http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: KARTAR SINGH & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/04/1956

BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. BENCH: BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA

CITATION:  1956 AIR  541            1956 SCR  476

ACT:        Punjab  Security of the State Act, 1953 (Punjab Act  XII  of        1953),  s.  9-Members  of  procession  shouting   defamatory        slogans  against Ministers of  State  Government-Prosecution        under s. 9 Whether Justified.

HEADNOTE:        The  appellants  were members of a procession taken  out  to        protest  against  the  policy of the  Punjab  Government  to        nationalise  motor transport and raised the  slogans  "Jaggu        mama  hai hai (Jaggu, maternal uncle be dead)" and  "Khachar        Khota  hai  hai (mule-cumdonkey be dead)".  The  words  were        directed  against  the  Transport  Minister  and  the  Chief        Minister  respectively and were defamatory.  The  appellants        were  prosecuted  and  convicted under s. 9  of  the  Punjab        Security of the State Act, 1953.        Held that the statements could not be said to undermine  the        security  of  the State or friendly relations  with  foreign        States  nor  did  they  amount  to  contempt  of  Court   or        defamation prejudicial to the security of the State nor  did        they  tend to overthrow the State and that  the  prosecution        had  failed  to  establish that the act  of  the  appellants        undermined  public order, decency or morality or  was  tant-        amount  to  an incitement to an offence prejudicial  to  the        maintenance of public order and consequently the prosecution        under s. 9 was not justified..        Public men may as well think it worth their while to  ignore        such  vulgar  criticisms  and abuses  hurled  against  them,        rather  than give importance to the same by prosecuting  the        person responsible for the same.        Seymour v. Butterworth ([1862] 3 F. & F. 372, 376, 377),  B.        v.  Sir  B. Carden ([1879] 5 Q.B.D. 1),  Kelly  v.  Sherlock        ([1866] L.R. 1 Q.B. 686, 689; 35 L.J. Q.B. 209) referred to.

JUDGMENT:        CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 49  of        1955.        Appeal  by special leave from the order dated the 9th  July,        1954 of the Punjab High Court at Simla in Criminal  Revision        No. 778 of 1954 arising out of the judgment and order  dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

      the  30th  June  1954 of the Court  of  Additional  Sessions        Judge,’ Amritsar in Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 1954.        477        Ram Das and Raghu Nath Pandit, for the appellants.        Jindralal and P. G. Gokhale, for the respondent.        1956.  April 26.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by        BHAGWATI  J.-This  appeal with special  leave  involves  the        interpretation  of section 9 of the Punjab Security  of  the        State Act, 1953 (Punjab Act XII of 1953), hereinafter called        "the Act".        The  appellants were members of the Amritsar District  Motor        Union  which  took out a procession on 23rd March,  1954  to        protest  against  the  policy of the  Punjab  Government  to        nationalise  motor transport.  The procession  started  from        Gul  Park  and was taken on lorries and jeeps.   It  stopped        near  Chitra  Talkies  and then started on  foot.   When  it        reached  near Prabhat Studio, the appellants raised  slogans        "Jaggu  mama  hai hai (Jaggu, maternal uncle be  dead)"  and        "Khachar  Khota  hai hai (mule-cum-donkey  be  dead)".   The        first  slogan was alleged to have been directed against  the        Hon’ble Shri Jagat Narain, Transport Minister, Punjab  State        and  the  second slogan against the Hon’ble  Shri  Bhim  Sen        Sachar, Chief Minister, Punjab State.  The uttering of these        slogans was considered objectionable and the appellants were        charged  in  the  Court  of  the  Magistrate,   First-Class,        Amritsar:-"that you, on or about the 23rd day of March  1954        at  Amritsar,  while being members of a  procession,  raised        slogans  "Jaggu mama hai hai" "Khachar Khota hai hai"  which        besides  being indecent amounted to defamation and was  pre-        judicial to the security of the State and the maintenance of        public  order  and thereby committed an  offence  punishable        under section 9 of the Security of the State Act".        The  appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be  tried.        They also led evidence in defence.  The learned  Magistrate,        however,   disbelieved  the  defence  and,   accepting   the        prosecution  evidence, found that the appellants  did  raise        these slogans.  In the opinion        478        of  the learned Magistrate, the slogans were in fact  abuses        hurled  at the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister  of        the Punjab Government which besides being indecent  amounted        to  defamation  and were prejudicial to the  maintenance  of        public order.        The  appeal  taken  by the appellants before  the  Court  of        Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, was unsuccessful.   The        learned  Additional  Sessions Judge also found  against  the        appellants  and  observed  that  the  slogans  were   highly        objectionable and they fell within the ambit of section 9 of        the  said Act, that by raising those slogans the  appellants        -undermined  the  public order as well as decency  and  they        also amounted to defamation.  He, therefore, maintained  the        conviction of the appellants and the sentences of 3  months’        rigorous imprisonment which had been imposed by the  learned        Magistrate upon them.        The appellants filed a Revision Application before the  High        Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla but the        same  was summarily dismissed by the learned Chief  Justice.        The appellants thereafter applied for and obtained from this        Court Special Leave to appeal and the appeal has accordingly        come on for hearing and final disposal before us.        On  the  evidence  on record, there is  no  doubt  that  the        appellants  were  members of the procession  and  did  utter        those  slogans against the Transport Minister and the  Chief        Minister of the Punjab Government,.  The question,  however,        remains  whether, in uttering these slogans, they  committed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

