JUDGMENT V.D. Misra, J.
(1) This Revision is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions judge, Delhi up-holding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 153-A LP.C. but reducing the sentence. In the early part of 1968. communal riots between Hindus and Muslims took place in various parts of the Country. Organiser, an English weekly published from Delhi, in its issue dated April 7, 1968 wrote a leading article under the caption "A Lasting solution for Hindu Muslim Problems". It purported to analyze the reasons for such communal troubles. While criticising the government for suppressing the enquiry reports. on various riots and for its pro-Muslim policy for fixing the blame of every riot on R.S.S. and/or Jan Sangh and criticising the Muslims as being apostates and chiefly responsible for the partition of India and still supporting the Islamic State in Pakistan, as a solution it suggested that "While Hindus must and do accept the fact of five crore Muslim co-citizens, Muslims must dissociate themselves completely from Pakistan in thought, wor and deed. And Government instead of offending the Hindus or appeasing Pakistan-to please the Indian Muslims, must stop this separatist game and accept the fact that we in India are as much a Hindu nation as England and America are Christian nations."
(2) Radiance, another English weekly, published from Delhi by the petitioners, in its issue dated April 14, 1968 published an article on its front page, under the caption "Rationale for Roits-A challenge to the Muslims" by a Critic'. In this article, certain passages from the aforesaid issue of the Organiser were published and commented upon. However, those passages only in which the Muslims were criticised by the Organiser, in addition to the solution suggested, were printed. This article suggested that the article in the Organiser analyses the Hindu mind in general. At this stage it may be pointed out that various types of print have been used by Radiance. Whereas extracts from the Organiser are printed in italics, the general comments are in ordinary print while the conclusions arrived at are in various types of bolder prints. The article opens with bold prints in capital letters in the following terms : Although it is patently true that the active participants in a communal riot never constitute the majority of Hindu community in any affected locality yet the fact stilt stands that it is their inactivity in the face of the rioters which is chiefly responsible for the situation getting out of hands and the Muslims suffering on such a large scale. It is obvious that there is something at the back of lair minds which makes them so complacent about the looting, burning and killing of their next door neighbour?." Thereafter under the head "Jana Sangh Analysis" after commenting that that something has been declared publicly by the Jana Sangh press, it concludes in bold letters "We, however, feel that it is largely correct, because even the most Secular minded of our leaders have been found saying similar things on one occasion or the others." After exporting the Indian Muslims to take the Jana Sangh Analysis seriously and chalk out ways and means to ensure their own safety and the safety of their culture and religion in India in the light of this writing on the wall, it reproduces in italics certain extracts from the Organiser and ends this heading thus : "The analysis of the Hindu mind in the above diagnosis seems to be largely correct and we are thankful to Jana Sangh Press for allowing the Muslims to have a peep into the real Hindu mind.
(3) Then follows the heading "Justification of Riots" After stating that Organiser regards the persisting communal roits in India as something quite natural, comes in bold prints "As long as G. 0. I. and the Muslims do not change themselves totally, the riots will not and perhaps should not stop. The more frequent and destructive the anti-Muslim roits, the brighter will be the Organiser seems to imply-the prospects of the G.O.I. and the Muslims learning the lesson which the rashtrawadis are bent upon teaching them". After stating that Hindus have absolutely nothing to do in view of the diagnosis made by the Organiser, it enumerates the more fundamental things which the Muslims have to do than merely dissociating themselves from Pakistan. These, printed in bold letters, are : 1. Since the first Hindu grievance against the Muslims is that they are apostates who renounced their ancestral faith, the Muslims have obviously to go back to their ancestral faith renouncing Islam, in order to be at peace with the Hindus. 2. Since it was mainly the Indian Muslims who pressed for partition inflicting a grievous wound on the Hindus thereby, they too must come forward to destroy Pakistan and heal this wound. 3. Since Pakistan is an Islamic State and Pak Hindus have been re- duced to the position of serfs, Indian Muslims must not insist on Secular State In India and must not want more (like Oliver Twist), even if it be not possible for them to live like serfs. 4. Muslim-majority Kashmir must cease to be a headache for the Hindus and Sheikh Abdullah must be transformed. 5. No Muslim should ever listen to Radio Pakistan. 6. Muslims-particularly in Kerala and Tamilnadu-must give up their espousal of the cause of Urdu. 7. No cow should even appear to have been slaughtered by any Indian Muslim anywhere. 8. Muslims must see to it that the G.O.I, never comes second best' in its relations with Pakistan.
(4) The concluding para is headed "Chastising Muslims". Under this heading it is stated that unless the aforementioned things are not done by the Muslims, "the Hindu rashtrawadis are duty bound to go on chastising Indian Muslims at regular intervals by looting, burning and killing" etc. It also says "that in case what Organiser says is true, the custodians of Law and order too, if they are normal Hindus, must continue to help the rioters-as frequently reported in Press-and the fascists". The Article concludes in bold print in the following words : "Let the Muslims too think out seriously what they are going to do-die bravely as martyrs or give up being Muslims."
