PETITIONER:
BABU RAO PATEL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF DELHI
DATE OF JUDGMENT21/02/1980
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
CITATION:
1980 AIR 763 1980 SCR (2)1082
1980 SCC (2) 402
ACT:
Penal Code, Section 153A(1), Scope of-Whether political
thesis or historical truth so presented be said to promote
feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different
religious groups or communities so as to attract the
provisions of Section 153A of the Code.
HEADNOTE:
Dismissing the appeals, by special leave the Court,
^
HELD: Section 153A(1) is not confined to the promotion
of feelings of enmity etc. on grounds of religion only, but
takes in promotion of such feelings on other grounds as well
such as race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or
community. [1083G]
In the instance case: Both the articles do promote
feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between the Hindu
and Muslim communities. [1086C]
(i)|The first article "A tale of two Communalisms"
is not even thinly veiled as a political thesis; it is an
undisguised attempt to promote feelings of enmity, hatred
and ill-will between the Hindu and the Muslim communities.
It is designed to fan the sparks of ill-will and hatred on
ground of community. The reference to the alleged Muslim
tradition of rape, loot, violence and murder and the alleged
terror struck into the hearts of Hindu minority in a
neighbouring country by periodical killings, in the context
of his thesis that communalism is the instrument of a
militant minority can lead to no other inference. [1084E-F]
(ii)|The second article 'Lingering disgrace of
history' goes further and is calculated to rouse feelings of
enmity, hatred and ill-will between Muslims and Hindus. It
was wrong to present the Moghuls as the ancestors of today's
Muslims and to willify the Muslims as the proud discendants
of the "foul" Moghuls. [1084G, 1086A, B, C]
Feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between
different religious groups or communities cannot be promoted
in the guise of political thesis of historical truth.
[1086C]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
237-238 of 1974.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 14-8-1973 of the Delhi High Court in Crl. Revision
Nos. 146 and 153 of 1971.
A. K. Sen, Gobind Das, A. N. Karkhanis, Sridharan and
Mrs. S. Bhandare for the Appellant.
H. S. Marwah and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
1083
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Can political thesis or historical
truth be so presented as to promote feelings of enmity,
hatred or ill-will between different religious groups or
communities, is the question which we are called upon to
answer in these two criminal appeals. The appellant in the
two criminal appeals is the editor, publisher and printer of
a monthly magazine going by the name ‘Mother India’. He
wrote two articles under the captions “A tale of two
communalisms” and “Lingering disgrace of history”. On
complaints filed by the Superintendent of Police, Delhi,
under section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, he was
convicted in respect of each of these articles in separate
cases and sentenced in each case to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine
of Rs. 1000/- by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Delhi. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi,
confirmed the conviction in both the cases but reduced the
sentence of fine to Rs. 500/- in each case. This was
confirmed by the High Court. The appellant has preferred
these appeals by Special Leave of this Court.
Shri A. K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that if the articles were read as a whole it would
be patent that the article “A tale of two communalisms” was
no more than a political thesis and the second article
“Lingering disgrace of history” was no more than a protest
based on historical truths against the naming of roads in
Delhi after Moghul emperors. He contended that neither
article contained any attack on any religion and, therefore,
there was no question of promoting and attempting to promote
feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different
religious groups on grounds or religion. The convictions
under section 153-A were, therefore, wrong, he submitted.
Section 153-A(1) (a) provides, “whoever by words,
either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible
representations or otherwise, promotes, or attempts to
promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,
residence, language, caste or community or any other ground
whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or
ill-will between different religious, racial language or
regional groups or castes or communities shall be punished
with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with
fine, or with both”. It is seen that s. 153A(1). (a) is not
confined to the promotion of feelings of enmity etc. on
grounds of religion only as argued by Shri Sen but takes in
promotion of such feelings on other grounds as well such as
race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or
community. In the present case we have to consider the
question whether the two articles promote on grounds of
religion or community, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-
will between different religious groups or communities.
1084
The first of the articles “A tale of two communalisms”
does begin as a sort of political thesis. According to the
author “communalism is an instrument of political
minorities”. His thesis is that militant minorities thrive
on communalism. If he wanted to develop his thesis on those
lines no-one could object. But, he referred to Muslims
generally as “a basically violent race” and went on to say
“communalism is, therefore, an instrument of a minority with
a racial tradition of rape, loot, violence and murder as is
found in India with a Muslim population of 12.7%. In
Pakistan the Hindu minority is 6.6% but because its racial
tradition is different it does not indulge in communal
riots…. Three essentials are necessary for violent
communalism. The community must be a minority, the minority
must be sizable and the minority must have a tradition of
murder and violence… We find these three essentials in the
Muslim community of India”. He then stated in the article
that in Pakistan and particularly in East Bengal peace
loving and terror struck Hindu minority was being eliminated
by periodical killing and conversions on a mass scale.
