IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCITON
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2016
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25788 of 2013)
Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust and Ors. …Appellants
Versus
R. Ramanathan and Ors. ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The dispute that has arisen in this appeal is one that could have and
ought to have been settled in the first instance in the Trial Court.
Unfortunately, the feelings (if not the animosity) between the parties have
run so high that any meaningful discussion between them to sort out the
pending issues has been ruled out. When feelings are strong (and get
further hardened over time) and tempers are high, there is a loss of
balance and equilibrium. It is unfortunate that this state of mind has
persisted with both parties who are well educated and perhaps have a
philosophical and spiritual bent of mind, being trustees and residents of
the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry and followers of Sri Aurobindo.
3. On our part, we attempted to amicably sort out the problem between
the parties, but one of them refused to appreciate the meaning of
‘dissociation’ while the other expressed the view that mere dissociation
was not enough and there must be condemnation! At the end of the day, we
felt that each party wanted to score a brownie point over the other, little
realizing that while they would be left with some ephemeral brownie points,
the brownies (and the cream) would be shared by somebody else. In another
decision altogether, this Court had occasion to remark that public trusts
for charitable and religious purpose are run for the benefit of the public.
No individual should take benefit from them. If the persons in management
of the trusts are subjected to multiplicity of legal proceedings, funds
which are to be used for charitable or religious purposes would be wasted
on litigation.[1] How true.
4. It is time for all of us, litigants, lawyers and judges to introspect
and decide whether a litigation being pursued is really worth the while and
alternatively whether an amicable dispute resolution mechanism could be
availed of to settle the dispute to the satisfaction of the litigants. Most
problems have a positive solution and a concerted effort must be made by
all concerned to find that solution of least resistance to the problem.
This is not only in the interest of the parties involved but also in the
larger interest of the justice delivery system.
The facts
5. The respondents are residents of or are otherwise concerned with the
Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry. They filed a civil suit being O.S. No.
15/2010[2] before the District Judge, Pondicherry under the provisions of
Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the
‘CPC’).[3] It was prayed therein that appellants 2 to 6 who are the
trustees in the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust (appellant No. 1 and hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Trust’) be removed and new trustees be appointed since
these appellants have failed the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo and the
Mother. A prayer was also made for settling a scheme for the
administration of the Trust.
Plaint filed by the respondents
6. The averments made in the plaint principally pertain to a book titled
“The Lives of Sri Aurobindo” written by one Peter Heehs and the fall out
thereafter. The book purports to be a biography of Sri Aurobindo and was
published in May 2008 by Columbia University Press in the United States.
For convenience, and for no other reason, this book is hereafter referred
to as the book or the objectionable book.
7. The respondents summarized their grievances in paragraph 2 of the
plaint and the relevant portion thereof reads as follows:-
“The plaintiffs who represent the interest of the community of followers,
devotees and disciples of Sri Aurobindo (for whose benefit the Trust was
created) are constrained to file the present suit, inter alia seeking the
removal of the present Trustees when the Trustees acted in bad faith and in
breach of their obligations as trustees. Instead of promoting Sri
Aurobindo’s tenets and philosophy, the Trustees have and continue to
harbor, defend and openly extend support to one Mr. Peter Heehs who
authored “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo”, a sacrilegious book which falsely
portrays Sri Aurobindo as a liar and a mentally imbalanced person, and
ridiculing his spiritual encounters and experiences as an outcome of Sri
Aurobindo’s tantric sexual indulgence and schizophrenic state of mind. The
fact that such an offensive and venomous book was authored by none other
than one of the Ashram’s own members, sent shock waves throughout the
community of thousands of devotees and disciples’ of Sri Aurobindo. Masses
of devotees appealed to the Trustees to publicly condemn the content of the
book and to clarify that the book was not an official publication/work
supported by the Trust, and further to seek the expulsion of Peter Heehs
from the Ashram. Instead of publicly dissociating itself from Peter Heehs
and his book, the Trustees in absolute breach of trust, have for over two
years harbored Peter Heehs within the Ashram itself and gone to the extent
of standing as a financial guarantor for Peter Heehs’ conduct for his visa
renewals. Despite mass public outcries to the Trustees to
expel Peter Heehs.
