Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHAZI INAM NABI PARDESI VS Respondent: PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
P L D 1958 (W
P L D 1958 (W. P.) Karachi 202
Before G. B. Constantine, Inamullah and Qadeeruddin Ahmed, JJ
GHAZI INAM NABI PARDESI‑Petitioner
Versus
(1) PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and (2) THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, KARACHI----‑ Respondents
AND
NAZIR ALI‑Petitioner
Versus
(1) PAKISTAN and (2) Tt3E CHIEF COMMISSIONER, KARACHI‑Respondents
Criminal Petitions Nos. 34 and 35 of 1957, decided on 15th October 1957.
Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931), S. 4 (1) (d) ‑Impugned article to be read as a whole in fair, free and liberal spirit.
While considering whether the impugned article is within mischief of section 4 (1) (d) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act (XXIII of 1931) the article should be read as a whole in a fair, free and liberal spirit, not concentrating on isolated passages or words but endeavouring to grasp the theme and intention of the writer from the words employed, attempting to estimate at the same time the effect of those words and the manner of their employment upon the mind of the average reader.
The article in question purported to criticise the action of the Chief Commissioner, Karachi in arresting a person and some student leaders who had taken out a procession to express their feeling to the Government that the Kashmiris must be freed from the rule of the Dogra Bakhshi Government. The students who had taken out the procession demanded that a plebiscite must be held. The article also disclosed that the students were addressed by Education Minister and tried to make out that though the processionists remained peaceful some student leaders were arrested. The article concluded by stating that the Prime Minister had asked for an explanation from the Chief Commissioner in this connection.
Held, that the article could not be said to have the effect of exciting disaffection towards the Government and to bring it into hatred and contempt.
A mis‑statement o, a fact could not be a ground for holding, unless the article read as a whole had that effect, that it excited disaffection towards Government or brought it into hatred or contempt.
Malik Nasrullah Khan Aziz P L D 1950 Lah. 420 ref.
Mohsin Siddiqui for Petitioner.
M. A. Hamid for Respondents.
ORDER
INAMULLAH, J.‑This Special Bench has been constituted under section 24 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, to dispose of certain petitions which have been filed under section 23 of the said Act. I propose to dispose of two applications by this order, one preferred by Mr. Ghazi Inam Nabi Pardesi, publisher of the "Daily Nauroze" and the other by Mr. Nazir Ali, keeper of the Nazir Printing Press. These can be conveniently disposed of together, as the publisher of the Daily Nauroze was ordered to deposit security under section 7 (3) of the Press Act, 1931, for having published an article in his news‑paper, the Daily Nauroze, on 18th February 1957, under the heading "Pakistani Hukkam Ne Dogra Bakhshi Hakoomat Ko Shakist‑e‑Fash Dedi while the keeper of the Nazir Printing Press was ordered under section 8 of the said Act to forfeit the security deposited by him for having printed the said matter.
The Chief Commissioner, on 18th February 1957, passed two orders, one against the publisher and the other against the keeper of the Press under section 7 (3) and section 8 respectively, of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, on the ground that the article published and printed under the heading quoted above was "calculated to excite disaffec tion towards Government and to bring it into hatred and contempt". The order under section 7 (3) and section 8 of the Press Act contemplates that a newspaper must have published or printed any words, signs of visible repre sentations of the nature described in section 4 (1) of the Press Act, 1931. In the present case, a perusal of the two orders passed by the Chief Commissioner under sections 7 and 3 of the Press Act would show that the publisher and the printer are said to have violated the provision of clause (d) of section 4 (1) of the Press Act. To bring the article within this clause it must contain words which tend, directly or indirectly, to bring into hatred or contempt His Majesty or the Government established by law in the Provinces and the Capital of the Federation or the administration of justice in the Provinces and the Capital of the Federation or any class or section of His Majesty's subjects in the Provinces and the Capital of the Federation or to excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the said Government: Mr. Hamid, the learned advocate appearing for the. Government contended that the article impugned had a tendency as men tioned in clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Press Act, 1.931.
Explanations (2) and (3) of section 4 of the Press Act lay down that comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government or the administrative action of the Government could not be said to contravene clause (d), subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act. It would be useful to reproduce Explanations (2) and (3) of section 4, which read as under :‑
Explanation 2.‑Comments expressing disapprobation of the treasures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting of attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection shall not be deemed to be of the nature described to clause (d) of this subsection.
Explanation 3.‑Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection shall not be deemed to be of the nature described in clause (d) of this subsection".
The offending article has been translated into English. It is a short article. The article purports to criticise the action of the Chief Commissioner in arresting Mr. A. M. Qureshi, and some student leaders who had taken out a procession to express their feeling to the Government that the Kashmiris must be freed from the rule of the Dogra Bakhshi Government. The students who had taken out the procession demanded that a plebiscite must be held. The article also disclosed that the students were addressed by Mr. Zahiruddin, Educa tion Minister. The article tried to make out that though the processionists remained peaceful, Mr. Qureshi and some student leaders were arrested. The article concluded by stating that the Prime Minister had asked for an, explanation from the Chief Commissioner in this connection.
It is now well‑settled rule of interpretation in respect of an impugned article while considering whether the article falls within the mischief of the provisions, enumerated under clause (1) of section 4 of the Press Act, 1931, that the article should be read as a whole in a fair, free and liberal spirit, not concentrating on isolated passages or words but endea vouring to grasp the theme and intention of the writer A from the words he has employed, attempting to estimate at the same time the effect of those words and the manner of their employment upon the mind of the average reader. I have carefully read the whole of the article, and I am of the view that the article cannot be said to have the effect of exciting disaffection towards the Government and to bring B it into hatred and contempt. In this connection it isl noteworthy that Mr. Zahiruddin, Minister of Education has been praised while commenting upon the action of the Chief Commissioner. It is also stated in the article that the Prime Minister has asked for explanation from the Chief Commis sioner. If the Prime Minister is said to be, as alleged in this article, in sympathy with the view that has been advocated by the writer of the article, it cannot be said that the object of the article was to excite disaffection towards Government and to bring it into hatred and contempt. It is, no doubt, true, that the Chief Commissioner did not act in passing the order that he passed because of any personal enmity. Mr. Mohsin Siddiqui conceded on behalf of the petitioner that the Chief Commissioner has not acted because of any personal enmity. On a careful. consideration of facts, at best all that can be said is tha‑t the writer of the article had made a mis‑statement of certain facts, but that cannot be a c ground for holding unless the article read as a whole has this effect, that if it excites disaffection towards Government or brings it into hatred and contempt. It was observed by Rahman, J. in the case of Malik Nast ullah Khan Aziz (PLD 1950 Lah. 420) :‑
"It is irrelevant for the Court to consider whether the allegations made by the writer were strictly correct or not The only question for consideration in such cases is ~ whether the language employed by the writer came within the ambit of section 4 (1) of the Act. The motives of the writer would be immaterial".
I am of the view for the reasons given above that reading the article as a whole it does not fall within the ambit of section 4 (1) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931.
The order passed by the Chief Commissioner against the publisher and the keeper of the Press is hereby set aside. Considering the mis‑statement made by the writer of the article in respect of the Chief Commissioner, we would not make any order as to costs.
A. H. Order set aside.