Editorial SEPARATION IS NO SOLUTION in 30 November 2009 issue of LAW ANIMATED WORLD

SEPARATION IS NO SOLUTION

Swami Ramanand Tirth Suravaram Pratap Reddy Burgula Ramakrishna Rao Ravi Narayan Reddy
Great leaders of Hyderabad State and Andhra Maha Sabha who strived for unity of Telugu people
to the vexed Telangana tangle which has again cropped up in all intensity due to the precipitate action by the president of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti, which, incidentally, was routed in the last general elections at the hands of forces opposed to its aims and aspirations. Unable to gulp this disdainful rejection by the electors, and deciding not to contest in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation elections lest most of its candidates should suffer ignominious defeats, that leader has resorted to vituperative and threatening tactics to rake up emotions which is not that difficult to achieve in this country full of superstitions and surcharged sentiments. However, one cannot forget that the entire history of the Telugu people and even the history of their existence and struggle under the autocratic Nizam show that there were cherished instances when all of them were and strove to be united and the present regional divisions did not exist – nor will they exist for all times. With great difficulty and much agitation, all people speaking Telugu as mother-tongue achieved first a small and later a bigger state to fulfill their dreams but millions more are left outside in other states without proper facilities and opportunities to grow and freely develop their language and culture. This is not to suggest that there will be/are no regional differences/imbalances and there is no need to strive for regional autonomy within the existing unity, but to point that regrettably the Telugu people are now divided due to malevolent political elements led by exploitative socio-economic sections of the society and, much against the innate wishes and aspirations of the overwhelming majority, minority sections are trying to force a separation that is not conducive to Telangana’s interests even. Contrary to the false propaganda of the separatists, Telangana did achieve remarkable development in a united state, of course subject to the general underdevelopment syndrome in the country, and the best interests of the Telangana people themselves dictate the need to stay united and lead the entire state forward 

No justification for a Separate Telangana by Dr. Nitish Sengupta, Courtesy: Asian Age

No justification for a separate Telangana
This is an article from Nitish Sengupta in Asian Age. Dr Nitish Sengupta, an academic and an author, is a former Member of Parliament and a former secretary to the government of India. Courtesy: Asian Age

No word of thanks is enough to express our gratitude to those voters of the Lok Sabha and Assembly constituencies in the Telangana districts of Andhra Pradesh who in the recent byelections decisively rejected the Telangana Rashtra Samithi and the separatism that it stands for. It was almost a referendum, and people voted overwhelmingly to reject the separatist candidates.

Andhra Pradesh is a state which has made impressive progress since the 1956 reorganisation of states, which created a bigger state of Andhra Pradesh by merging the original Andhra (the Telugu-speaking districts of the undivided Madras Presidency) and the eight Telugu-speaking districts of the former Nizam’s dominions of Hyderabad. It may be recalled that the reorganisation of states in 1956 had abolished the Nizam’s Hyderabad by merging its Marathi-speaking districts with Maharashtra, Kannada-speaking districts with Karnataka and Telugu-speaking districts with Andhra Pradesh.

While both the Marathi-speaking districts and Kannada-speaking districts accepted the new order gracefully, some sections in the eight Telugu-speaking districts, earlier called the Telangana area, have been intermittently demanding a separate state of Telangana by dividing Andhra Pradesh. This demand somehow received support from some national parties in the last General elections, and this resulted in the strengthening of the agitation for separate Telangana. The Telangana Rashtra Samithi joined the UPA government at the Centre and formed part of the government. The failure of the UPA government to concede their demand for a separate state led to their protest resignation last year, and thus necessitated these byelections, when they appealed to the people on the issue of a separate state of Telangana. The result has been a decisive "no" from the people. Clearly, the majority of the people of these eight Telangana districts see much merit in remaining part of Andhra Pradesh and do not fancy the idea of a separate Telangana state.