condemn and dissociate the Trust from the sacrilegious work
stop the circulation of the book so as to protect the future interest of
the trust
The Trustees, in pursuit of some hidden agenda, chose to protect and render
support to that very individual who has maliciously disparaged, debased and
brought disrepute to Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy and the ashram community at
large. The Trustees have repeatedly disobeyed and declined to carry out
the directions of the Settler of the Trust, failed to execute the trust in
accordance with its object of Trust and have thus acted in gross
dereliction of their duty as trustees. The repeated conduct and failure of
the Trustees has proven that the Trustees are unfit and incapable of
administrating the trust in conformity with the ideals of Sri Aurobindo.
Thus it is in the interest of the trust and its beneficiaries to remove the
existing trustees and consequently appoint new trustees having faith in Sri
Aurobindo’s philosophy and ideals and who are capable of administering the
trust and protecting its interest in accordance with its objects.”
8. More specifically, it was stated that the book contains deliberate
and baseless distortions relating to the life of Sri Aurobindo, inter alia,
to the effect that he had romantic affairs with the Mother involving veiled
tantric sexual practices; that he was a frequent liar and lied about his
spiritual experiences; that his spiritual experiences were based on sexual
and schizophrenic stimuli and that he was the initiator of the Hindu-Muslim
divide and was responsible for the partition of the country.
9. It was stated that Peter Heehs claimed to be one of the founders of
the archives of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram whereas the sole founder was one
Jayanthilal Parekh and that this impersonation was mala fide and malicious
to lend credibility to his book.
10. In sum and substance, according to the respondents what was
outrageous and intolerable, as far as they and other devotees and inmates
of Sri Aurobindo Ashram are concerned, was:
“a) That the author of the deeply offensive book against Sri Aurobindo
was none other than one of the ashramites;
b) That an individual who had been allowed to reside, use and benefit
from the facilities and resources of the Ashram to pursue spiritual
enlightenment through Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy had instead flagrantly
misused the Ashram’s name and its resources to launch a disparaging attack
on the soul and foundations of the Ashram, its faith, tenets and beliefs;
c) That Peter Heehs, the author has intentionally tried to mislead the
public to believe that the sacrilegious work has been published in
consultation/affiliation with the Ashram by audaciously claiming that he is
one of the “founders of the Ashram Archives” in a clear attempt to give
credibility to the source and foundation of a book.
d) That the book was made possible by extensively misusing the Ashram’s
own research database and resources to which Peter Heehs had privileged
access, and which has been gathered and developed over 40 years by the
Ashram’s inmates, devotees and researchers, and includes rare materials of
great historical value. This database which is intended to document the
greatness of Sri Aurobindo’s life and work was misused by Peter Heehs to
misrepresent Sri Aurobindo in bad light.
e) Work done by large teams of dedicated inmates of the Ashram over 40
years was claimed by Peter Heehs to be his own personal research in the
book.
f) Some of the rare materials published by Peter Heehs in his book were
without proper permission of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust.”
11. In view of the above, the respondents and others made several
petitions to the appellants including on 20th September, 2008 and 2nd
October, 2008 but the appellants did not take any remedial action either in
respect of the objectionable book or in respect of Peter Heehs. It was
stated that one Pranab Bhattacharya, the Head of the Physical Education
Department had expelled Peter Heehs from the Physical Education Department
of the Ashram on 30th October, 2008. The expulsion notice was displayed
prominently on the notice board but in spite of such and other actions, the
appellants failed to take any appropriate corrective measures.
12. It was stated in the plaint that through a communication made on 11th
November, 2008 the Trust expressed and admitted its displeasure with the
contents of the book written by Peter Heehs and claimed that disciplinary
action had been initiated against him. It was clarified that Peter Heehs
was not the founder of the archives of the Ashram but Jayanthilal Parekh
was its founder. However, this does not appear to have satisfied the
respondents.
