P (PLP)
MALIK NASARULLAH KHAN AZIZ — Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman, Muhammad Java and Shabir Ahmad, JJ. |
| Parties | MALIK NASARULLAH KHAN AZIZ — Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: S. A. Rahman, Muhammad Java and Shabir Ahmad, JJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (MALIK NASARULLAH KHAN AZIZ — Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mahmud Ali and Muhammad Siddiq, for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Sharif, Assistant Advocate‑General, for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), S. 4 (1) (d)‑Offending article‑Must be read as a whole in a free, fair and liberal spirit, without stressing a strong word here or there. (b) Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), S. 4 (1) (d)‑Language of hyperbole‑‑Mere rhetorical clap‑trap
Stock‑in‑trade of demagogue which had lost its sting by frequent use‑Article not within mischief of section. The writer may not have expressed himself in temperate language and may have even exceeded the bounds of fair criticism by using the language of hyperbole, but mere rhetorical clap‑trap, or expressions which had become the stock‑in‑trade of the demagogue and which had, therefore, lost their sting by frequent use‑in such a case the offending passages may not be held to fall within the mischief of section 4 (1) (d). (c) Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), S. 4 (1) (d)‑Question whether allegation strictly correct‑Irrelevant. It is irrelevant for the Court to consider whether the alle gations made by the writer were strictly correct or not. (d) Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), S. 4 (1) (d)‑Incitement to Public disorder, or, such an intention or tendency‑Not necessary for bringing article within Purview of section. It is not necessary for bringing a writing within the purview of section 4 (1) (d) of the Act that the words complained of must either incite to public disorder or that they should embody such an intention or tendency. If the conduct attributed to Government was of such a des picable and vile character as would inevitably lead people to regard Government with contempt or hatred, the writing would be covered by the section. All that the section requires is that the impugned writing should have a tendency to excite contempt or hatred, and the alleged intention of the writer, inconsistent with the plain language employed by him, would be absolutely irrelevant. Even if he had acted from the best of motives, but the language employed brought the writing within the ambit of section 4 (1) of the Act, he could not be heard to say that his object was mere reform. After all, the intention of a person can be best judged from the intrinsic evidence of his writing. 74
1. A. 89; A. I. R. 1947 P. C. 82 rel. P. L. D. 1949 Lah. 511 ref. A. I. R. 1942 F. C. 22; A. I. R. 1946 Lah. 22 dissent. (e) Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931). S. 4 (1) (d)‑Sedition‑Latitude to Press in changed conditions. Ideas of what constitutes sedition have changed with the passage of time and a good deal of latitude should be allowed to the Press so that healthy public opinion is fostered by frank and even forceful criticism of the Government in power in this age of democracy and liberty but liberty to criticize must not be confused with license to hold up the Government established by law, to hatred or contempt. (f) Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), S. 4 (1) (d)‑Only a portion of article within ambit of section‑Action of Government, whether should be upheld. If a portion of the offending writing falls within the ambit of section 4, action taken by the Government must be up held. A. I. R. 1931 Lah. 283; A. I R. 1948 Lah. 6 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SHABIR AHMAD, J.
‑I agree. MUHAMMAD JAN, J.‑
A bi‑weekly newspaper of Lahore called the "Kausar" published an article in its issue, dated the 25th January 1950 which started with the warning "Fear the time which is about to come". It was addressed to the Arbab‑i Hakumat, i.e., those responsible for the Government. The important passages, freely translated, are to the effect that after the Partition the Arbab‑i‑Hakumat had taken charge of the Government without any reference to the people. They had no idea at that time of any good system of Government and looked to Europe, America and Russia for guidance. When they had become deficient in morality to an alarming extent and had lost all sense of responsibility, a man of wisdom declared that no system of Government can bring us peace except the system introduced by the Holy Prophet. This fearless and truthful man was supported by the nation but those responsible for the Government used all their resources to suppress his voice. They called Maudoodi and his companions traitors and imprisoned them. The Arbab‑i‑Hakumat, were, however, driven by the nation to do what they wished to avoid and they had to pass the Objectives Resolution. The nation now wants to know when these well -wishers of the people and sufferers in the cause of truth w ill be released. The world is watching the enormity of the Government's crime and the patience of the people. God himself is not indifferent to this. The audacity ‑with which the Government has exacted bribes from people who had been rendered homeless, the narrow‑mindedness which they showed in keeping their cases in abeyance and the evasiveness with which they were dealt have caused wounds which can never be healed in the hearts of those people. Whenever they see a Government servant, their wounds become open, sighs escape their lips and their feelings begin to get out of control. The people want to know whether Pakistan was established for the benefit of the people or the Government. The oppressed nation has decided to release itself from their clutches. Short comings and failures are pardonable but persistent misdeeds are not forgiven either by God or nation. The day is 'coming when those misdeeds will be brought to view in the form of mountains. The eyes will then stare and there will be no escape. Do the Arbab‑i‑Hakumat know that this time is coming ? Let them say if they do. The Punjab Government issued a notice, dated 23rd March, 1950 under section 7 subsection (3) of the Indian Press Emergency Powers Act to Malik Nasrullah Khan Aziz, Editor, Publisher and Printer of the paper, stating that the article above‑mentioned con tained words of the nature described in clause (d) subsection (1) section 4 of the aforesaid Act and, in exercise of the powers confer red on him by subsection 3 of section 7 of the said Act, the Governor of the Punjab required the publisher of the newspaper to deposit with the District Magistrate of Lahore on or before the 3rd April 1950, security to the amount of Rs 3,
000. Against this order Malik Nasrullah Khan Aziz has filed an application under section 23 Indian Press Emergency Powers Act, and the question is whether the article above‑mentioned contains words which bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law or excite disaffection towards it. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the words Arbab‑i‑Hakumat do not refer to the Government but to the Muslim League. I do not agree with this. The Muslim League did not imprison Maudoodi or his companions, nor can the Muslim League release them. The passage particularly objected to by the learned Advocate‑General is that relating to the exacting or bribes by the Government from destitute people; but, it is urged that' the whole article is objectionable and calculated to bring the Government r into hatred and contempt. The relevant portion of section 4 clause (d) lays that when ever it appears to the local Government that any printing press is used for the purpose of printing or publishing any newspaper containing words which tend directly or indirectly to bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law of to excite disaffection towards it, the Government may demand, security. The words hatred and contempt have been the subject of learned discussions in various authorities cited at the bar. A reference may usefully be made to A. J. R: 1942 F. C. 22, Niharendu Dutta Mujmdar v. Emperor: A. I. R. 1947 P. C. 82, Emperor v. Sadashiv Naravan Bhalerao: A.
1. R. 1946 Lah. 22, Harkishan Singh v. Emperor A. I. R. 1948 Lah.
6. In the matter of Jang‑i‑Azadi Lahore 1949 P. L. D. Lah. 212 Abdullah Malik v. Crown: 1949 P. L. D Lah. 282 In the matter of the "Daily Ehsan" and 1949 P. L D. Lah. 511 Sher Muhammad v. Crown. The general principle which has been universally accepted is that all such writings would be considered as a whole; in a fair, free and liberal spirit. Too much emphasis should not be laid on one or two isolated passages; nor on any stray words here and there. The general effect of the whole composition on the public should be taken into consideration. Considered from this point of view, the article complained .of does tend to bring the Government into contempt if not hatred; and certainly excites disaffection towards it. I would, therefore, uphold the order of Government and dismiss this petition with costs. Petition dismissed.