# 392 NARAYAN DASS INDUllAKHYA v. STATE OF MADHYA PR \DESH

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 392
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-04-21
- **Bench:** P. Jaganmohan Reddy, G. K. Mitter
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/392-narayan-dass-indullakhya-v-state-of-madhya-pr-desh-5796
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law Amendment Act (23 of 1961), ss. 2 and 4(i)-'Stating
;the grounds of irs opinion', in s. 4(i)-Scope of.
The appellant published a book with respect to which the State Government passed an order that, as the bopk questions the rerritotial integrity and frontiers of India in a manner which is likely to be prejudicial
to the interest of the safety and security df India and thus contains matter
the publication of which is punishable under s. 2 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1961. it was forfeited in favour of the Government under
s. 4(1) of the Act. The appellant challenged the order under s .. 5, that
the grounds for the opinion of the State Government, which had to be
stated under s. 4 of the Act, were not given in the order. The State Go'-
emment filed a counter affidavit stating that the book contained erroneous
maps Of India with incorrect external boundaties and omitting integral
parts of India altogether. The High Court dismissed the petition.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : (lj The word 'ground' occurring in the section means 'base'.
'foundation, motive, valid reasons.'
The grounds must be distinguished
from the opinion df the Government. The grounds of the opinion must
mean the conclusion of facts on which the opinion is based. [396E-FJ
(21 What the State Government did in this case in the opening paragraph of the order, was merely to quote a portion of the words of s. 2,
pamely, that 'the book questioned the territorial integrity and frontiers of_
India in a manner which is likely to be prejudicial to th: mterest of the
safety or security of India'.
The order _gave no indication-of the facts
or tne statem!'Dts or the representatioru contained i!l the book which,
according to the State Government, offended s .. 2.
Jn the order itself
there was no reference to any map or text in the book which would come
within the mischief of the section. [396A-CJ
Mohomed A.Ii, In re: 41 Calcutta 466, Arun Ranjan Ghose v. State of
Weot Bengal, 59 C:W.N. 495, approved.
H~mam Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 487, Naresh
Cltondra Ganguli v. The State of West Bengal and orhers, (1960] 1 S.C.R.
411, 421, State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, [1951] S.C.R.
167, referred to.

## Text

:392
NARAYAN DASS INDUllAKHYA
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PR..\DESH
April 21, 1972
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]
Criminal Law Amendment Act (23 of 1961), ss. 2 and 4(i)-'Stating
;the grounds of irs opinion', in s. 4(i)-Scope of.
The appellant published a book with respect to which the State Government passed an order that, as the bopk questions the rerritotial integrity and frontiers of India in a manner which is likely to be prejudicial
to the interest of the safety and security df India and thus contains matter
the publication of which is punishable under s. 2 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1961. it was forfeited in favour of the Government under
s. 4(1) of the Act. The appellant challenged the order under s .. 5, that
the grounds for the opinion of the State Government, which had to be
stated under s. 4 of the Act, were not given in the order. The State Go'-
emment filed a counter affidavit stating that the book contained erroneous
maps Of India with incorrect external boundaties and omitting integral
parts of India altogether. The High Court dismissed the petition.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : (lj The word 'ground' occurring in the section means 'base'.
'foundation, motive, valid reasons.'
The grounds must be distinguished
from the opinion df the Government. The grounds of the opinion must
mean the conclusion of facts on which the opinion is based. [396E-FJ
(21 What the State Government did in this case in the opening paragraph of the order, was merely to quote a portion of the words of s. 2,
pamely, that 'the book questioned the territorial integrity and frontiers of_
India in a manner which is likely to be prejudicial to th: mterest of the
safety or security of India'.
The order _gave no indication-of the facts
or tne statem!'Dts or the representatioru contained i!l the book which,
according to the State Government, offended s .. 2.
Jn the order itself
there was no reference to any map or text in the book which would come
within the mischief of the section. [396A-CJ
Mohomed A.Ii, In re: 41 Calcutta 466, Arun Ranjan Ghose v. State of
Weot Bengal, 59 C:W.N. 495, approved.