13. Quite independent of the actions taken within the Ashram, some
devotees of Sri Aurobindo took other proactive measures to stop the
circulation of the objectionable book. This eventually led the Government
of Orissa to order forfeiture of the book under Section 95 of the Criminal
Procedure Code[4] for being a work punishable under Section 295-A of the
Indian Penal Code.[5]
14. The forfeiture process was initiated by one of the devotees of Sri
Aurobindo who filed a writ petition in the Orissa High Court being W.P. No.
15939 of 2008 to prohibit the printing, publication and distribution of the
objectionable book. This led the Orissa High Court to pass an order on 4th
November, 2008 requiring the petitioner therein to make a representation to
the Government of India which in turn was required to pass an order on the
representation. The petitioner did make a representation and the Government
of India passed an order in December, 2008 directing the State Government
of Delhi and the Union Government in Pondicherry to ensure that there
should be no publication of the objectionable book without obtaining a no
objection from the Government of India.
15. The Government of Orissa also independently examined the matter and
on 9th April, 2009 a Gazette Notification was issued in which grounds were
given to conclude that the objectionable book contained matters which were
deliberately and maliciously intended to insult the religious beliefs of
the devotees of Sri Aurobindo thereby affecting public peace and
tranquility making the publication of the objectionable book an offence
punishable under Sections 295-A and 153-A of the Indian Penal Code.[6]
Therefore, every copy of the objectionable book, its copies, reprints,
translations or other documents containing extracts taken therefrom was
forfeited to the Government.
16. The relevant extract of the Gazette Notification dated 9th April,
2009 reads as follows:
S.R.O.NO.127/2009 – Where as on a careful consideration of materials placed
on record, it appears to the State Government that the book titled as ‘The
Lives of Sri Aurobindo” written by Peter Heehs and published by Columbia
University Press, New York, U.S.A. contain objectionable matters depicting
distorted facts about the life and character of Sri Aurobindo. And
whereas the State Government, on the following grounds, is of the opinion
that the said book contains matters which are deliberately and maliciously
intended to insult religious beliefs of millions of Indians who idolize Sri
Aurobindo as a National Hero and incarnation of “Almighty” and which
promotes communal disaffection affecting public peace and tranquility the
publication of which is punishable under sections 295A and 153A of the
Indian Penal Code,1860 (45 of 1860), namely –
(a) the book depicts wrong and distorted facts on the life and character of
Sri Aurobindo, which is clearly blasphemous
(b) the book contains absurd, irrelevant and self-made stories, which do
not have any scriptural support and has caused widespread indignation
amongst the devotees
(c) the writings portrayed in the book have seriously hurt the sentiments
of the apostles of Sri Aurobindo and the said book, with deliberate and
malicious intention has insulted the religious beliefs of millions;
(d) the said book, inter alia, narrates at page 245 that “but those
familiar with the literature of psychiatry and clinical psychiatry may be
struck by the similarity between Aurobindo’s powers and experiences and the
symptoms of schizophrenia”;
(e) it is mentioned at page 399 that “Early in the afternoon the Mother
rejoined him, and they walked together to the small outer room where they
sat together on a sofa, the Mother on Sri Aurobindo’s right. Here they
remained for the next few hours as ashramites and visitors – more than
three thousand by the end of the 1940s - passed before them one by one,
“There is no suggestion of a vulgar jostle anywhere in the moving
procession,” a visitor noted. “The mystic sits bare-bodied except for a
part of his dhoti thrown around his shoulders, A kindly light plays in his
eyes,” Sri Aurobindo looked directly at each person for a moment “the
moving visitor is conscious of a particular contact with these [eyes] as
he bends down to do his obeisance. They leave upon him a mysterious ‘feel’
that baffles description. The contact, almost physical, instills a faint
sense of a fragrance into his heart and he has a perception of a glow akin
to that spreading in every fibre of his being.” Most visitors had
similarly positive experiences. But some, particularly those from the West,
were distracted by the theatricality of the setting and the religiosity of
the pageantry.”
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (l) of
section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the State
Government do hereby declare that every copy of the book titled “The Lives
of Sri Aurobindo” written by Peter Heehs and published by Columbia
University Press New York, U.S.A. its copies, reprints, translations or
other documents containing extracts taken therefrom be forfeited to the
Government.
