ions Nos 95 and 96 of 1957
311 Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights
N C Chatterjee Charan Das Puri and Naunit Lal for the petitioners in both the petitions
C K Daphtary Solicitor General of India Lachman Das Kaushal Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab and T M Sen for the respondents
September 6
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS CJ
In these two petitions under article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioners call in question the validity of the Punjab Special Powers Press Act 1956 being Act No 38 of 1956 hereinafter referred to as  the impugned Act  and pray for an appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to withdraw the Notifications issued by them on the two petitioners as the editors printers and publishers of two newspapers Pratap and Vir Arjun
The Daily Pratap was started about 38 years back in Lahore the capital of the united Punjab
It is a daily newspaper printed in the Urdu language and script
Since the partition of the country the Daily Pratap is being published simultaneously from Jullundur and from New Delhi Vir Arjun is a Hindi daily newspaper also published simultaneously from Jullundur and from New Delhi
Virendra the petitioner in Petition No 95 of 1957 is the editor printer and publisher of the two papers published from Jullundur and K Narendra is the editor printer and publisher of the two papers published from New Delhi
The petitioners allege that after the appointment of the States Reorganisation Commission on December 29 1953 the Akali party in the Punjab started a campaign for the partition of the State of Punjab on communal and linguistic basis
According to the petitioners this agitation soon degenerated into a campaign of hatred which threatened the peace of the State
The petitioners maintain that the Hindu inhabitants of the State belonging to all shades of opinion and also a section of the Sikh community and 312 the Congress Party were strongly opposed to that proposal
It is in the circumstances reasonable to infer that the Hindus would also indulge in a counter propaganda in the Press and from the platform against the agitation started by the Akali party
It is admitted that the policy of these two papers the Daily Pratap and Vir Arjun has been to oppose the Akali demand for partition of the State of Punjab
Obviously a good deal of tension was generated in the State by reason of the two bitterly opposing parties trying to propagate their respective ideologies
About a year back the Congress Party which is the ruling party is said to have surrendered to the communal pressure of the Akalies and accepted what has since come to be known as the regional formula
It was amidst the din and bustle of this ideological war and to prevent and combat any possible activity prejudicial to the maintenance of communal harmony that the Legislature of the State of Punjab found it necessary to pass the impugned Act which received the assent of the President on October 19 1956 and came into force on the 25th of the same month
The provisions of the impugned Act in so far as they are material may now be referred to
Section 2 1 a runs as follows  21 The State Government or any authority so authorised in this behalf if satisfied that such action is necessary for the purpose of preventing or combating any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of communal harmony affecting or likely to affect public order may by order in writing addressed to a printer publisher or editor a prohibit the printing or publication in any document or any class of documents of any matter relating to a particular subject or class of subjects for a specified period or in a particular issue or issues of a newspaper or periodical Provided that no such order shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof Provided further that the person against whom the order has been made may within ten days of the 313 passing of this order make a representation to the State Government which may on consideration thereof modify confirm or rescind the order Section 21b authorises the State Government or any authority so authorised in this behalf to require that any matter covering not more than two columns be published in any particular issue or issues of a newspaper or periodical on payment of adequate remuneration and to specify the period not exceeding one week during which and the manner in which such publication shall take place
Clause c of section 21 authorises the State Government or the delegated authority to impose pre censorship
Sub section 2 of section 2 enables the State Government or the authority issuing the order in the event of any disobedience of an order made under section 2 to order the seizure of all copies of any publication and of the printing press or other instrument or apparatus used in the publication
Section 31 runs as follows  The State Government or any authority authorised by it in this behalf if satisfied that such action is necessary for the purpose of preventing or combating any activity prejudical to the maintenance of communal harmony affecting or likely to affect public order may by notification prohibit the bringing into Punjab of any newspaper periodical leaflet or other publication
 Sub section 2 of section 3 gives power to the State Government or the authority issuing the order in the event of any disobedience of an order made under section 3 to order the seizure of all copies of any newspaper periodical leaflet or other publication concerned
Section 4 provides punishment for the contravention of any of the provisions of the Act by imprisonment of either description which may extend to one year or with fine up to one thousand rupees or with both
It appears that on or about May 30 1957 a movement known as the save Hindi agitation  was started by a Samiti which goes by the name of Hindi Raksha Samiti
The Arya Samaj which claims to be a cultural and religious society joined this campaign 314 for changing what they conceive to be the objectionable features of the regional formula and the Sachar formula on language
