http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: NARAVAN DASS INDURAKHYA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/04/1972

BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: MITTER, G.K. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1972 AIR 2086            1973 SCR  (1) 392  1972 SCC  (3) 676

ACT: Criminal  Law  Amendment Act (23 of 1961), ss. 2  and  4(i)- ’Stating the grounds of its opinion’, in s. 4(i)-Scope of.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant  published a book with respect to  which  the State Government passed an order that, as the book questions the territorial integrity and frontiers of India in a manner which  is  likely to be prejudicial to the interest  of  the safety  and security of India and thus contains  matter  the publication  of  which  is  punishable under  s.  2  of  the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961, it was forfeited in favour of the Government under s. 4(1) of the Act.  The appellant challenged  the order under s. 5, that the grounds  for  the opinion  of  the State Government, which hid  to  be  stated under  s. 4 of the Act, were not given in the  order.   The’ State Government filed a counter affidavit stating that  the book  contained  erroneous  maps  of  India  with  incorrect external  boundaries  and omitting integral parts  of  India altogether.  The High Court dismissed the petition. Allowing the appeal to this Court, HELD : (1) The word ’ground’ occurring in the section  means ’base’, foundation, motive, valid reasons.’ The grounds must be  distinguished from the opinion of the  Government.   The grounds of the opinion must mean the conclusion of facts  on which the opinion is based. [396E-F] (2)  What  the  State Government did in this  case,  in  the opening  paragraph  of  the order, was  merely  to  quote  a portion  of  the  words of s. 2, namely  ,  that  ’the  book questioned the territorial integrity and frontiers of  India in  a  "Manner  ’Which is likely to be  prejudicial  to  the interest  of  the safety or security of India’.   The  order gave  no  indication of the facts or the statements  or  the representations  contained in the book which,  according  to the  State  Government, offended s. 2. In the  order  itself there was no reference to any map or text in the book  which would come within the mischief of the section. [396A-C] Mohomed  Ali, In re : 41 Calcutta 466, Arun Ranjan Ghose  v. State of West Pengal, 59 C.W.N. 495, approved. Harnam  Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1962] 2 S.C.R.  487, Naresh  Chandra  Ganguli  v. The State of  West  Bengal  and others,,  [1960] 1 S.C.R. 411, 421, State of Bombay v.  Atma

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

Ram Sridhar Vaidya, [1951] 1 S.C.R. 167, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 236  of 1969. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  Order  dated March 13, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscella- neous Criminal Case No. 268 of 1967. Ram Punjwani and P. C. Bhartari, for the appellant. R.   P. Kapur and I. N.  Shroff, for the respondent. 393 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter J., This appeal by special from a judgment and  order of  the High Court of Madhya, Pradesh dismissing  the’  writ petition  of  the appellant challenging the,  order  of  the State  Government under s. 5 of the Criminal  Law  Amendment Act  (Act  XXIII of 1961) forfeiting the copies  of  a  book published by the appellant under S. 4(1) of the Act, can  be disposed  of  on the short ground that the  order  did  not- disclose  the  grounds of the opinion formed  by  the  State Government. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’) empowered the State Governments by s. 4  to make order declaring any newspaper or book as defined in the Press  and  Registration  of Books Act, 1867  or  any  other document wherever printed, to be forfeited to the Government if  it  appeared to the Government that the said  book  etc. questioned  the territorial integrity or frontiers of  India in a manner which was or was likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India.  The  relevant provisions of the Act are as follows :-               "  S.  2. Whoever by words  either  spoken  or               written,   or   by  signs,   or   by   visible               representation  or  otherwise,  questions  the               territorial integrity or frontiers of India in               a  manner  which  is,  or  is  likely  to   be               prejudicial to the interests of the safety  or               security  of India, shall be  punishable  with               imprisonment  for a term which may  extend  to               three years, or with fine, or with both.               4.    (1)  Where  any  newspaper  or  book  as               defined in the Press and Registration of Books               Act,  1867,  or an other  document,_  wherever               printed,  appears to the State  Government  to               contain an matter the publication of which  Is               punishable under section 2 or sub-section  (2)               of  section  3, the State Government  may,  by               notification in the Official Gazette,  stating               the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy               of the issue of the newspaper containing  such               matter  and every copy of such book  or  other               document  to be forfeited to  the  Government,               and thereupon any police officer may seize the               same wherever found and any Magistrate may, by               warrant authorise any police officer not below               the  rank of Sub-Inspector to enter  upon  and               search for the same in any premises where  any               copy of such issue or any copy of such book or               other  document  may be or may  be  reasonably               suspected to be.               5.    (1)  Any person having any  interest  in               any news book or other document in respect  of               which  an  forfeiture  has  been  made   under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