17. Notwithstanding the above coercive action taken by the Government of
Orissa and the Government of India, the appellants did not take any steps
to expel Peter Heehs from the Ashram or to sever all ties of the Trust with
him; no restatement was made by the Trust disassociating itself from the
objectionable book and no steps were taken by the appellants to stop the
publication of the book by contacting Columbia University Press in the
United States, while independent organizations such as Google, Flipkart and
A1 Books made the objectionable book permanently unavailable on their
websites and through sales channels in India.
18. On the contrary, the appellants stood financial guarantee for renewal
of Peter Heehs’ visa to stay in India. Notwithstanding this, the devotees
of Sri Aurobindo and the residents of the Ashram continued to persuade the
appellants and addressed to them further letters dated 28th May, 2010 and
2nd July, 2010 and several other letters. The only replies received from
the appellants were on 21st June, 2010 and 22nd July, 2010 but no clear
stand was taken therein to redress the grievances of the respondents. It
was alleged in the plaint that these acts of omission and commission by
appellants Nos. 2 to 6 was a clear indication that they were mismanaging
the affairs of the Trust and needed to be removed.
19. Leave to sue was granted by the Trial Judge to the respondents and
summons was then issued in the civil suit to the appellants who preferred
I.A. No. 494 of 2011 to revoke the leave granted. This application was
dismissed by the Trial Judge by an order dated 6th October, 2012.
Order of the Trial Court
20. The Trial Court was of the view that where leave is granted under
Section 92 of the CPC without notice to the defendants in the suit, those
defendants would have a right to apply for revocation of leave. However,
since leave was granted to the respondents in the present case after giving
full opportunity to the appellants to put forth their case, the question of
revocation would arise only after evidence is led in the matter and on
final determination of the suit.
21. The Trial Court rejected the contention of the appellants that the
documents referred to and relied upon by the respondents were fabricated on
the ground that this could be adjudicated only after oral and documentary
evidence was led on both sides in a full-fledged trial. It was also noted
that several impleadment applications were filed in the suit for being
heard in the matter. Therefore if leave is revoked, those applicants would
lose their right and the real truth would not come out.
22. Based on the above reasoning the Trial Judge rejected the application
to revoke the leave granted to the respondents.
23. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred a civil revision petition
being C.R.P. (P.D.) No. 4357 of 2012 which came to be dismissed by the
impugned judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2013 by the Madras High
Court.[7]
Decision of the High Court
24. The High Court took the view that the main allegation in the plaint
is with regard to the objectionable book written by Peter Heehs who was
allowed to reside in the Ashram and allowed access to the archives of the
Ashram.
25. The High Court took into consideration the law laid down by this
Court in Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati v. Ramji Tripathi[8] to hold that
only the allegations in the plaint should be looked into in the first
instance to determine whether the suit filed by the respondents falls
within the scope and ambit of Section 92 of the CPC. However, reliance was
also placed on Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R & Ors.[9] to hold that the
Court should go beyond the relief prayed for and focus on the basis on
which the suit was filed and whether it was for vindicating public rights.
Taking the law into consideration as well as the averments made in the
plaint, the High Court held as follows:
“According to me, for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this
revision, there is no necessity to go into the veracity of the contents of
the book. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have not filed the copy of the book
and it is their allegation that the book has not been published in India
and it will be available for access only through the Internet. In my
opinion, in the absence of producing the book before this court, it is not
possible to comment on the statements made in the book about Sri Aurobindo.
Even assuming that in the said book, derogatory remarks are made against
Sri Aurobindo and his relationship with the Mother, in my opinion, the
revision petitioners cannot be held responsible for the same as admittedly,
the revision petitioners have not sponsored the book nor published the book
under the aegis of Aurobindo Ashram. The only allegation made against the
revision petitioners is that they have not taken any steps to remove such a
person from the Ashram. According to me, such inaction on the part of the
revision petitioners cannot be brought into the caption of breach of trust.