According to the petitioners the Hindi Raksha Samiti the sponsor of the  save Hindi agitation  claims that it has the support of practically all sections of the Hindus of the State
The petitioners who are the editors printers and publishers of the two newspapers published simultaneously from Jullunder and New Delhi respectively consider that the objectionable clauses of those formulae are not only unjust and unfair to the cause of propagating that national language in the country but are also a contrivance to secure the political domination of the minority community over the majority
Admittedly the petitioners have been publishing criticisms and news concerning the agitation which according to them are quite fair and legitimate but they allege that newspapers like Prabhat and Ajit which support the Akali party in the State have been publishing articles and news couched in a strong and violent language against the  save Hindi agitation  and the Hindu community
The agitation apparently followed the usual course and pattern of all political agitation of this kind with its attendant demonstrations slogans and satyagraha by the volunteers and lathi charge by the police
Eventually on July 10 1957 the agitation culminated in the  save Hindi agitation  volunteers  forcible entry into the Secretariat of the Punjab Government at Chandigarh
It was in these circumstances that the four Notifications complained of were issued
On July 13 1957 a Notification under section 21a of the impugned Act was issued against the petitioner Virendra as the editor printer and publisher of the Daily Pratap published from Jullundar
It was in the following terms  Whereas 1 Ranbir Singh Home Secretary Punjab Government authorised by the said Government under section 21 of the Punjab Special Powers Press Act 1956 on examination of the publications enumerated in the annexure relating to the  save Hindi agitation  have satisfied myself that action is 315 necessary for combating the calculated and persistent propaganda carried on in the newspaper the Pratap  published at Jullundar to disturb communal harmony in the State of Punjab And whereas the said propaganda by making an appeal to communal sentiments has created a situation which is likely to affect public order and tranquillity in the State  And therefore in pursuance of the powers conferred under sub clause a of clause 1 of section 2 of the said Act 1 prohibit Shri Virendra the printer publisher and the editor of Pratap  from printing and publishing any article report news item letter or any other material of any character whatso ever relating to or connected with save Hindi agitation for a period of two months from this date
Sd Rome Secretary to Government Punjab
No 8472 CH 5714679  The annexure referred to in the Notifications sets out the headings of fifteen several articles published in this paper between May 30 1957 to July 8 1957
Another Notification in identical terms with an annexure setting forth the heading of sixteen articles published during the same period in Vir Arjun was issued on the same day against Virendra as the editor printer and publisher of Vir Arjun published from Jullundar
On July 14 1957 two Notifications in identical terms were issued under section 3 of the impugned Act against K Narendra as the editor printer and publisher of Daily Pratap and Vir Arjun published from New Delhi
It will suffice to set out the Notification in respect of Daily Pratap which ran as follows Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary Published by Authority Chandigarh Sunday July 14 1957
Home Department Notification The 14th July 1957 41 316 No 8453 CH 5714580 Whereas 1 Ranbir Singh Home Secretary to Government Punjab authorised by the said Government under section 3 of the Punjab Special Powers Press Act 1956 have satisfied myself that it is necessary to combat and prevent the propaganda relating to  save Hindi agitation  carried on in the Pratap with the object of disturbing communal harmony in the State of Punjab and thereby affecting public order Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by section 31 of the said Act I do hereby prohibit the bringing into Punjab of the newspaper printed and published at Delhi from the date of publication of this notification
 The petitioners contend that both sections 2 and 3 of the impugned Act are ultra vires the State Legislature because they infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed by articles 191a and 191g of the Constitution and are not saved by the protecting provisions embodied in article 192 or article 196
In the first place it is contended that these sections impose not merely restrictions on but total prohibition against the exercise of the said fundamental rights for in the case of the Notifications under section 2 there is a total prohibition against the publication of all matters  relating to or in connection with the  save Hindi agitation  and in the case of the Notifications made under section 3 there is a complete prohibition against the entry and the circulation of the papers published from New Delhi in the whole of Punjab
There is and can be no dispute that the right to freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to propagate and circulate one s views and opinions subject to reasonable restrictions
The point to be kept in view is that the several rights of freedom guaranteed to the citizens by article 191 are exercisable by them throughout and in all parts of the territory of India
The Notifications under section 21a prohibiting the printing and publishing of any article report news item letter or any other material of any character whatsoever relating to or connected with  save Hindi agitation  or those under section 31 imposing a ban against the entry 317 and the circulation of the said papers published from New Delhi in the State of Punjab do not obviously take away the entire right for the petitioners are yet at liberty to print and publish all other matters and are free to circulate the papers in all other parts of the territory of India
