Madras High Court
P.R.Mahendran vs The Home Secretary on 21 November, 2023
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.P(MD)No.27481 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.27481 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)No.23603 of 2023
P.R.Mahendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Home Secretary,
St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Tamil Nadu News & Broadcasting Department,
St.George Fort,
Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Sivagangai & District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.27481 of 2023
5.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
6.Periyaiyah ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents 1 to 5 to forfeit the sixth respondent publication namely 7
Kilaigal 14 Naadugal by considering petitioner's representation dated
11.10.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balasundaram
Senior Advocate
for M/s.KBS Law Office
For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani
Special Government Pleader
for R.1 & R.4
Mr.A.Albert James
Government Advocate for R.5
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner,
the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1
to 4 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the fifth
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the descendant of a
Aralathevan, a renowned warrior who flourished during the reign of
Maruthu brothers. The descendants of Aralathevan fall under three
categories, namely, Melveedu, Keelveedu and Vairamveedu. The
petitioner belongs to Keelveedu branch. The said branch comprises 51
pullies.
3.The sixth respondent is also a descendant belonging to
Melveedu. He had recently written a book titled “7 fpisfs; 14 ehLfs;”.
The book was released on 25.06.2023. According to the petitioner, the
book contains several factual errors having potential to cause disharmony
and ill will between different groups of people who are descendants of
Aralathevan. Objection is specifically taken to the statement in the book
that Aralathevan had three wives and that the descendants of the first
wife are styled as belonging to Melveedu. The petitioner has given a
representation.
4.The learned Senior Counsel points out that the apprehension set
out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitioner is well founded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as evidenced by the fact that a legal notice has been issued to the sixth
respondent. The petitioner wants the Government to forfeit the offending
book. In order to fastrack the decision making process, the present writ
petition has been filed.
5.The learned Senior Counsel drew my attention to the relevant
provisions of CrPC and IPC. He also relied on the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 7 SCC 398 (State of
Maharashtra & Others Vs Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate & Others).
He points out that as per Paragraph 26 of the said judgment, it is the
Government that must form an opinion envisaged by Section 95 of
Cr.P.C. He called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.
6.The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the
complaint given by the petitioner was received by the Tahsildar,
Devakottai and he had in turn called upon the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Devakottai to submit a detailed report. The learned Special Government
Pleader does not want to commit himself beyond making the aforesaid
statement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.After a careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, I am satisfied
that no relief can be granted. This is for more than one reason. Section
95 of Cr.P.C reads as follows:
“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 124A or section 153A or
section 153B or section 292 or section 293 or section 295A
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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. ”
It is true as contended by the learned Senior Counsel that it is the
Government that must form an opinion in this regard. However, certain
foundational facts must be present before the operation of the said
provision can be triggered. The published matter must attract one of the
provisions of IPC as setout therein. Obviously, Section 124-A or Section
92 or Section 293 or Section 295 of IPC will not be attracted. The
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
Section 153-A of IPC is attracted. It reads as follows:
“153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on
ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony.—(1) Whoever—
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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 illwill between different religious,
racials, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
The offending words must be capable of causing disharmony between
different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities. In this case, the writ petitioner as well as the sixth
respondent belong to the same religion. They cannot be called as
belonging to two different regional groups or castes or communities. The
condition precedent for invoking Section 153A of IPC is not present in
this case. I am not in a position to grant direction as sought for.
8.This writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.11.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
MGA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Home Secretary,
St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Tamil Nadu News & Broadcasting Department,
St.George Fort,
Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
District Collectorate,
Sivagangai & District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
MGA
and
21.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
