BENNNETT COLEMAN AND CO LTD Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY virtue of Notification dated 14-12-73 the Government of Jammu and Kashmir declared the issue of the 'illustrated Weekly of India Annual 1973' printed and published by Shri Uma Shankar at the Times of India Press and edited by Shri Khushwant Singh and all other documents containing copies, reprints and translations of or extracts from the said issue to be forfeited to the Government on the ground that the said issue contained an article entitled 'jammu and Kashmir' which contravened the provisions of Section 153-A of the Ranbir P. C. The Notification further prohibited the import by post or otherwise into the State any copy of the said issue and all other documents containing copies or reprints etc. thereof.

(2.) BY a composite petition the petitioners Messrs. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. who are the proprietors of the weekly, Shri Romesh Chandra, Manager of the firm and Sri Khushwant Singh Editor of the Weekly have assailed the aforesaid Government Notification under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Section 103 of the State Constitution and Section 99-B of the Criminal P. C. The undisputed fact is that the Illustrated Weekly of India is a notable English Magazine edited by Shri Khushwant Singh, the third petitioner, and managed by the second petitioner. The magazine took out an annual feature in 1973 containing a number of articles highlighting the cultural, social, economic growth and the demographical and geographical advancement of various States in India during the 26 years of independence. The State of Jammu and Kashmir being one of the States in India also figured in the magazine and an article on this State was written jointly by Messrs. Balraj Puri and Shamim Ahmad Shamim. As soon as the article was published serious exception was taken, to some portions of it relating to the characteristic features of all sections of the people residing in the State which led the State Government to pass the impugned notification so that the feelings of the people were not hurt or injured.

(3.) THE petitioners have challenged the impugned notification on various grounds. In the first place it has been alleged that the ban imposed by the Government violated the fundamental right of the petitioners regarding freedom of speech and the implied right which is a consequence thereof, namely, the right of communication between one individual and another: secondly that the impugned notification impinged on the provisions of Section 99-A of the Criminal P. C. and was illegal, mala fide and outside the scope and ambit of the aforesaid section, and thirdly that the article in question contained no offensive or scurrilous matter and was not calculated or intended to contravene the provisions of Section 99-A of the Criminal P. C. Finally it was averred that the Government had not only banned the magazine in the State but had also prohibited the import into the State of its reprints or copies of other articles which had not been found to be offensive for circulation in India and that the Government had acted beyond the scope and ambit of Section 99-A.