| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 4023 = 1957 SLD 4023 = 1957 PLD 537 |
Supreme Court of India
Petition No. 252 of 1956, decided on 5th April 1957.
Presented By: S. R. Das, C. J., Imam, S. R. Das, Menon and Sarkar, J
Veda Vyasa, Senior Advocate (S. K. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, Advocates with him) for Petitioner. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, Advocates for
Respondent.
Petition No. 252 of 1956, decided on 5th April 1957.
Presented By: S. R. Das, C. J., Imam, S. R. Das, Menon and Sarkar, J
Veda Vyasa, Senior Advocate (S. K. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, Advocates with him) for Petitioner. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, Advocates for
Respondent.
RAMJI LAL MODI-Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF U. P.--..Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 295
Constitution of India--------- ----Art. 19 (1) (a) & 19 (2), (Con stitution of Pakistan, Art. 8)-S. 295-A, Penal Code whether law imposing reasonable restriction on exercise of right con ferred by Art. 19 (1) (a) and protected by Art. (19) (2) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 295-A. Section 295-A, Penal Code falls well within the protec tion of clause (2) of Article 19, as being a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a). The language employed in the amended clause (2) of Article 19 is "in the interests of" and not "for the maintenance of" and the expression "in the interests of" makes the ambit of the protection very wide. A law may not have been designed to directly maintain public order and yet. it may have been enacted in the interests of public order. The right to freedom of religion assured by Articles 25 and 26 is expressly made subject to public order, morality and health. Therefore it cannot be predicated that freedom of religion can have no bearing whatever on the maintenance of public order or that a law creating an offence relating to religion cannot under any circumstances be said to have been enacted in the interests of public order. Those two Articles in terms contemplate that restrictions may be imposed on the rights guaranteed by them in the interests of public order. In the first place clause (2) of Article 19 protects a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech "in the interests of public order", which is much wider than "for maintenance of " public order. If, therefore, certain activities have a tendency to cause public disorder, a law penalising such activities as an offence cannot but be held to be a law imposing reasonable res triction "in the interests of public order" although in some cases those activities may not actually lead to a breach of public order. In the next place section 295-A does not penalise any and every act of insult to or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of…