On no economic ground can Telangana be justified. The city of Hyderabad has benefited enormously from being the capital of an enlarged Andhra Pradesh. The wealthier sections from coastal Andhra Pradesh have invested substantially in Hyderabad city, resulting in a prosperity which everyone can see. It is only a tiny minority which does not appreciate that the stopping of the steady flow of resources from coastal Andhra Pradesh to Hyderabad and the other districts in the Telangana area, which do not have much physical resources, will make Hyderabad suffer immensely. In the last few years it has become one of the new metropolitan cities of the country. It has one of the best international airports in India, and is also a major hub of railway traffic in the South. Interestingly, it is the only city outside the four metros where the United States is opening a consulate, thereby indicating how important it is in US perception. Earlier Iran had also opened a consulate there.

Hyderabad has become the focal point of high-tech industries and a number of other industries like drugs and pharmaceuticals. All this might come to a halt if a separate Telangana state is created. It will benefit only a small class of Telangana politicians who are hoping to gain ministerships in the new state. But for ordinary people, whether in coastal Andhra or in the Telangana areas, the creation of a separate Telangana can only be a retrograde development.

The time has, therefore, come when the Centre should formally turn down the demand for a separate Telangana state. The people of Telangana have given enough grounds by their recent voting behaviour. This amply indicates that while some of them might still outwardly make noises for Telangana for some time to come; in their heart of hearts they know that it is neither possible nor desirable. There is a saying in Canada that a separate country of French-speaking Canada is neither possible nor desirable, but French-Canadians would like to keep this matter alive in order to gain maximum political advantage. Hopefully, the situation vis-à-vis Telangana can be compared to this.

Except for Haryana, the creation of smaller states like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand has not been an unmixed blessing. With a much smaller number of MLAs to manage, these states have become easy grounds for horse-trading and manipulation, resulting in prolonged political uncertainty. Often political changes can be brought about by managing a handful of MLAs with money power and muscle power. This also affects economic growth. If a separate Telangana comes up, there is every likelihood of such a scenario being repeated. All right-thinking people in Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere should, therefore, resist this. Just because a small but vocal minority shout for smaller states like Telangana, Gorkhaland or Vidarbha, there is no reason to support such demands, ignoring the long-term political and economic interests of the nation. They should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Nor is there any case for constituting a second States Reorganisation Commission. (emphases ours)

Editorial: "Globalization & Internationalism" in 15 November 2009 October Revolution Special Issue of LAW ANIMATED WORLD

(2009) 2 LAW October Revolution Special Issue Annual Subscription Rs. 800/-
RNI No. APENG/2005/18975

A world law fortnightly published from Hyderabad, India.
Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma
ADVISORS: Dr. Lakshmi Sahgal (INA Colonel), V.R. Krishna Iyer, O. Chinnappa Reddy,
B.P. Jeevan Reddy (Former Judges, SC), P.A. Choudary (Former Judge, APHC), Surendra Mohan (Ex-MP), Prof. R.V.R. Chandrasekhara Rao (Political Science), Umesh Chandra (Sr. Advocate, Lucknow), Ravi Kiran Jain (Sr. Advocate, Allahabad), Colin Gonsalves (Sr. Advocate, elhi), K. Subba Rao (Sr. Advocate, Bangalore), K.G. Kannabiran (Sr. Advocate & National President, PUCL) & Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi (Advocate, S.C., ND).

Volume 5: Part 2 15 November 2009 No. 21

Down with Imperialism! Long live Revolution!