H~mam Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 487, Naresh
Cltondra Ganguli v. The State of West Bengal and orhers, (1960] 1 S.C.R.
411, 421, State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya, [1951] S.C.R.
167, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No .
. 236 of 1969.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and Order dated
March 13, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 268 ol 1967.
Ram Punjwani and P. C. Bhartari, for the appellant.
R, P. Kapur·and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
r
R
NARAYAN DASS v. STATE (Mitter. J.)
313
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
llllMa, J.
This appeal by special leave from a judgment and
order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the writ
petition of the appellant challengjn~: ~he order of the State Government under s. 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act XXIII
of 1961 ) forfeitin2 the copies of a book published by the appellant
under s. 4(1) of the· Act, can be disposed of on the short ground
that the order did not disclose the grounds of the o~inion formed .
l>y the State Government.
The Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act, 1961
(hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act') empowered the State Governments by s. 4
to make order declaring any newspaper or book as defined in the
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 or any other document
wherever printed, to be forfeited to the Government if it appeared
to the Government that the said book etc. questioned the lerritorial
integrity or frontiers of India in a manner which was or was likely
to be prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India.
The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows :-
"S. 2; Whoever by words either spoken or written,
or by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise,
questions the territorial integrity or frontiers of India in
a manner which is, or is likely to be prejudicial to the
interests of the safety or security. of India, shall be puni•
sbable with imprisonment for a term which may ex:-
telld to three years, or with fine, or with both.
4. (1) Where any newspaper or book as r!efined in
the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, or any
other document, wherever prinled, appears to the State
Government to c.imtain any matter the publication of
which is punishable under section 2 or sub-section (2)
of section 3, the State Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, stating the grounds of its opinion,
declare every copy of the issm: of the newspaper containing such matter and every copy of such book or other
<locument to be forfeited to the Government, and there-
~pon any police officer may seize the same wherever
'. found and any Magistrate may, by warrant authorise any
police officer.not below the ran1< of Sub-Inspector to enter upon and search for the same in any premises where
any copy of such issue or any copy of such book or
other document may be or may be reasonably suspected
to be.
5. (1) Any person having any interest in any newspaper, book or other document in respect of which an
order of for,feituTe has been nia.de under section 4 may,
within two months from the date of such order, apply to
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973) 1 S.C.R.
the High Court to set aside such order on the ground that
the issue of the newspaper, or the book or other document
in respect of which the order was made did not contain
any matter of such a nature as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 4.
(2) The provisions of sections 99-C to 99-F of the
Code of Criminal P'rocedure, 1898, shall apply in relation to an application under sub-section (1) as they
apply in relation to an application under section 99-B of
that Code and the reference in section 99-D to seditious
or other matter of such a nature as is referred to in sub•
section(!) of section 99-A of that Code shall be construed
as reference to any matter of such a nature as is referred
to in sub-section (I) of section 4 of this Act.
( 3) No order passed or action taken under section
4 shall be called in question in any Court otherwise than
in accordance with the provisions of this section."
The appellant who was admittedly the proprietor of the Narmada
Printing Works, Jabalpur had published a book under the name
and style of "!11adhyamic Bhoogol (Part I for Classes IX and X)
written by C. P. Saxena. On 1st July, 1967 the State Government
passed the order which is impugned in this case :
"Whereas the books specified in the Schedule below
question the territorial integrity and frontiers of Indi~ :n
a manner which is likely to be prejudicial to the interest
of the safety and security of India;
And whereas it appears to the State Government that
the said three books contain matter the publication of
which is punishable under section 2 of die Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1961 (No. 23 of 1961);
Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act, the State
Government hereby declares every copy of the said three
books and all other documents containing copies, reprint
and reproduction of 'the said books to be forfeited · in
favour of the Government."
'.'fhe second item in the Schedul·~ relates to the appellant's publicat10n.
From the communication of the Deputy Secretary to the
Government of Madhya Pradesh dated 5th August 1967 it would
appear that the State Government took objection ~o pages 138,
147 and 149 of the said book as containing' wrong maps.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
B
F
I
G
H
NAR.\YAN DASS v. STATE (Miller, J.)