      an offence under section 9 of the Act.  Section 9 of the Act        reads as follows--        "9. Whoever-        (a)  makes any speech, or        (b)  by words, whether spoken or written, or        by  signs  or  by  visible  or  audible  representations  or        otherwise publishes any statement, rumour or report,        shall,   if  such  speech,  statement,  rumour   or   report        undermines  the  security of the State,  friendly  relations        with  foreign States, public order, decency or morality,  or        amounts to contempt of Court, defama-        479        tion or incitement to an offence prejudicial to the security        of the State or the maintenance of public order, or tends to        overthrow  the State, be punishable with imprisonment  which        may extend to three years or with fine or with both".        It  cannot  be denied that the appellants  by  words  spoken        published  statements in relation to the Transport  Minister        and  the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government.  A  futile        argument  was  advanced  before us by the  advocate  of  the        appellants that this condition was not satisfied but we need        not  pause to consider the same.  The sole question for  our        determination is whether such statements (1) undermined  the        security  of  the  State, friendly  relations  with  foreign        States, public order, decency or morality or (2) amounted to        contempt  of Court, defamation or incitement to  an  offence        prejudicial  to the security of the State or maintenance  of        public order, or (3) tended to overthrow the State.        The  appellants were no doubt affected by the policy of  the        Punjab  Government  to nationalise motor transport  and  the        Transport  Minister  and  the  Chief  Minister  were  really        responsible  for  sponsoring  that  policy.   Their  tirade,        therefore,  was against both these individuals and,  in  the        demonstration which the appellants held against that policy,        they  gave  vent to violent expressions of  opinion  against        them  and, in the slogans which they uttered,  used  expres-        sions which were certainly objectionable.  The slogan "Jaggu        mama hai hai" could be translated as "Jaggu, whose sister is        my  father’s wife is dead, woe betide him" and was  in  that        sense a vulgar abuse burled against the Transport  Minister.        The  slogan "Khachar khota hai hai" could be  translated  as        "mulecum-donkey is dead, woe betide him" and it was directed        against  the Hon’ble Shri Bhim Sen Sachar,  Chief  Minister,        Punjab  Government, whose name Sachar was  caricatured  into        khachar  being  mule  and was also combined  with  khota,  a        donkey.   This was again a vulgar abuse burled  against  the        Chief Minister, Punjab Government.        The appellants’ conduct in this behalf could not at        480        all  be  justified.  Whatever their grievances  against  the        Transport  Minister  and the Chief Minister  of  the  Punjab        Government  were, they were entitled to ventilate them in  a        decent  and  dignified manner and they  were  certainly  not        justified  in  hurling  such  vulgar  abuses  against  these        individuals  howsoever  prejudicial to the interest  of  the        appellants  the  policy  of  nationalised  motor   transport        sponsored by them might have been.  No decent citizen should        have  uttered  such slogans and the State  authorities  were        well   within  their  rights  in  proceeding   against   the        appellants.        The difficulty, however, in the way of the State authorities        is   that   they  misconceived  their   remedy.    Howsoever        provocative  and  indecent  or  unbefitting  a   responsible        citizen of the State the conduct of the appellants was,  the        charge  which  was levelled against the appellants  was  one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