Please donate Rs. 100/- or more

Globalization & Internationalism

That the entire world is, or ought to be, a global village, that all human beings are to be united as one big family, share their woe and weal together and work towards the universal welfare and development of the entire human collectivity in consonance with the interests and needs of the biosphere in a spirit of liberty, equality, fraternity, mutual love and cooperation is really a sublime ideal to which no right thinking person can have any objection. We have been repeatedly referring to our ancient Indian ideal of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ in our columns which buttresses this noble principle. However, the current spree of globalization so fondly advertised by big media all over the world and with gusto sought to be promoted by the superpower and other developed countries of the West is nothing but the good old capitalism in a new avatar, so to say. Marx long ago spoke of “the need of a constantly expanding market” chasing “the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe” so that “it must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.” He also spoke of “… intercourse in every direction and universal inter-dependence of nations” arising in the course of such capitalist enterprise. However, he also noted the inhuman exploitative side of the phenomenon and issued the clarion call of ‘workers of all countries unite’ against the oppressive and rapacious free market globalization. That was the true spirit of proletarain internationalism which found its echo and partial realization in the Great October Socialist Revolution. It is true that Revolution ultimately got subverted and its gains and constructions have largely collapsed due to the perverse equation of state monopoly and authoritarian structures with the high ideals of socialization of ownership of means of production and true social democracy, and the wrong counterposing of ‘freedom’ against ‘bread’ that undermined both. But that did not completely negate the impact of and dire need for humanistic socialism which has more srikingly come to the fore ever since the recent global financial meltdown and economic recession. The gulf between the haves and have-nots has rapidly widened and a big part of humanity is set to undergo a tortuous crisis of poverty, hunger and disease even in, or more so in, this period of free market globalization. The only way out is for us to concertedly fight against this sort of globalization with the zeal of true internationalism for a new, humane sort of Socialism 

Editorial "MOTHER TONGUE AS MEDIUM" in 31 October 2009 issue of LAW ANIMATED WORLD

MOTHER TONGUE AS MEDIUM

of instruction must be there for all school children in the primary classes at least up to 8th class. All private schools which do not teach in the mother tongue/official State language medium must forthwith be proscribed and instead the government schools should be increased and improved by handsome budgetary allocations. The official language of a State must be the 2nd language for all children whose mother tongue is not that language and English should take the third place, that too only after 5th class. Unless our children are taught and brought up with national/ethnic self-respect and cultural consonance, we can never progress to respectable levels in the comity of nations. Macaulay’s men, wherever they exist, should be shunned first, shunted out later. Never should school kids be punished with placards hanged on their necks declaring they would never speak in their mother tongue, etc. Rather we must keep in mind the Jomtein World Declaration on Education for All 1990, unequivocally stating: “Literacy in the mother-tongue strengthens cultural identity and heritage,” and the later Dakar Framework of Action 2000 declaring that structured programmes “should be provided in the child’s mother tongue and help to identify and enrich the care and education of children …”; that UNESCO long ago declared that “it is axiomatic that the best medium for teaching a child is his mother tongue” and that the eminent educationist, philosopher Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan “recommended and the Government of India agreed that the medium of instruction in the primary stages must be the mother tongue.” Nor can we forget Gandhiji’s blast that “Among the many evils of foreign rule, this blighting imposition of a foreign medium upon the youth of the country will be counted by history as one of the greatest. It has sapped the energy of the nation, it has estranged them for the masses, it has made education unnecessarily expensive. If this process is still persisted in, it bids fair to rob the nation of its soul. The sooner therefore educated India shakes itself free from the hypnotic spell of the foreign medium, the better it would be for them and the people.” 

Editorial DISASTROUS DEVELOPMENTS in 15 October 2009 issue of LAW ANIMATED WORLD

DISASTROUS DEVELOPMENTS

have struck the people of South India in this first fortnight of October. Unprecedented floods in the Krishna river, said to be the rarest in 10,000 years, have hit the barrages and dams on its way and inundated hundreds of villages and several towns in Rayalaseema and Andhra delta areas and in Mahaboobnagar district. The former capital city of Andhra State - Kurnool, was almost totally submerged in flood waters, in some areas up to 30 feet deep, and the plight of panic-stricken residents in the worst period for 3-4 days was beyond description. Srisailam Dam received the maximum inflow of more than 26 lakhs cusecs in its history but fortunately survived the battering due to its secure design and sturdy construction – having been started and completed in the less-corrupt decades (1960-70’s). The upper riparian regions in Karnataka were worse hit in a sense and more human loss is reported in that State. It is a worst natural calamity, fit to be declared a national disaster, but human errors are also alleged to have intensely aggravated if not basically caused it. The relief operations of many voluntary organizations including TV channels have been and are continuing as a great succour to the innumerable victims but state aid seems to be tardy, callous and inefficient as usual. This calls for a radical re-look at all flood prevention and control schemes of the governments as also the entire Jalayagnam projects initiated by the recently deceased chief minister in our State. The newer constructions seem to have more easily fallen apart in the flood havoc while the older stood strong and secure. Added to this natural calamity that could also be man-made to certain extent, another calamity struck the State in the loss of a dedicated, zealous activist of human rights, creating a void which would be very hard, if not impossible, to be filled up for many years to come. People cutting across political persuasions have sincerely mourned the untimely demise of Balagopal, who, if alive, would have certainly plunged into relief and restructuring operations for the flood victims also. We also join them and vow to work for his ideals. 