The restrictions so far as they extend are certainly complete but whether they amount to a total prohibition of the exercise of the fundamental rights must be judged by reference to the ambit of the rights and so judged there can be no question that the entire rights under articles 191a and 191g have not been completely taken away but restrictions have been imposed upon the exercise of those rights with reference to the publication of only articles etcrelating to a particular topic and with reference to the circulation of the papers only in a particular territory and therefore it is not right to say that these sections have imposed a total prohibition upon the exercise of those fundamental rights
Learned counsel then urges that assuming these sections impose only restrictions they are nevertheless void as being repugnant to the Constitution because the restrictions are not reasonable
As regards the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by article 191a it is qualified by article 192 which protects a law in so far as it imposes reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right conferred by article 191a in the interests of       public order  
Likewise the right to carry on any occupation trade or business guaranteed by article 191g is out down by article 196 which protects a law imposing in the interests of the general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by article 191g
As has been explained by this Court in Ramji Lal Modi vs The State of U P 1 the words  in the interests of  are words of great amplitude and are much wider than the words  for the maintenance of 
The expression  in the interest of  makes the ambit of the protection very wide for a law may not have been designed to directly maintain the public order or to directly protect the general public against any particular evil and yet it 1 Petition No 252 of 1955 decided on April 5 1957
318 may have been enacted in the interests of  the public order or the general public as the case may be
It is against this background therefore that we are to see whether the restrictions imposed by sections 2 and 3 can be said to be reasonable restrictions within the meaning of articles 192 and 196
The test of reasonableness has been laid down by this Court in The State of Madras vs V G Row 1 in the following words  It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness wherever prescribed should be applied to each individual statute impugned and no abstract standard or general pattern of reason ableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases
The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby the disproportion of the imposition the prevailing conditions at the time should all enter into the judicial verdict
This dictum has been adopted and applied by this Court in several subsequent cases
The surrounding circumstances in which the impugned law came to be enacted the underlying purpose of the enactment and the extent and the urgency of the evil sought to be remedied have already been adverted to
It cannot be overlooked that the Press is a mighty institution wielding enormous powers which are expected to be exercised for the protection and the good of the people but which may conceivably be abused and exercised for anti social purposes by exciting the passions and prejudices of a section of the people against another section and thereby disturbing the public order and tranquillity or in support of a policy which may be of a subversive character
The powerful influence of the newspapers for good or evil on the minds of the readers the wide sweep of their reach the modern facilities for their swift circulation to territories distant and near must all enter into the judicial verdict and the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed upon 1  607 319 the Press has to be tested against this background
It is certainly a serious encroachment on the valuable and cherished right to freedom of speech and expression if a newspaper is prevented from publishing its own views or the views of its correspondent relating to or concerning what may be the burning topic of the day
Our social interest ordinarily demands the free propagation and interchange of views but circumstances may arise when the social interest in public order may require a reasonable subordination of the social interest in free speech and expression to the needs of our social interest in public order
Our Constitution recognises this necessity and has attempted to strike a balance between the two social interests
It permits the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of public order and on the freedom of carrying on trade or business in the interest of the general public
Therefore the crucial question must always be  Are the restrictions imposed on the exercise of the rights under articles 19 1 a and 19 1 g reasonable in view of all the surrounding circumstances  In other words are the restrictions reasonably necessary in the interest of public order under article 192 or in the interest of the general public under article 196  It is conceded that a serious tension had arisen between the Hindus and the Akalis over the question of the partition of the State on linguistic and communal basis
The people were divided into two warring groups one supporting the agitation and the other opposing it
The agitation and the counter agitation were being carried on in the Press and from the platforms
Quite conceivably this agitation might at any time assume a nasty communal turn and flare up into a communal frenzy and factious fight disturbing the public order of the State which is on the border of a foreign State and where consequently the public order and tranquillity were and are essential in the interest of the safety of the State
It was for preserving the safety of the State and for maintaining the public order that the Legislature enacted this impugned Statute
Legislature had to ask itself the question who will be 320 the appropriate authority to determine at any given point of time as to whether the prevailing cicumstances require some restriction to be placed on the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to carry on any occupation trade or business and to what extent The answer was obvious namely that as the State Government was charged with the preservation of law and order in the State as it alone was in possession of all material facts it would be the beat authority to investigate the circumstances and assess the urgency of the situation that might arise and to make up its mind whether any and if so