             section 4 may, within two months from the date               of such order, apply to               394               the High Court to set aside such order on  the               ground that the issue of the newspaper, or the               book or other document in respect of which the               order  was made did not contain any matter  of               such  a  nature)  as is referred  to  in  sub-               section (1)     of section 4.               (2)   The provisions of sections 99-C to  99-F               of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall               apply in relation to an application under sub-               section  (1) as they apply in relation  to  an               application  under section 99-B of  that  Code               and the reference in section 99-D to seditious               or  other  matter  of  such  a  nature  as  is               referred to in subsection (1) of section  99-A               of  that Code shall be construed as  reference               to any matter of such a nature as is  referred               to  in  sub-section (1) of section 4  of  this               Act.               (3)   No  order passed or action  taken  under               section  4 shall be called in question in  any               Court  otherwise than in accordance  with  the               provisions of this section." The  appellant  who  was admittedly the  proprietor  of  the Narmada Printing Works, Jabalpur had published a book  under the name and style of "Madhyamic Bhoogol (Part I for Classes IX  and X) written by C. P. Saxena.  On 1St July,  1967  the State Government passed the order which is impugned in  this case:               "Whereas  the books specified in the  Schedule               below  question the territorial integrity  and               frontiers of India in a manner which is likely               to  be  prejudicial  to the  interest  of  the               safety and security of India;               And whereas it appears to the State Government               that  the said three books contain matter  the               publication  of  which  is  punishable   under               section  2 of the Criminal Law Amendment  Act,               1961 (No. 23 of 1961);               Now  therefore  in  exercise  of  the   powers               conferred by, sub-section (1) of section 4  of               the Act, the State Government hereby  declares               every  copy  of the said three books  and  all               other documents containing copies, reprint and repro duction   of  the  said  books   to   be               forfeited in favour of the Government." The  second item in the Schedule relates to the  appellant’s publication  From the communication of the Deputy  Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh dated 5th August 1967 it would  appear  that the State Government took  objection  to pages 138, 147 and 149 of the said book as containing  wrong maps. 395 According, to the said communication :               "These  books contain maps of India,  part  of               India, maps of countries adjacent to India and               maps  of  Asia.  All these  maps  involve  the               external  boundary  of India  which  has  been               found to be grossly incorrect.  Besides  this,               the island territories of ’Laccadive,  Minicoy               and  Amindivi Islands’ which form an  integral               part of India are omitted together from  every               map  of  India.   In  some  of  the  maps  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             territory of Bhutan has been omitted while  in               other Indo-Pakistan boundary is ignored." The  communication refers not only to the  publication  with which  we  are  concerned in this case but  also  two  other publications both of which appear to be books on  geography- for school students.  The appellant filed his writ  petition on  August 29, 1967 before High Court challenging the  order of  the  1st  July 1967 inter alia on the  ground  That  the grounds for the opinion of the State Government which had to be  given in terms of s. 4 of the Act were  non-existent  in the  order.   He therefore filed the  petition,  within  two months of the date of the order forfeiting the book in terms of s. 5 of the Act. In  the counter affidavit of the State the stand  taken  was that the State Government was not bound to place details  of information  on  the  basis of which  its  satisfaction  was arrived  at.   Reference was however made  ’in  the  counter affidavit  to  a  communication  of  the  Director  of   Map Publications  to  the Director of Public  Instruction  dated 21st  March 1967 in which it was stated with regard  to  all the three alleged offending books that               "they  contain maps of India, part  of  India,               maps  of countries adjacent to India and  maps               of Asia.  All these maps involve the  external               boundary  of India which has been found to  be               grossly  incorrect.  Besides this, the  island               territories   of   ’Laccadive,   Minicoy   and               Amindivi islands’ which form an integral  part               of  India are omitted together from every  map               of  India.  In some of the maps the  territory               of  Bhutan  has been omitted  while  in  other                             Indo-Pakistan boundary is ignored." The  High  Court of Madhya Pradesh took the  view  that  the impugned  order could not be said to have omitted  to  state the  grounds  for  the  opinion  of  the  State  Government. According to the High Court :               "the  grounds  on which the said  opinion  was               based  were  that the books  contained  matter               which questions the territorial integrity  and               frontiers of India in a manner which is likely               to  be  prejudicial  to the  interest  of  the               safety and security of India." 8-L1286SupCI/72 396 In  our view the High Court had clearly gone wrong  in  this view  of  the law on the subject.  According to  the  Oxford Dictionary  the  meaning  of  the  word  ’ground’,  in  this connection must be "base, foundation, motive, valid reason." what  the State Government did in this case in  the  opening paragraph of the order was merely to quote a portion of  the words  of  s.  2  namely, that  the  books  "questioned  the territorial  integrity  and frontiers of India in  a  manner which  is  likely to be prejudicial to the interest  of  the safety or security of India".  The order gives no indication of  the  facts  or the  statements  or  the  representations contained   in  the  book  which  according  to  the   State Government  offended s. 2. In the order itself there  is  no reference  to  any map or any text in the book  which  would come  within the mischief of the said section.  A  book  may contain  matter  questioning the territorial  integrity  and frontiers of India in many ways one of which may be a  wrong map  which  does not show the proper  boundaries  of  India, either  by  omitting  a  portion  of  the  Indian  territory therefrom or by depicting a portion of what is really Indian territory as belonging to some other State.  A book may also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