www.lgjaffe.com

http://www.lgjaffe.com/

CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 5 OF PRESS AND REGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT

OUR WRIT PETITION WP 9025/2005 (still pending in AP High Court) CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF
SECTION 5 OF PRESS AND REGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT

As law stands today in India, I can if my capabilities permit bring out 10 or even 100 books (n number of books where n can be anything possible) on one day itself and publish those to the public and there is no authority which can stop me from doing so. Only if the matter in it be considered seditious or obscene/immoral or defamatory, etc. I would be liable to any prosecution or litigation post-publication. But I need not inform anybody prior to publication or take their permission. Mind it, the book I publish could be dangerously seditious and advocate violent overthrow of the existing setup even by macabre means of terror. But still pre-publication restrictions or pre-censorship are not permitted under our Constitution and statutes. I take a risk and publish and I can only be subjected to post-publication indictment, etc.

But the whole picture changes when it comes to my decision to publish a regular newspaper (periodical). First of all I cannot choose any name I want - or to be more precise, whatever name I choose is subject to approval by some other authority. The title clearance, called so in common parlance, is to be done by the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) sitting at New Delhi. It takes quite some time - in our case it exceeded one year. And then it is not so easy as I writing a letter/sending an application to the RNI; in our bureaucratic setup that is not allowed. Actually under law I need not have any direct contact with the RNI at this preliminary stage - mind this, it is only a preliminary stage. This is to facilitate my giving a DECLARATION before a Magistrate for Newspapers - who in our State of Andhra Pradesh is the Police Commissioner insofar as the Hyderabad City is concerned, and the District Magistrate (Collector) for districts - giving particulars of the title (made available by the RNI), place of residence, printer's address, etc. So for that title clearance becomes a must and it is that Magistrate who forwards my application for title clearance to the RNI.

