SHANKER AND CO Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 24 of the Press (Objec-tionable Matter) Act, 1951, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act, to set aside an order of the Government of Madras, G. O. Ms. 329 Public (General-B) dated 6-3-1954, published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 10-3-1954, declaring the Book "Kalavikkalai" in Tamil, printed at Hajan Electric Press and published by the petitioner company, forfeit to the Government under Section 11 of the Act. The notification in question runs thus:

(2.) The petitioner is a firm carrying on the business of publishing and printing books under the name of Shankar and Co. According to the affidavit of D. K. Swami, one of its proprietors, the main business of the firm consists in the publication and sale of books on the scientific aspects of sex. The above book was published by them in April 1953 and purports to be a translation and adaptation of an original work in Arabic by one Rule P. M. Ghani. 3250 copies were printed in the first edition. The book is available in two different editions, one with illustrations at Rs. 6 a copy, and the other without illustrations at Rs. 4 a copy. In the affidavit, it is stated that the book is sold only to bona fide customers who are adults and who are in need of the book genuinely for their personal use only, and it is not exhibited in book-stalls nor sold openly. The petitioner complains that on 10-31954 the police came and seized all the copies of the book remaining undisposed of, in pursuance of the order above mentioned.

(3.) Certain general objections were taken to the validity of the order of the Government in question, namely, that the grounds on which the State Government considered the book to contain objectionable matter were not specified, that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to show cause against the order, that the certificate purported to have been issued by the Advocate General was not disclosed, that the said order is contrary to and in excess of the statute, and that the action of the State Government is opposed to Article 19(l)(a) and (g) of the Constitution. In addition to these objections, the affidavit also deals with the merits and asserts that the book does not contain any objectionable matter, that it is a scientific work on a special branch of knowledge, i. e., sex, and that its circulation is strictly limited. It was further alleged that the matter contained in the book contained in several publications which have already been published and which are in circulation without any action being taken by the Government, and therefore the Government were not justified in treating this book alone as objectionable. On behalf of the State, a counter-affidavit was filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Public (General), controverting the main allegations of fact and law contained in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was stated that the notification cannot be challenged on the ground of vagueness or in definiteness, as it specifically refers to Section 3 (vi) of the Act, that the order of the Government is not illegal or in excess of the statute that it is not opposed to Article 19(1) (a) and (g) of the Constitution and that after the certi ficate had been granted by the learned Advocate General the petitioner, was not entitled to contend that the book does not contain any objectionable matter. It was further denied that the book was a scientific work. It was also pleaded that the fact that there might be other books which are obscene and vulgar against which action has not been taken is not relevant, so far as the present appli cation was concerned.