come  within  the mischief of s. 2 if there is  any  express reference  in  the  text  containing  suggestions  based  on historical  or political or other reasons that some  portion of what is generally known to the public as Indian territory is not so. There  is a considerable body of statutory provisions  which enable  the State to curtail the liberty of the  subject  in the  interest of the security of the State or forfeit  books and  documents when in the opinion of the  Government,  they promote  class hatred, religious  intolerance,  disaffection against the State etc.  In all such cases, instances of some whereof are given below the State Government has to give the grounds  of  its  opinion.   Clearly  the  grounds  must  be distinguished from the opinion.  Grounds of the opinion must mean the conclusion of facts on which the opinion is  based. There can be no conclusion of fact which has no reference to or is not ex facie based on any fact. The  provisions of the Act have a close parallel in s.  99-A of  the  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in which  a  large number  of  matters  are mentioned which  according  to  the Government  may  lead  it  to  form  the  opinion  that  the publication  offended  the  said section.   There  are  also decisions  under the Indian Press Act which illustrate  what the  grounds  in a case like this must be.  In  re.  Mahomed Ali(1), a case of an order of forfeiture of a pamphlet under the Press Act of 1910, the order of Government went to  show that  the  pamphlet  "Come over to Macedonia  and  help  us" contained  words of the nature described in s. 4 sub-s.  (1) of the (1)  41 Calcutta 466. 397 Indian  Press  Act, 19 1 0 inasmuch as they  are  likely  to bring into  hatred  or contempt  certain  classes  of  His Majesty’s  subjects in British India.  According to  Jenkins C.J. (p. 476):               "Those responsible for this Act foresaw  this,               and  so  they specifically provided  that  the               forfeiting   notification  should  state   the               grounds  of  the Local  Government’s  opinion.               But  when we turn to the notification no  such               grounds are stated; nothing in the nature of a               fact is set forth, there is merely a  citation               of  those  words  of  the  section  which  are               invoked....               But the repetition of an opinion cannot be its               grounds,   and  yet  that  is  all  that   the               notification   furnishes  in  the   shape   of               grounds.   This is obviously insufficient  and               not a compliance with the terms of the Act."               According to the other learned Judge  Stephen,               J. (p. 487)               "The  ground of an opinion must in this  case,               if not always, be a fact or facts, and no fact               is disclosed merely by a specific relation  of               the  elements  that  the law  requires  to  be               present  in  order for  legal  consequence  to               follow." In Arun Ranjan Ghose v. State of West Bengal(1) a case under ss.  99-A and 99-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure it  was stated by Chakravartti, C.J. (p. 497):               "It  is useful to consider here what is  meant               by  grounds of opinion.  The formation  of  an               opinion  by  Government  is  undoubtedly   the               ground  for the action taken by them, but  the               grounds   for   the  opinion   are   obviously

