentions of the Government towards Islam and Pakistan are." Special exception was taken to this part of the statement, "All this shows how deplorable the intentions of the Government towards Islam and Pakistan are". The Government was charged with inten tions against Islam and Islamic State of Pakistan. The second article reproduces the speech delivered by Allama Inayat Ullah Khan Almashriqi at the Islam League Conference held at Lyallpur. It was printed under the caption :‑ " Islam Ki Chitan Woh Mazboot Chitan Hai Jis Se Sadha Jabrana Qawanin Takrae Aur Pash Pash Ho Gae." It is a lengthy speech and covers eighteen closely printed pages of the paper‑book. It deals with various topics. The object of the establishment of Islam League was explained and offer was made for the unification of all parties under the name of Majlis‑i‑Islam or some other name exactly on the same principles on which sixty nations of the world sitting in the United Nations Organisation are deciding the problems of the whole world. Suggestions were made as to the leaders who should fill various offices. The names of gentlemen who had broken away from the Muslim League or were otherwise dis satisfied with it were specifically mentioned. It was thought that a review of the other resolutions and objectives before the Conference might produce useful results. Explaining his own point of view, the Allama was reported to have said :‑ "The Government of the day has for some time created an atmosphere of irreligiousness~ by different ways and means and thereby produced an indifference in the masses to God and the Prophet. Not the smallest sign in the length and breadth of Pakistan indicating to the common Mussalman that an Islamic Government has been established in Pakistan since the 15th of August 1947, is visible. There is not. the slightest hint anywhere that the Mussalmans should observe the commandments of Islam, God, the Prophet, religion, and the Quran." The possible consequences of this "irreligiousness" were the "flood of Communism" which was coming imperceptibly and the fostering of Qadianiat anew in Pakistan, after the destruction of the so‑called Dar‑ul‑Aman by the wrath and anger of the Almighty and the most powerful God. The branding of the Government as "irreligious" and the creation of an atmosphere of irreligiousness by different ways and means were the passages specially selected for the attack by the learned Advocate‑General and they were said to come within the mischief of clause (d), subsection (1) of section

4. The relevant portion of section 4 may now be quoted. "Section 4 (1) :‑ Whenever it appears to the Provincial Government that any printing press in respect of which any security has been ordered to be deposited under section 3 is used for the purpose of printing or publishing any newspaper, book or other docu ment containing any words, signs or visible representations which tend directly or indirectly,‑ (d) to bring into hatred or contempt His Majesty or the Government established by law in Pakistan or the administra tion of justice in Pakistan or any class or section of His Majesty's subjects in Pakistan, or to excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the said Government. Explanation 2.‑Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alter ation by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection shall not be deemed to be of the nature described in clause (d) of this subsection . . . ." The language of clause (d) is borrowed word for word from section 124‑A of the Penal Code commonly known as "Sedition". In Nibarandu Dutt v. Emperor A I R 1942 F C 22, at page 26 the learned judges made the following observa tions :‑ "Sedition . .. . . embraces all those practices, whether by word, deed or writing, which are calculated to disturb the tranquillity of the State and lead ignorant persons to subvert the Government. The objects of sedition generally are to induce discontent and insurrection, to stir up opposi tion to the Government and to bring the administration of justice into contempt ; and the very tendeny of sedition is to incite the people to insurrection and rebellion. Sedition has been described as disloyalty in action, and the law considers as sedition all those practices which have for their object to excite discontent or disaffection, to create public distur bance, or to lead to civil war, to bring into hatred or con tempt the sovereign or Government, the laws or the constitution of the realm and generally all endeavours to promote public disorders." The "deplorable intentions of the Government towards Islam and Pakistan" contained in the first article of 10th November and its "irreligiousness by different ways and means" creating an atmosphere of irreligiousness and "indiffe rence in the masses to God and the Prophet" contained in the second article of 25th November, must be judged in the light of the definition of "Sedition" given above. It is a matter of common knowledge that after continued struggle for a number of years and colossal sacrifices, the Independent State of Pakistan was carved out of the sub‑continent formerly known as India. It is also very well‑know that the main reason and justification for the creation of a separate Muslim State was that the Muslims as a whole could not live their lives according to their religion and culture and could not attain economic independence without acquiring sovereignty over the terri tories where they were in majority. To call Pakistan Government as "enemy of Islam" and to stigmatise it as "irreligious" and fostering a spirit of "indifference to God and the Prophet", is to inflame popular mind and ignorant people in particular in revolt against the State itself. The state of society and the people to whom the words are addressed are relevant factors in making a correct estimate of the effect of the words spoken or written. The overwhelming majority residing within the Dominion of Pakistan consists of the Muslims strongly attach ed to their religion and to the worship of God and who cherish great veneration for their Prophet. To tell these per sons that the Government under which they are living, is the enemy of Islam or opposed to their religion or would inculcate indifference and disrespect to their God and Prophet, is the greatest incentive to throw up that Government and insur rection would be an act of merit in the eye of God and the Prophet. This is directly preaching "disloyalty in action" and this is the gist of the offence of "Sedition". The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the articles were no more than a legitimate criticism of the policies of the Government cannot stand scrutiny. There is nothing in law to prevent a person from attacking the Government for its short comings in one or other respects with a view to remove them or correct them. It is also not prohibited to call upon the people to elect their representatives from one or the other political party which promises greater chances of religious or economic advancement. The State, however, is sacred, transcending all political parties and the Government as a whole could not be brought into hatred or contempt without fear of disastrous consequences to all and sundry living in the State. The articles in question read as a whole, tend‑ to excite disaffecting against the Government and as such the Government was justified in taking action under the Press Act. Both the petitions are consequently dismissed and each or the petitioners shall pay Rs. 100 as costs to the Crown. MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C .J.‑I agree. RAHMAN, J.‑I agree. K. M. A. Petitions dismissed.