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

2. 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 Gal 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 Honble Shri Jagat Narain, Transport Minister, Punjab State and the second slogan against the Honble Shri Bhim 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 Amritsaryou, 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 prejudicial 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 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 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 Applications 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.

Reasoning:
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.