      under section 9 of the Act and before the prosecution  could        succeed they bad not only to prove that what the  appellants        did  was against decency and was defamatory of  these  indi-        viduals  but also was such that it undermined public  order,        decency or morality or was tantamount to an incitement to an        offence prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.  The        learned counsel for the State very rightly conceded that the        statements  could not be said to undermine the  security  of        the State or friendly relations with foreign States nor  did        they  amount to contempt of Court or defamation  prejudicial        to the security of the State nor did they tend to  overthrow        the State.  Howsoever reprehensible these slogans were, they        certainly would not have that effect.  The only way in which        he  sought to bring these slogans uttered by the  appellants        within  the mischief of section 9 of the Act was  by  urging        before  us  that  the statements  undermined  public  order,        decency  or  morality and that they were  tantamount  to  an        incitement  to an offence prejudicial to the maintenance  of        public order.  In support of this contention be referred  us        to the evidence of Ram Rakha, P.W. 2, Sub-Inspector, C.I.D.,        who had accompanied the procession:-        "There was a sufficient, number of public men        481        there and they felt annoyed over these slogans.  The  police        had   sufficient   arrangements  and  had  there   been   no        arrangement  there  might have been a dispute".   There  was        also the evidence of Gurdit Singh, P. W. 3:        "There  were  many   other persons of the  public  with  the        procession.   People  took  these slogans  ill"  and  Sunder        Singh, P.W. 4:-        "There  were many other persons of the public.  The  slogans        had a bad effect on the public".        It  is  significant to observe that, in the  initial  report        made by the Sub-Inspector Ram Rakha as also the Diary Report        prepared  by  him, no mention had been made by  him  of  the        members  of  the  public  having  felt  annoyed  over  these        slogans.   The two other witnesses Gurdit Singh, P.W. 3  and        Sunder Singh, P.W. 4, were shown in their  cross-examination        to have been the associates of the police in the  investiga-        tions which they used to carry on and were not at all worthy        of credence.  These statements, therefore, in regard to  the        members of the public having felt annoyed over these slogans        uttered  by the appellants, were liable to be-  discredited.        Even  assuming  that  some members of  the  public  who  had        congregated  near the Prabhat Studio felt annoyed  at  these        slogans  and  took  them  ill it is  a  far  cry  from  that        annoyance  to  undermining of the public order,  decency  or        morality  or  incitement to an offence  prejudicial  to  the        maintenance  of public order.  The only offence  prejudicial        to the maintenance of public order which could be thought of        in  this  context was that of rioting and there is  not  the        slightest  evidence on record to justify an  inference  that        the  effect  of  the  utterance  of  these  slogans  by  the        appellants  against  the Transport Minister  and  the  Chief        Minister would, but for the police arrangements, have led to        the  undermining  of the public order or would have  led  to        rioting which would be certainly prejudicial to the mainten-        ance  of  public order.  Indecent and  vulgar  though  these        slogans were as directed against the Transport Minister  and        the  Chief Minister of the Punjab Government, the  utterance        thereof  by  the  appellants who were  the  members  of  the        procession protesting against        482        the  scheme  of  nationalised  motor  transport  was  hardly        calculated  to undermine decency or morality the  strata  of

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

      society  from which the appellants came being habituated  to        indulge  freely  in  such  vulgar  abuses  without  any  the        slightest effect on the persons hearing the same.        These  slogans  were certainly defamatory of  the  Transport        Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government but        the  redress  of  that  grievance  was  personal  to   these        individuals  and  the State authorities could not  take  the        cudgels  on their behalf by having recourse to section 9  of        the Act unless and until the defamation of these individuals        was prejudicial to the security of the State or the mainten-        ance  of  public order.  So far as  these  individuals  were        concerned,  they  did not take any notice  of  these  vulgar        abuses  and appeared to have considered the whole  thing  as        beneath  their  notice.  Their conduct in  this  behalf  was        consistent  with the best traditions of  democracy.   "Those        who  fill a public position must not be too thin skinned  in        reference to comments made upon them.  It would often happen        that observations would be made upon public ’men which  they        know  from  the bottom of their hearts were  undeserved  and        unjust;  yet  they  must bear with them  and  submit  to  be        misunderstood for a time" (Per Cockburn, C.J. in Seymour  v.        Butterworth(1) and gee the dicta of the Judges in R. v.  Sir        R.  Carden(2).   "Whoever fills a  public  position  renders        himself  open  thereto.   He  must accept  an  attack  as  a        necessary, though unpleasant, appendage to his office"  (Per        Bramwell, B., in Kelley v. Sherlock(3)).  Public men in such        positions  may as well think it worth their while to  ignore        such vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled against them rather        than give importance to the same by prosecuting the  persons        responsible for the same.        While commending thus the conduct of the Transport  Minister        and  the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government, we  cannot        help observing that the step        (1)  [  1862] 3 F. & F. 372, 376, 377; 176 E. R.  166,  168,        169.        (2) [1879] 5 Q B.D. 1.        (3) [1866] L.R. 1 Q B. 686, 689.        483        which  the State authorities took against the appellants  in        prosecuting them under section 9 of the Act was  unjustified        as  the slogans uttered by the appellants did not under  the        circumstances set out Above fall within the mischief of that        section.        Deprecating  as  we  do the conduct  of  the  appellants  in        uttering  these  slogans, we cannot help  feeling  that  the        prosecution has failed to establish that the appellants were        guilty of the offence with which they had been charged  with        the  result  that  the  appeal of  the  appellants  will  be        allowed,  their convictions and sentences passed  upon  them        will be set aside and they will be set at liberty forthwith.        We  only hope that the observations made by us here will  be        an  eyeopener to the appellants and they will  behave  them-        selves better in the future.