“Young Hindu males were compelled to undergo vasectomy
operations, young and pretty Hindu girls became the victims
of Islamic beds of lust”. It is then said “It is not in the
nature and religion of the Hindu of India to be intolerant
and blood-thirsty like the followers of Islam”. According to
him the only answer to the problem of communalism was to
declare India a Hindu State. In our opinion there cannot be
the slightest doubt that the article is not even thinly
veiled as a political thesis; it is an undisguised attempt
to promote feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between
the Hindu and the Muslim communities. It is designed to fan
the sparks of ill-will and hatred on ground of community.
The reference to the alleged Muslim tradition of rape, loot,
violence and murder and the alleged terror struck into the
hearts of Hindu minority in a neighbouring country by
periodical killings, in the context of his thesis that
communalism is the instrument of a militant minority can
lead to no other inference.
The second article ‘Lingering disgrace of history’ is
said to be a protest against the naming of Delhi roads after
the Moghul emperors who according to the author were lustful
perverts, rapists and murderers. According to the learned
counsel the attack was directed against the Moghul rulers
and not against the Muslims of India. It was also said that
all the statements in the article about the lusts and
perversions of the Moghul rulers were plain historical
truths. On a full reading of the article it reveals much
more than a protest against naming Delhi roads after Moghul
rapists and perverts. At one place it is said “From Mohammed
Ibn Qasim, who landed in India in June
1085
712 A.D. with 6000 Muslim cut-throats, to Mohomed Ali
Jinnah, who cut this ancient cradle of a peace-loving human
race into three bleeding bits in August, 1947, we have had
1235 years of bloodstained history in which our life has
been constantly punctuated by endless raids, rapes, loot,
arson and slaughter. In all these years Hindus have given
millions of men, women and children as hostages to Islam to
buy some peace and preserve their own religion. They are
still doing so. God alone knows how long this process of
paying and appeasing Muslims will go on but it cannot go on
for long if the family planning designs of the present
secular government succeed. Because then pretty soon there
would be no Hindu left to pay.
“It is difficult to predict the future of the ancient
Hindu race. It has no future at all in Pakistan where a
subtle and systematic genocide of the 10 million Hindus
there has now been undertaken at State level by enforcing
vasectomy operations on Hindu males and tubectomies on Hindu
females, and by raping women and converting young children
to Islam.
“But as long as the Hindu race lasts and survives in
India its only cradle and grave in the whole world, it will
be worthwhile setting before its children the ideals of its
numerous Hindu heroes and nation builders rather than
reminding them constantly of these Moghul brutes and tyrants
who burnt Hindu homes, ravished Hindu mothers and sisters,
slaughtered Hindu men and harassed and kidnapped and
converted Hindu children”.
After referring to various perversities and tyrannies
of the Moghul rulers ending with Aurangzeb, he said: “To
have a street named after this Mughal bastard in New Delhi,
the capital of India, is not only a disgrace to the Hindus
but a crying insult to the brave community of Sikhs. Had the
Muslims been insulted thus, they would not only have burnt
every house on the road named after the tyrant but also set
fire to the whole damned city. The Muslims know how to guard
their traditions”. He expressed the opinion that some of the
ancient relics that reminded Hindus of their shame and
disgrace made Muslims proud of the foul deeds of their
ancestors. He made an appeal that a beginning should be made
to wipe out ‘our thousand year old shame’ by changing the
“Muslim names of roads” which ‘remind us of the inhuman
atrocities committed on our men, women and children’. If the
Moghuls raped, looted, killed and sinned, the author’s view
appears to be that they did so as “Muslim sadists”. The
author goes so far as to say that today’s Muslims are proud
of the foul deeds of “their ancestors”, the Moghuls being
considered by the author as the progenitors
1086
of the present day Indian Muslims. There is no question that
the article is calculated to rouse feelings of enmity,
hatred and ill-will between Muslims and Hindus.
Whether communalism is the weapon of an aggressive and
militant minority as suggested by the accused or the “shield
of a nervous and fearful minority”, the problem of
communalism is not solved by castigating the members of the
minority community as intolerant and blood thirsty and a
community with a tradition of rape, loot, violence and
murder. Whether the Moghuls were rapists and murderers or
not and whether the Delhi roads should be named after them
or not it was wrong to present the Moghuls as the ancestors
of today’s Muslims and to villify the Muslims as the proud
descendants of the “foul” Moghuls. We are convinced that
both the articles do promote feelings of enmity, hatred and
ill-will between the Hindu and Muslim communities on grounds
of community and this cannot be done in the guise of
political thesis or historical truth. The appeals are
dismissed.
V.D.K. Appeals dismissed.
1087