According to the said communication :
"These books contain maps of India, part of India,
maps of countries adjacent to India and maps of Asia.
All these maps involve the external boundary of India
which has been found to be grossly incorrect.
Besides
this, the island territories of 'Laccadive, Minicoy and
Aminc!ivi Islands' whkh form an integral part of India
are omitted together from every map o( India. In some
of the maps the territory of Bhutan has been omitted
whiie in other Inda-Pakistan boundary is ignored."
395
The communication refers not only to the publication with which
we are concerned in this case but also two other publications both
of which appear to be books on geography-for school students.
The appellant filed his writ petition on August 29, 1967 before
tr"~ High Court challen~ng ti\e order of the lst July 1967 inter
a/ia on the ground that the grounds for the opinion of the State
Government which had to be given in tJenns of s. 4 of the Act
were non-existent in the order.
He therefore filed the petition
within two months of the date of the order forfei1ting the book in
terms of s. 5 of the Act.
In the counter affidavit of the State the stand taken was that
the State Government was not bound to place details of infonnation on the basis of which its satisfaction was arrived at. Reference was however made in the counter affidavit ~o a communication of the Director of Map Publications to the Director of Public
Instruction dated 21st March 1967 in which it was stated with
regard to all the three alleged offencling books that :
"they contain maps of India, part of India, maps of
countries adjacent to India and maps of Asia. All these
maps involve the external boundary of India which has
been found to be grossly incorrect. Besides this, the
island territories of ··Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi
islands' which form an integral 1>art of India are omitted
together from every map of India. In some of ;he maps
the territory of Bhutan has been omitted while in other
Inda-Pakistan boundary is ignored."
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh -took the view that the
impugned order could not be said 'lo have omi'ted to state the
grounds for the opinion of the State Government. According to
the High Court :
"the grounds on which the said opinion was based
• were that the books contained matter which qu~stioned
the territorial integrity and frontiers of India in a manner which is likelv to be nreiudicial to the interest of the
saf0 tv and security of India."
r-Ll286Snp Cl/72
396
SUPP.EME COURT REPORTS
[ 1973] l S.C.R.
In our view the High Court had clearly gone wrong in tills
view of the law on the subject. According to the Oxford Dictionary
the meaning of the word 'ground' in this connection must be
"base, foundation, motive, valid reason." What the State Government did in this case in the opening paragraph of the order
was merely to quote a portion of the words of s. 2 namely, that
:he books "questioned the territorial integrity and frontiers of
India in a manner which is likely to be prejudicial to the mterest
of the safety or security of India". The order gives no indication
of the facts or the statements. or the representations contained in
the book which according to the State Government offended s. 2.
In the order itself there is no reference to any map or any text
in the book which would come within the mischief of the said section. A book may contain matter questioning the territorial integrity and frontiers of India ip many ways one of which may be a
wrong map which dqes not show the proper boundaries of India,
either by omitting a portion of the Indian territory therefiom or
by depicting a portion of what is really Indian territory as belonging to some other State. A book may also c0me within the mischief of s. 2 if there is any express reference in the text containing
suggesthns based on historical or political or other reasons that
some portion of what is generally known to the public as Indian
territory is not so.
There is a considerable body of statutory provisions which enable the State to curtail the liberty of the subject in the interest of
the security of the State or forfeit books and documents when
in the opinion of the Government, they promote class hatred, religious intolereilce, disaffection against the State etc. In all such
cases, instances of some whereof are given below the State Government has to give the grounds of its opinion.
Clearly the
grounds must be distinguished from the opinion. Grounds of the
opinion must mean the conclusion of facts on which the opinion
is based. There can be no conclusion of fact which has no reference to or is not ex facie based on any fact.
The provisions of the Act have a close parallel in s. 99,A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in which a large number
of matters are mentioned which according lo the Government may
lead it to form the opinion that the publication offended the said
section. There are also decisions under the Indian Press Act which
illu9trate what the g.rounds in a case like this must be.
In re.
Mahomed Ali(1), a case of an order of fotfeiture of a pamphlet
under the Press Act of 1910, the order of Government went to
show that the pamphlet "Come over to Macedonia and help us"
contained words of the nature described in s. 4 sub-s. (1) of the
(1) 41 Calcutta 466.