 what anticipatory action must be taken for the prevention of the threatened or anticipated breach of the peace The court is wholly unsuited to gauge the seriousness of the situation for it cannot be in possession of materials which are available only to the executive Government
Therefore the determination of the time when and the extent to which restrictions should be imposed on the Press must of necessity be left to the judgment and discretion of the State Government and that is exactly what the Legislature did by passing the statute
It gave wide powers to the State Government or the authority to whom it might delegate the same to be exercised only if it were satisfied as to the things mentioned in the two sections
The conferment of such wide powers to be exercised on the subjective satisfaction of the Government or its delegate as to the necessity for its exercise for the purpose of preventing or combating any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of communal harmony affecting or likely to affect public order cannot in view of the surrounding circumstances and tension brought about or aided by the agitation in the Press be regarded as anything but the imposition of permissible reasonable restrictions on the two fundamental rights
Quick decision and swift and effective action must be of the essence of those powers and the exercise of it must therefore be left to the subjective satisfaction of the Government charged with the duty of maintaining law and order
To make the exercise of these powers justiciable and subject to the judicial scrutiny will defeat the very purpose of the enactment
Even in his dissenting judgment in Dr N B Khare vs The State of Delhi 1 Mukherjea J conceded that in cases of this description certain authorities could be invested with power to make initial orders on their own satisfaction and not on materials which satisfy certain objective tests
It is said that the sections give unfettered and uncontrolled discretion to the State Government or to the officer authorised by it in the exercise of the drastic powers given by the sections
We are referred to the observations of Mukherjea J in Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain vs The State of Uttar Pradesh 2
That case does not seem to us to have any application to the facts of this case  In the first place the discretion is given in the first instance to the State Government itself and not to a very subordinate officer like the licensing officer as was done in Dwaraka Prasad s case supra
It is true that the State Government may delegate the power to any officer or person but the fact that the power of delegation is to be exercised by the State Government itself is some safeguard against the abuse of this power of delegation
That apart it will be remembered that the Uttar Pradesh Coal Control Order 1953 with reference to which the observations were made prescribed no principles and gave no guidance in the matter of the exercise of the power
There was nothing in that order to indicate the purpose for which and the circumstances under which the licensing authority could grant or refuse to grant renew or refuse to renew or suspend revoke cancel or modify any license under that order and therefore the power could be exercised by any person to whom the State Coal Controller might have chosen to delegate the same
No rules had been framed and no directions had been given on the relevant matters to regulate or to guide the exercise of the discretion of the licensing officer
That cannot in our judgment be said about section 2 or section 3 of the impugned Act for the exercise of the power under either of these two sections is conditioned by the State Government or the authority authorised by the said Government being satisfied that such 1 2  813
322 action was necessary for the purpose of preventing or combating any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of communal harmony affecting or likely to affect the public order
As explained by this Court in Harishankar Bagla vs The State of Madhya Pradesh1 the dictum of Mukherjea J can have no application to a law which sets out its underlying policy so that the order to be made under the law is to be governed by that policy and the discretion given to the authority is to be exercised in such a way as to effectuate that policy and the conferment of such a discretion so regulated cannot be called invalid
The two sections before us lay down the principle that the State Government or the delegated authority can exercise the power only if it is satisfied that its exercise is necessary for the purposes mentioned in the sections
It cannot be exercised for any other purposes
In this view of the matter neither of these sections can be questioned on the ground that they give unfettered and uncontrolled discretion to the State Government or one executive officer in the exercise of discretionary powers given by the section
It is next said that an executive officer may untruthfully say as a matter of form that he has been satisfied and there is nothing in the section which may prevent him from abusing the power so conferred by these sections
But as pointed out in Khare s case supra the exercise of a discretionary preventive power to be exercised in anticipation for preventing a breach of public order must necessarily be left to the State Government or its officers to whom the State Government may delegate the authority
No assumption ought to be made that the State Government or the authority will abuse its power
To make the exercise of the power justiciable will defeat the very purpose for which the power is given
Further even if the officer may conceivably abuse the power what will be struck down is not the statute but the abuse of power
Reference has been made to the principles enunciated by this Court in Ramesh Thappar vs The State Of 1  386 387
