(Lalai Singh Yadav)Ĭ) Mere repetition of an opinion or reproduction of the Section will not answer the requirement of a valid notification. Appendix cannot make up for grounds of opinion. (Harnam, Narayan Das, Lalai Singh Yadav) AJNī) A formal authoritative setting forth of the grounds is statutorily mandatory. “a) The Notification must state the grounds of the Government’s opinion. Before we deal with the rival contentions, it is necessary to deduce the legal principles from the above judgments.
The application is therefore dismissed.Īlso worth reproducing in full are the legal principles based on various case-laws that the judgment lays out, and then examines the current case on, before coming to the above conclusion:ģ3. In view of the above, in our considered opinion the State Government is justified in imposing a ban on the circulation of the book. We may also mention that at one point of time, when this was discussed, the author declined to excise the book.ĩ0. The contents are so interwoven that it is not possible to excise certain portions and permit circulation of the book. It is an aggravated form of criticism made with a malicious and deliberate intention to outrage the religious feelings of Muslims. The author has gone on to pass insulting comments on Islam, Muslim community with particular reference to Indian Muslims. But we have also held that the criticism of Islam is not academic. We have held that criticism of Islam is permissible like criticism of any other religion and the book cannot be banned on that ground.
The way this sensitive topic is handled by the author, it is likely to arouse the emotions or sensibilities of even strong minded people. The possibility of its falling in the hands of an inflammable mob cannot be ruled out.
The translation of the book is available. It is therefore, necessary to consider who will read the book.Ĩ9. It is true that whether the objectionable matter is meant for limited circulation, whether it is to cater to an ignorant, illiterate inflammable mob or educated people would be a relevant consideration and the effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable strong minded firm and courageous men and not those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. While the full judgement is 150-pages long, and I am yet to absorb its various ramifications, the concluding portion is worth reproducing:Ĩ8. sections 95 and 96, has upheld the Maharashtra government's ban on the circulation of the book ISLAM – A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims written by one R.V.Basin, Advocate Supreme Court of India. State of Maharashtra, that is bound to be hotly discussed and debated, and possibly appealed, the Bombay High Court in its special jurisdiction under Cr.PC.
In an important judgment on free speech, R.V.Bhasin v.