Nevertheless, having regard to the scope of section 92 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Vidyodaya Trust case, the court has to go beyond the relief and focus on
the basis for which the suit was filed to find out whether a suit can be
entertained under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
26. Thereafter, the High Court held that since the Ashram had nothing to
do with the publication of the objectionable book by one of its inmates it
could not be held that there is a breach of trust. However (and this is
important) the High Court concluded that since the appellants had not taken
any action to secure the ban of the objectionable book or to take any
action against Peter Heehs, the respondents had made out a case to bring
the suit within the ambit of Section 92 of the CPC and therefore the Trial
Court was right in rejecting the application to revoke leave. It was also
held that under these circumstances, the respondents had no personal
interest in the matter and the suit was not filed by them to vindicate any
personal interest. Consequently, they had the necessary locus to file a
suit under Section 92 of the CPC.
27. The High Court also held, reversing the Trial Court in this regard,
that merely because leave had been granted after hearing the appellants, it
would not be a ground to deny to them the right to file an application for
revocation of leave.
28. On the above basis, the High Court rejected the revision petition and
it is under these circumstances that the rejection is under challenge
before us.
Discussion and findings
29. The sum and substance of the grievance of the respondents is really
two-fold: firstly, the appellants failed to take any positive action to
prohibit the availability of the objectionable book or dissociate
themselves from the objectionable book; secondly, instead of taking some
coercive action against Peter Heehs (such as removing him from the Ashram)
the appellants assisted him in getting a visa for his continued stay in
India by standing guarantee for him.
30. In our opinion, the second grievance would arise only if there is
substance in the first grievance, namely, that the appellants failed to
take proactive measures to have the objectionable book proscribed and that
they failed to dissociate themselves from the contents of the book. This
really begs the question whether the objectionable book ought at all to be
proscribed or its sale prohibited. As we have seen above, the matter is
very much alive before the Orissa High Court and it is for that Court to
take a final call on the legality or otherwise of the action taken by the
concerned authorities in the State in prohibiting the availability of the
objectionable book. Until that decision is taken by the High Court, it
would be premature to hold that the book is objectionable enough as not to
be made available to readers.
31. In Swami Paramatmanand Saraswati it was held by this Court (relying
upon several earlier decisions) that it is only the allegations made in the
plaint that ought to be looked into in the first instance to determine
whether the suit filed lies within the ambit of Section 92 of the CPC. It
was also held that if the allegations in the plaint indicate that the suit
has been filed to remedy the infringement of a private right or to
vindicate a private right, then the suit would not fall within the ambit of
Section 92 of the CPC. Finally, it was also held that in deciding whether
the suit falls within the ambit of Section 92 of the CPC, the Court must
consider the purpose for which the suit was filed. This view was reiterated
in Vidyodaya Trust.
32. Considering the purpose of the suit filed by the respondents, it is
quite clear that it was to highlight the failure of the appellants to take
action against the availability of the objectionable book and against the
author. As we have noted above, the issue whether the book is objectionable
or not, whether it deserves to be proscribed or not, whether it violates
the provisions of Section 153-A or Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code
has yet to be determined by the Orissa High Court. Until that determination
is made, it would be premature to expect the appellants to take any
precipitate action in the matter against the author.
33. The best that the appellants could have done under the circumstances
was to make it clear whether they have anything to do with the
objectionable book or not. The High Court has noted quite explicitly that
the appellants have not sponsored the book nor was it published under the
aegis of the Aurobindo Ashram. The appellants have also, it may be
recalled, expressed displeasure with the contents of the objectionable book
through the communication of 11th November, 2008. This being the position,
we are of the opinion that the appellants have done what could reasonably
be expected of them in relation to the objectionable book, pending a
determination by the Orissa High Court.
34. The High Court has effectively faulted the appellants for not making
the first strike to secure a ban on the objectionable book. This is really
a question of the degree of reaction to the objectionable book on which we
would not like to comment. The appellants could have expressed their
displeasure over the contents of the objectionable book, or dissociated
themselves from the objectionable book or even taken proactive steps to
have the objectionable book banned or proscribed. That the appellants chose
only to express their displeasure may be construed as a mild reaction (as
compared to outright condemnation of the objectionable book), particularly
since the appellants had nothing to do with its publication. But the
question is whether the mild reaction is perverse or could in any way be
held to be a breach of trust or an absence of effective administration of
the Trust warranting the removal of the trustees. We do not think so.