323 Madras 1 and applied in Chintaman Rao vs The State of Madhya Pradesh2 namely that if the language employed in the impugned law is wide enough to cover restriction both within and outside the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting the guaranteed fundamental rights and so long as the possibility of the statute being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution cannot be ruled out the sections must be struck down as ultra vires the Constitution
We do not think those principles have any applications the instant case
It will be remembered that Art192 as it was then worded gave protection to a law relating to any matter which under mined the security of or tended to overthrow the State
Section 91 A of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order was made for the purpose of securing public safety and the maintenance of public order
It was pointed out that whatever end the impugned Act might have been intended to subserve and whatever aim its framers might have had in view its application and scope could not in the absence of limiting words in the statute itself be restricted to the aggravated form of activities which were calculated to endanger the security of the State
Nor was there any guarantee that those officers who exercised the power under the Act would in using them discriminate between those who acted prejudicially to the security of the State and those who did not
This consideration cannot apply to the case now under consideration
Article 192 has been amended so as to extend its protection to a law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order and the language used in the two sections of the impugned Act quite clearly and explicitly limits the exercise of the powers conferred by them to the purposes specifically mentioned in the sections and to no other purpose
Apart from the limitations and conditions for the exercise of the powers contained in the body of the two sections as hereinbefore mentioned there are two provisos to section 21a which are important
Under the first proviso the orders made under section 21a can only remain 1  42 2  324 in force for two months from the making thereof
Further there is another proviso permitting the aggrieved person to make a representation to the State Government which may on consideration thereof modify confirm or rescind the order
A power the exercise of which is conditioned by the positive requirement of the existence of the satisfaction of the authority as to the necessity for making the order for the specific purposes mentioned in the section and the effect of the exercise of which is to remain in operation for a limited period only and is liable to be modified or rescinded upon a representation being made cannot in our opinion in view of the attending circumstances be characterised as unreasonable and outside the protection given by article 192 or article 196
Under elb of sub section1 of section 2 also there are several conditions namely that the matter required to be published must not be more than two columns that adquate remuneration must be paid for such publication and that such requirement cannot prevail for more than one week
A consideration of these safeguards must in our opinion have an important bearing in determining the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by section 2
The prevailing circumstances which led to the passing of the statute the urgency and extent of the evil of communal antagonism and hatred which must be combated and prevented the facility with which the evil might be aggravated by partisan news and views published in daily newspapers having large circulation and the conditions imposed by the section itself on the exercise of the power conferred by it must all be taken into consideration in judging the reasonableness or otherwise of the law and so judged section 2 must be held to have imposed reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights guaranteed by articles 191a and 191g in the interest of public order and of the general public and is protected by articles 192 and 196
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Virendra also maintains that assuming that section 21a is valid the Notifications actually issued thereunder are much too wide in language and cannot be supported
The 325 operative part of the Notification prevents the petitioner from publishing any article news item letter or any other matter of any character whatsoever relating to or connected with the save Hindi agitation
It is said that the petitioner cannot even publish a report or a letter from a correspondent against the it save Hindi agitation 
It cannot publish a report of the statement made on the floor of the House by the Prime Minister deprecating the  save Hindi agitation 
This argument appears to us to have no real substance
If the section is good and that is what we hold it to be and that is what for the purposes of this part of the argument learned counsel is prepared to assume then the section has conferred on the State Government this power to be exercised if it is satisfied as to the necessity for its exercise for the purposes mentioned in the section
In other words the exercise of the power is made dependent on the subjective satisfaction of the State Government or its delegate
If the State Government or its delegate is satisfied that for the purposes of achieving the specified objects it is necessary to prohibit the publication of any matter relating to the  save Hindi agitation  then for the court to say that so much restriction is not necessary to achieve those objects is only to substitute its own satisfaction for that of the State Government or its delegate
The authority before making the order had applied its mind and had made its estimate of the general trend of the policy of these papers and their possible reactions and had formed its satisfaction as to the necessity for making the orders founded on the several articles published in these papers between May 30 1957 and July 8 1957 wherein the petitioner had systematically published matters in support of the agitation and its disapproval of everything which might run counter to that agitation
It is admitted that the policy of the papers is to support the  save Hindi agitation 
