Case: Kartar Singh &amp; Others Vs. The State Of Punjab

the State authorities is that they misconceived their remedy. However 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 under section 9 of the Act and before the prosecution could succeed they had not only to prove that what the appellants did was against decency and was defamatory of these individuals 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 statement 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 of 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 undermine 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 he 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 there and they felt annoyed over these slogans. The police had sufficient arrangement 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.11. 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 slogan. The two there withnesses 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 investigations 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 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 maintenance 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 the scheme of nationalised motor transport was hardly calculated to undermine decency or morality the strata of 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.12. 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 maintenance 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 file 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 underserved and unjust; yet they must bear with them and submit to be misunderstood for a time" (Per Cockburn, C. J. in Seymour v. Butterworth, (1862) 3 F and F 372 (376, 377) (A), and see the dicta of the Judges in R. v. Sir R. Carden (1879) 5 QBD 1(B)."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 (1866) 1 Q. B. 686 (689) (C) Public men in such position may as well think it worth their while to ignore such vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled against them rather than give an importance to the same by prosecuting the persons responsible for the same.13. While commending thus the conduct of the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government, we cannot help observing that the step 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]6. 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.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 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 expression of opinion against them and in the slogans which they uttered, used expressions which were certainlylearned counsel for the state very rightly conceded that the statement 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 of 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.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 slogan. The two there withnesses 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 investigations 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.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 maintenance of publicfar 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.13. While commending thus the conduct of the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government, we cannot help observing that the step 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.