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

             different.   The  opinion, after it  has  been               formed,  furnishes a ground to Government  for               taking action contemplated, but the grounds on               which  the  opinion itself is formed  are  and               must  be  other grounds’  Those  grounds  must               necessarily be the import or the effect or the               tendency of matters contained in the offending               publication, either as a whole or in  portions               of  it,  as  illustrated  by  passages   which               Government may choose." In Harnam Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2 ) the order under s.  99-A  of the Code of Criminal Procedure which  was  made went  to show that the State Government declared  the  books forfeited on the ground that the said books contained matter the publication of which was Punishable under s. 153--A  and 295-A  of  the Penal Code.  The two sections of  the  Indian Penal  Code  have  little in common  inasmuch  as  s.  153-A relates to an offence of (1) 59 C. W.N. 495. (2) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 487. 398 promotion or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India and s.  295-A relates  to  an offence maliciously intended to  outrage  he religious  feelings  of  any such  class  by  insulting  the religion  or the religious belief of that class.  The  order which  was  considered  by the court in that  case  gave  no indication which formed the reason for Government taking the view that the book should be forfeited.  The Court held that the  order did not as it should have stated the rounds  of opinion.   It is not known which communities were  alienated from each other or whose religious beliefs were wounded. We  may also refer to Art. 22(5) of the  Constitution  which lays  down that when any person is detained in pursuance  of an  order  made  under  any  law  providing  for  preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon  as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which  the order  has  been  made and shall  afford  him  the  earliest opportunity  of making a representation against  the  order. In  considering  the  question as to  what  the  grounds  of detention meant when an order under Preventive Detention Act was  made this Court said in Naresh Chanra, Ganguli  v.  The State of West Bengal & others(1):               "  .  .  the grounds for making  an  order  of               detention,  which have to be  communicated  to               the   detenu  as  soon  as  practicable,   are               conclusions of facts, and those conclusions of               facts have to be communicated to the detenu as               soon as may be." We may also refer to the judgment of this Court in State  of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya(2), a case under the  Pre- ventive Detention Act, Kania C.J. said (p. 178):               "By   their  very  nature  the   grounds   are               conclusions  of  facts  and  not  a   complete               detailed  recital  of all the facts .  .  .  .               These  conclusions are the "grounds" and  they               must be supplied.’-’ All the above decisions in our opinion clearly show what the requirements  of the Criminal Law Amendment Act are  and  it appears  to  us that the State Government merely  gave  it’s opinion  and not the grounds for its opinion.  As  such  the judgment  of the High Court must be set aside and the  order of  Government  dated  July 1, 1967 must  be  quashed.   The appellant  will  be  entitled to return  of  all  the  books forfeited.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

V.P.S.                             Appeal allowed. (1)  [1960] 1 S.C.R. 411 at 421. (2)  [1951] S.C.R. 167. 399