Therefore a grievance that the papers are not allowed even to publish anything against the agitation sounds hollow wholly unconvincing and of no substance at all
It may not be unreasonable for the Government to hold the opinion in 326 view of the antecedents and policy of these papers that they will not publish any news or views running counter to their policy without adverse comments
Further if there happens to be a change in their policy there will be nothing to prevent the petitioner from making a representation to the State Government asking it to modify its Notifications
In our view having regard to the body of section 21a and the two provisos thereto namely the conditions as to the satisfaction of the authority in respect of certain matters specified in the section the time limit as to the efficacy of the Notifications and the right to make a representation given to the aggrieved party makes this grievance wholly illusory
It is said that the Notifications should have been qualified so as to prohibit the publication of any matter relating to the  save Hindi agitation  which was likely to prejudicially affect the public order
Suppose such a qualification had been super added then there should be somebody who would have to judge whether any given publication did or did not affect the public order
If the editor claimed that it did not but the State held that it did who would decide and when  It would obviously be the court then which would have to decide whether the publication was likely to prejudicially affect the public order
If the Government exercised the power of seizure to stop the circulation of the offending issue then it would do so at the risk of having to satisfy the court that for preventing the public order being prejudicially affected it was necessary to stop such circulation
That would be the issue before the court
Likewise if the Government launched a prosecution under section 4 then also the issue would be the same
That would obviously defeat the very purpose of the section itself which for this argument is accepted as valid
Thequestion of the necessity for the exercise of the power for the purpose of achieving the specified objects is having regard to the very nature of the thing and the surrounding circumstances left by the section entirely to the subjective satisfaction of the Government and if the Government exercises that power after being 327 satisfied that it is necessary so to do for the purposes mentioned in the section and if the Notification is within the section in the sense that it directs or prohibits the doing of something which the section itself authorises the Government to direct or prohibit then nothing further remains to be considered
The  only issue that can then arise will be whether the Notification has been complied with and the court will only have to decide whether there has been a contravention of the Notification
To introduce the suggested qualification in the Notification will be to make the exercise of the power which is by the section left to the subjective satisfaction of the Government dependent on an objective test subject to judicial scrutiny
That as we have explained will defeat the very purpose of the section itself
It is lastly contended that the impugned Notifications have been made mala fide in order only to suppress legitimate criticisms and fair comments on public affairs
We have perused the articles annexed to the affidavit in opposition and referred to in the Notifications themselves and we are not satisfied that no reasonable person reading those articles could entertain the opinion and feel satisfied that it was necessary to make the order for the purposes mentioned in the section
We are unable to hold on the materials before us that the Notifications issued under s2 were mala fide
The observations hereinbefore made as to the safeguards set forth in the provisions of section 21a and b cannot however apply to the provisions of section 3
Although the exercise of the powers under section 31 is subject to the same condition as to the satisfaction of the State Government or its delegate as is mentioned in section 21a there is however no time limit for the operation of an order made under this section nor is there any provision made for any representation being made to the State Government
The absence of these safeguards in section 3 clearly makes its provisions unreasonable and the learned Solicitor General obviously felt some difficulty in supporting the validity of this 328 section
It is surprising how in the same statute the two sections came to be worded differently
For reasons stated above petition No 95 of 1957 Virendra vs The State of Punjab which impugns the Notifications issued under section 21a must be dismissed and petition No 96 of 1957 K Narendra vs The State of Pun ab which challenges section 3 must be allowed
In the circumstances of these cases we make no order as to the costs of these applications
Petition No 95 of 1957 dismissed
Petition No 96 of 1957 allowed


Summary:
These two petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the Punjab Special Powers Press Act 1956 No 38 of 1956 passed by the State Legislature in the wake of the serious communal tension that had arisen between the Hindus and the Akali Sikhs over the question of the partition of the State on a linguistic and communal basis
The petitioners were the editors printers and publishers respectively of the two daily newspapers Pratap and Vir Arjun printed and published simultaneously from jullundur and New Delhi whose admitted policy was to support the Save Hindi agitation
Two notifications under section 21a of the impugned Act were issued against the editor printer and publisher of the two papers published from Jullundur by the Home Secretary prohibiting him from printing and publishing any matter relating to the Save Hindi agitation  in the two papers for a period of two months
Two other notifications in identical terms were issued under section 31 of the impugned Act against the other petitioner the editor printer and publisher of the two papers in New Delhi prohibiting him from bringing into the Punjab the newspapers printed and published in
