GULABCHANDRA KAMMODLAL JAIN Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 12 (5) of the Madhya Pradesh Public security Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to set aside an order passed by the Government on 19th September 1962 under Section 12 (1) of the Act prohibiting absolutely the bringing into or sale, distribution, circulation, printing or publication within the State of Madhya Pradesh of all editions of a book bearing the title "madhyamik Samajik Adhyayan" containing the lesson titled "bharat Men islam Ka Agman" and any newspaper, periodical, book, pamphlet or document containing the said lesson or its substance, translation or adaptation in any language. The application is also made to rest on Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution for challenging the constitutionality of the Act and for making the prayer for the issue of a proper direction or order to quash the aforesaid order of the Government and for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Board of secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh to withdraw Memo No. Acd/1/575 dated the 15th October 1962 issued by the Board.

(2.) THE ground on which the order was passed by the Government is contained in the preamble to the order which runs thus :

(3.) THE petitioner Gulabchandra Jain is the author and publisher of the book in question. It was first published in July 1959 and ran into five editions, the last one being published according to the petitioner in July 1962, but in November 1962 according to the opponent State. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed by the State Government without any notice to him or without giving him any opportunity of showing that the lesson "bharat Men Islam ka Agman" in the book was in no way prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and did not in any way offend against decency or morality and that in a number of books written and published by authors of repute in India and in other countries the same historical facts narrated in the offending lesson had been stated; and that the order passed by the Government was unreasonable and mala fide and that the Government did not arrive at the satisfaction it was required to under Section 12 (1) of the Act before making the order. He contends that the Act is void for various reasons and violates the fundamental right guaranteed by article 19 of the Constitution. The further complaint of the petitioner is that though he represented to the Government that there was no basis for passing the impugned order and that, if there was any, he should, be allowed to omit the objectionable part in the lesson and sell the book, and sent several reminders to the Government thereafter, no relief was granted to him and that on 12th november 1952 he was informed by the Secretary, Board of Education, tnat the matter was under examination; and tnat the Board was not justified in issuing a memo on 15th October 1962 to the principals of ah Higher Secondary and multipurpose Higher Secondary Schools informing them that his book had been wholly banned and that it should not be used in the schools.