A
B
c
D
I!
F'
G
H
B
c
D
G
H
NARAYAN DASS v. STATE (Mitter, J.)
397
Indian Press Act, 1910 inasmuch as they are likely to bring into
hatred or contempt certain classes of His Majesty's subjects in
British India.
According to Jenkins C.J. (p. 476) :
"Those responsible for this Act foresaw this, ancl so
they specifically provided that the forfeiting notificat10n
should state the grounds of the Local Government's
opinion. But when we turn to the notihcation no such
grounds are stated; nothing in the nature of a fact is
set forth, there is merely a citMion of those words of the
section which are invoked ....
But the r~petition of an opinion cannot be its grounds,
and yet that is all that the notification furnishes in the
shape of grounds. This is obviously insufficient and not
a compliance with the terms of the Act."
According to the other learned Judge Stephen, J. (p. 4 8 7) :
"The ground of an opinion must in this case, it
not always, be a fact or facts, and no fact is disclosed
merely by a specific relation of the elements that the law
requires to be present in order for legal consequences to
follow."
In Arun Ranjan Ghose v. Stale oj' West Bengal(') a case under
ss. 99-A and 99-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was
stated by Chakravartti, C.J. (p. 497):
"It is useful to consider hem what is meant by grounds
of opinion. The formation of an opinion by Government is undoubtedly the ground for the action taken by
them, but the grounds for the opinion are obviously
different.
The opinion, after it has been formed, furnishes a irround to Govemm~nt for taking ac ion contemplated, but the grounds on which the opinion itself
is formed are and must be other grounds. Those grounds
must necessarily be the import or the effec;t or the tendency of matters contained in 1the offending publication,
either as a whole or in portions of it, as illustrated by
passages which Government may choose."
In Harnam Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh(') 1he order under
s. ~9-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was
made
went to show that the State Government declared the books forfeited on the ground that the said books con ained matter the publication of which was puni~hable under s. 153-A and 295-A of
the Penal Code. The two sections C>f the Indian Penal Code have
little in common inasmuch as s. 153-A relates to an offence of
(I) 59 C. W.N. 495.
(2) [1962] l S.C.R. 487.
398
SUPREME COUllT llEPORTll
[1973] 1 s.c.R.
promotion or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India and s.
295-A relates
to an offence mauciously intended to outrage .he religious foe!ings
of any such class by msultmg the religion or the religious belief
of tnat class.
The order wlllch was considered by tne court in
that case gave no indication which formed the reason for Government takin,g the view that the book should be forfeited. The Court
he1d that tne order did not as it should have stated the g··ounds of
opiruon. It is not known which communities were alienated from
each other or whose religious beliefs were wounded.
We may also refer to Art. 22(5) of the Constitution which
lays down that when any person is detained in pursuance of an
order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the
authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, conununicate
to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and
shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representa·
tion against the order. In considering the question as to what the
grounds of detention meant when an order under Preventive Detention Act was made this Court said in Naresh Chandra Ganguli .v.
The State of West Bengal & others(1):
" . . . the grounds for making an order of detention, which have. to be communicated to the detenu as
soon as practicable, are conclusions of fact'S, . . and
those conclusions of facts have to be communicated to
the detenu as soon as may be."
We may also refer to the judgment of this Court m State of
Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya('), a case under the Preventive Detention Act, 'J(ania C.J. said (p. 178) :
"By their very_ nature the grounds are conclusions of
facts and not a complete detailed recital of all the facts
. . . . These conclusions are the "grounds" and they
must be supplied."
All the above decisions in our opinion clearly show what the
requirements of the Criminal Law Amendment Act are and it appears to us that the State Government merely gave its opinion and
not the grounds for its opinion. As such the judgment of the High
Court must be set aside and the order of Government dated July
1, 1967 mttst be qu"'hed. The appellant will be entitled to rtlturn
of all the books forfeited.
V.P.S.
(l) [1960] I S.C.R. 411 at 421.
(2) [1951] S.C.R. 16?.
Appeal alluweJ.
A
c
E
'
G