New Delhi from the date of the publication of the notifications
Unlike section 21 of the impugned Act which provided a time limit for the operation of an order made thereunder as also for a representation to be made by the aggrieved person section 3 of the Act made no such provision
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that both the sections were ultra vires the State Legislature inasmuch as they infringed articles 191a and 191g of the Constitution and were not saved by articles 192 and 196 of the Constitution
It was urged that the sections imposed not merely restrictions but a total prohibition against the exercise of the said fundamental rights by prohibiting the publication of all matters relating to the Save Hindi agitation  under section 21a and by a complete prohibition of the entry of the two papers into the whole of the Punjab under section 31 of the Act that even supposing 309 that the sections merely imposed restrictions and not a total prohibition the restrictions were not reasonable that the sections gave unfettered and uncontrolled discretion to the State Government and its delegate that the Act did not provide for any safeguard against an abuse of the power that the language of the sections being wide enough to cover restrictions both within and cutside the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action they were ultra vires the Constitution and that the notification under section 21a of the Act as made would prevent even the publication of anything against the Save Hindi agitation  and should have been restricted to such matters alone as were likely to prejudicially affect the public order
Held that the restrictions imposed by section 21a of the impugned Act were reasonable restrictions within the meaning of article 192 of the Constitution and the petition directed against the notifications issued thereunder must fail but since section 3 Of the Act did not provide for any time limit for the operation of an order made thereunder nor for a representation by the aggrieved party to the State Government the restrictions imposed by it were not reasonable restrictions under article 196 of the Constitution and the petition directed against the notifications made thereunder must succeed
Held further that there can be no doubt that the right of freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to propagate one s views and the several rights of freedom guaranteed by article 191 of the Constitution are exercisable throughout India but whether or not any restrictions put on those rights amount to a total prohibition of the exercise of such rights must be judged by reference to their ambit
So judged the restrictions imposed in the instant cases with regard to the publications relating to only one topic and the circulation of the papers only in a particular territory could not amount to a total prohibition of the exercise of the fundamental rights
The expression in the interest of in articles 192 and 196 of the Constitution makes the protection they afford very wide and although free propagation and interchange of views are ordinarily in social interest circumstances may arise when social interest in public order is greater and the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression and on the freedom of carrying on trade or business becomes imperative
Regard being had to the surrounding circumstances in which the impugned Act was passed its object the extent and urgency of the evil it sought to remedy and the enormous power wielded by the Press with modern facilities of quick circulation and the consequence that any abuse of it might lead to the restrictions imposed by the impugned Act must be held to be reasonable restrictions under the Articles
The State of Madras vs V G Row   followed
310 It was only in the fitness of things that the State Legislature should have left the wide preventive powers under the sections to the discretion of the State Government charged with the maintenance of law and order or to its delegate to be exercised on their subjective satisfaction
To make the exercise of these powers justiciable and subject to judicial scrutiny would be to defeat the purpose of the enactment
Dr N B Khare vs The State of Delhi   referred to
But such discretion was by no means unfettered and uncontrolled
The two sections laid down the principle that the State Government or its delegate could exercise such powers only if they were satisfied that such exercise was necessary for the purpose mentioned in the sections and not otherwise
Where there was any abuse of such powers therefore what could be struck down was the abuse itself but not the statute
Dwaraka Prasad Laxmi Nayain vs The State of Uttar Pradesh   held inapplicable
Harishankar Bagla vs The State of Madhya Pradesh  relied on
In view of the amended provisions of article 192 of the Constitution and the language of the two sections limiting the exercise of the powers to the purposes specifically mentioned therein the principles enunciated by this Court in Ramesh Thappay s case and applied to Chintaman Rao s case could have no application to the instant cases
Ramesh Thappay vs The State of Madras  and Chintaman Rao vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 1950 SC R 759 held inapplicable
The two provisos to section 21a and cl
b of section 21 clearly show that the restrictions imposed by section 2 are reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights guaranteed by articles 191a and 191g and are therefore protected by articles 92 and 196 of the Constitution
There could be no basis for the grievance that the notifica tion under section 21a prevented the publication even of matters against the Save Hindi agitation 
If there was a change in the policy of the papers the time limit provided for the operation of the notifications and the right to make a representation provided ample remedies for the petitioner
To introduce into the notifications the suggested qualification would be to make the exercise of the powers conferred by the section dependent on an objective test subject to judicial scrutiny and defeat the very purpose of the section