(5) On the basis of the complaint filed by the Delhi Administration against the petitioners for the aforesaid Article, the magistrate convicted them under section 153-A J.P.C and sentenced them to one month's simple imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 200.00 each or in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, While up-holding the conviction, converted the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 750.00 each, in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
(6) Mr. 0. P. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the article in question was a fair comment on the article published in the Organiser in the prevailing circumstances and does not have any tendency to promote the feelings of hatred and/or enemity between Hindus and Muslims. He also invites attention to various letters received by the Editor-petitioner showing the social and humanitarian work done by him. Some issues of 'Radiance' put in by the petitioners in defense are also referred to by the learned counsel to show the policy of 'Radiance'.
(7) For the purpose of finding out whether an impugned writing has a tendency to promote the feeling of hatred or enemity between various sections of the Indian community, it is necessary.to examine the writing as a whole and then to form an opinion whether it offends the law. Many a times some portions or sentence taken out of the context give a misleading impression and do not show the true purpose and the intention of the writer. In a case where, while publishing an article, sentences or paras are printed in bolder prints and/ or are in capital letters, it will be fair to assume that the intention of the writer and the publisher was to focus attention of the reader prominently on those portions. These can also be treated as conclusions arrived at by the writer. In case the intention of the writer cannot be found out clearly from the article in question, it will be fair to refer to the policy of the newspaper as well as the articles published in that paper in some of its issues preceding and succeeding. the issues in question. It is no doubt true that it is the duty of a journalist to publish news which its reader must know and also focus attention of the government on the prevailing conditions of lawless-ness and the plight of a section of the community and the high handedness of another community. While doing so, it is also his duty not to give rise to further law-less ness by either inciting one section against the other or by creating feelings of animosity and hatred between various sections. In my opinion, it is in the light of these factors that an impugned writing should be judged.
(8) The attested copies of various letters put in defense by the editor petitioner are dated 14th April, 1951, 2 .7.1958 and 22.9.1958. I am afraid these cannot help the petitioners in any manner since the impugned article relates to the year 1968. A person may be holding particular views at a particular time but because of various factors, may change his views over a period of years. Thus it will not be safe to find out or refer to the views held by the petitioners about ten years before the impugned article was published. My attention has been drawn to an article captioned "The role of Radiance" written by Editor-petitioner in the issue dated 31st December, 1967. This purports to have been written in answer to a letter to the Editor by a reader from America which posed the question whether the real role of 'Radiance' was as a protest paper. In this article a section of the majority community has been criticised since in its opinion the Muslims have no right to live in this Country after partition and bolder ones amongst them openly declare that every one living in India must call himself a Hindu. Because of these reasons the role of Radiance is a protest role which is temporary. It is further stated that it was trying its best to clear misunderstanding between the two communities and is making an effort to open a dialogue between them. Both the communities "should acknowledge hard facts and bitter truths and should try to find out modus vivendi." The learned counsel submits that this article shows that the aim of this newspaper is to bring about a rapprochement between two communities. In its first issue dated July 28, 1963 the object of this newspaper is given as "to present tenets of Islam in their proper prospective, focus Islamic view point on all present day problems, give a lead to Muslims in their religious and social affairs, explain their peculiar problems to the fellow countrymen and awaken the country's social conscience." In addition to that, it was also the object to promote peace and goodwill.
(9) Whatever might be the aims and objects of this newspaper, the intention of writing the article in question and its effect was to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between Hindus and Muslims. One of the objects of this newspaper, admittedly, is to give a lead to Muslims in their religious and social affairs. Any Muslim reading this article is bound to feel that Hindus cannot tolerate a Muslim in this Country. Even the most secular minded of the leaders have been saying things similar to what appeared in the Organiser. Anti- Muslim riots resulting in killing, looting and burning of Muslims are fostered, encouraged and approved by Hindus. The ' 'Normal Hindu custodians of Law and order, as frequently reported in the Press", must continue to help the Hindu rioters. The Muslim readers will conclude that Hindus are bent on changing them totally and forcing them to do the eight fundamental things enumerated in bold prints. The Muslims, reading this article and the conclusions arrived at by the writer and printed boldly to focus the readers' attention are bound to feel that they could only be safe amongst Hindus in this Country if they renounced Islam and became Hindus, otherwise they must live as serfs in this Country. They will also conclude that they must give up their Muslim culture. The reader is further bound to conclude that Hindus have created circumstances where he has to make up his mind to choose between dying bravely as a martyr to the Muslim faith or renouncing the same. The Muslims, after this article, will be left with nothing except hatred and enmity for the Hindus.
(10) The learned counsel's contention that the article in Organiser was very inciting is no defense to the offending nature of the impugned article. If this were so, a vicious circle would result and each newspaper may be full of offending articles preaching hatred and enmity between various classes. The result is that the petition is dismissed.