Failure to take steps to ban a book that is critical of the philosophical
and spiritual guru of a Trust would not fall within the compass of
administration of the Trust. It might be an omission of the exercise of
proper discretion on the part of the trustees, but certainly not an
omission touching upon the administration of the Trust. We are not in
agreement with the High Court that the failure of the appellants to take
the initiative in banning the objectionable book gives rise to a cause of
action for the removal of the trustees of the Trust and settling a scheme
for its administration. The trustees of a trust are entitled to a wide
discretion in the administration of a trust. A disagreement with the
exercise of the discretion (however passionate the disagreement might be)
does not necessarily lead to a conclusion of maladministration, unless the
exercise of discretion is perverse. In our opinion, the High Court ought
to have allowed the application filed by the appellants for the revocation
of leave granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings under Section
92 of the CPC, in the facts of this case.
35. We were invited to express a view on the constitutional freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
It is not at all necessary for us to do so. The Orissa High Court might be
called upon to do so, depending on the views of the contesting parties, one
of whom we were told, is the author of the objectionable book. We express
no opinion on the issue and leave the matter at that.
36. This being our conclusion with regard to the first grievance of the
respondents, their second grievance is rather premature. It would arise
only if and when appropriate directions are issued by the Orissa High Court
in the pending litigation.
Conclusion
37. We find merit in the appeal and accordingly set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court and allow the application filed by the
appellants for revocation of leave. The parties are left to bear their own
costs and once again consider an amicable settlement of their dispute.
……………………….J
(Madan B.Lokur)
……………………….J
(S. A. Bobde)
New Delhi;
January 5, 2016
-----------------------
[1]
[2] Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R, (2008) 4 SCC 115
[3]
[4] Subsequently renumbered as O.S. No.15/2011
[5]
[6] 92. Public charities.—(1) In the case of any alleged breach of
any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a
charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is
deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-
General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having
obtained the leave of the Court, may institute a suit, whether contentious
or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any
other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-
matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree—
(a) removing any trustee;
(b) appointing a new trustee;
(c) vesting any property in a trustee;
(cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has
ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his
possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property;
(d) directing accounts and inquiries;
(e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the
interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;
(f) authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be
let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;
(g) settling a scheme; or
(h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case
may require.
(2) xxx xxx xxx
xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx
xxx
[7]
[8] 95. Power to declare certain publications forfeited and to issue
search warrants for the same.— (1) Where—
(a) any newspaper, or book, or
(b) any document,
wherever printed, appears to the State Government to contain any
matter the publication of which is punishable under Section 124-A or
Section 153-A or Section 153-B or Section 292 or Section 293 or Section 295-
A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the State Government may, by
notification, stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every copy of the
issue of the newspaper containing such matter, and every copy of such book
or other document to be forfeited to Government, and thereupon any police
officer may seize the same wherever found in India and any Magistrate may
by warrant authorise any police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector
to enter upon and search for the same in any premises where any copy of
such issue or any such book or other document may be or may be reasonably
suspected to be.
(2) In this section and in Section 96,—
(a) “newspaper” and “book” have the same meaning as in the Press and
Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867);
(b) “document” includes any painting, drawing or photograph, or other
visible representation.
(3) No order passed or action taken under this section shall be
called in question in any Court otherwise than in accordance with the
provisions of Section 96.
[9]
[10] 295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage
religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious
beliefs.—Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the
religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either
spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise,
insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that
class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
[11]
[12] 153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts
prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—(1) Whoever—
(a) 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, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of
harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or
castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the
public tranquillity, or
(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity
intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to
use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the
participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force
or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be
trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that
the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal
force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional
group or caste or community and such activity, for any reason whatsoever
causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity
amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or
caste or community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both.
Offence committed in place of worship, etc.—(2) Whoever commits an
offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any
assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious
ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five
years and shall also be liable to fine.
[13]
[14] Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust & Ors. v. S. Ramanathan & Ors,
MANU/TN/0541/2013
[15]
[16] (1974) 2 SCC 695
[17]
[18] (2008) 4 SCC 115