And I have already posted material about our troubles in this preliminary stage. Earlier i.e. up to the 1980's this procedure was not so cumbersome. We would just go to the Commissioner of Police office, consult the concerned clerk, who would furnish us a form to fill up and also take our application for title clearance to the RNI (if we didn't already have an application with us, he would even give a white paper to us to write the application then and there and give to him) and then we will be off. That clerk would say "OK, Sir we have some formalities, some police officer would come for verification and even if you are not present at home please leave instructions with your family to reiterate the details given here, and also we will confirm from your printer and the application to RNI, with three title names in order of preference, will hopefully be processed and availability indicated within 2 weeks or so and then we will call you for the formality of Declaration. Don't worry." And send us back. If we insisted that we want to bring out the journal/paper immediately, he would reply: "No problem, you can bring out bulletins in lieu of that in the meanwhile. You can bring out four bulletins with the same title without any permission." And by the time we could bring out the 3rd or 4th bulletin we would get a call from him to give declaration and the formality would be over. Only the RNI would express his regrets if all the three names suggested are not available and in that case there could be further delay. But my personal experience is we never met with difficulties or expenses in this regard. Seniors recollect that prior to 1970's this tile availability clearance business was also not there. You just went to the office of the District Magistrate one day and told the concerned clerk: "I want to bring out so and so titled newspaper (monthly/weekly/daily, etc.) and a form would be furnished, fill up and sign it and give him." Then the clerk would consult his superiors and if you are a well known person perhaps the DM would give appointment to you the same day and your declaration business would be over; otherwise, some near date would be given and the process finished. No verification of antecedents, character or no title availability clearance etc. was there. This is what was personally told to me by late Sri V. Venkata Ramanaiah, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh, and the first petitioner in our Public Interest Litigation WP 9025/2005. He recollected how easily he got his declaration for bringing out a newspaper titled 'Aruna Tara' (Red Star) authenticated by the Collector and District Magistrate, Nellore wayback in the 1960's. He had told me: "I took an appointment on phone that day and after court hours went to the DM office and all was finished in one hour or so. That's all! No hassles of title clearance ordeal or verification of antecedents business."
But over the decades the procedure and the law instead of being simplified for the benefit of the people have been made more complicated by our brown overlords. Bureaucratic interference, inefficiency and corruption - mainly due to the political corruption and degeneration at the top government levels and in the socio-economic system of the country - have enormously increased and the law and rules have been more complicated and rendered more user-unfriendly. So now when I went and approached the Commissioner of Police office, they demanded Rs. 2000/- user-charges to process our application for title clearance! And I have already posted about the details regarding our challenge by way WP 22585/04 and the subsequent developments.
Now mainly in view of the enormous delay in this process of giving declaration, we got an idea to attack the very provision requiring the same. Not that we were happy with that requirement earlier even. Always it seemed to us odd that what restriction was not there on book publication was placed on publication of newspapers. But you see unless some injustice pinches or pains you sufficiently hard you will not awaken to it - that is human nature. Earlier also we were not happy, but that was a mere small hurdle which could be overcome without much delay and expenses. So it did not pinch us hard. But now the situation is different. I heard of publishers who in their anxiety to speed up things shelled out tens of thousands of rupees bribes even in addition to these user-costs, etc.
So when I broached the topic with our senior, late Sri V. Venkataramanaiah, and intimated about our intention and plans to initiate a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Press Act, he immediately agreed with that. Not only that he volunteered to be the first petitioner - suggested that he should be the first petitioner though Prof. Chandrasekhar Rao, Balamani publisher and others could also be there along with him. Later he had carefully scrutinized the draft of the affidavit of the PIL (to be) given by the publisher Balamani on behalf of all the petitioners and suggested meaningful changes too. So, the PIL was filed in the last week of April 2005 and on the last working day before summer vacations i.e. on 30-04-2005 we got the relief of an interim order directing the Commissioner of Police as also the RNI to expedite the process of title clearance, registration etc. and pursuant to that only this paper has been registered by the RNI within 4-5 months thereafter. Regrettably, Sri V. Venkataramanaiah garu had passed away on 17-03-2006 but the PIL WP is still pending disposal!
Now I am posting the Writ Petition affidavit filed by us in the PIL WP 9025/2005 hereunder:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD.

W.P. No. 9025 of 2005

Between :

1. V. VENKATARAMANAIAH, S/o Late V. Kalyana Sundaram,
   Age: 77 years; Occupation: Advocate, G-4, Plot 85A,
   Varasiddhi Nivas, Road No. 11, Film Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 033;

2. Prof. R.V.R. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO, S/o Late R.V. Ramana
   Murthy, Age: 72 years; Occupation: Teaching, Plot 22, Radhe Nagar
   Colony, near H.S. Darga, Old Bombay Road, Hyderabad;

3. M.T. KHAN, S/o Late M.B. Khan, Age: 72 years, Occupation:
   Journalist, 21-5-409, Puranapul Gate, Hyderabad - 500 064;
4. I. BALAMANI, w/o I. Mallikarjuna Sharma, Age: 39 years,
   H. No. 6-3-1243/156, D. Sanjeevaiah Nagar, M.S. Makta,
   Opposite Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad - 500 082. … PETITIONERS.

A N D

1. The Union of India, represented by the Principal Secretary,
   Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi.

2. Ministry of Law, represented by its Principal Secretary, New Delhi.

3. The Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), Wing 2,
   West Block 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110 066.

4. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its
   Chief Secretary, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022.

5. The Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers, presently Joint/
   Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Office of the
   
   Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 029. ... RESPONDENTS.

* * *

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER :

I, Smt. I. Balamani, wife of I. Mallikarjuna Sharma, Age: 39 years, Occupation: self-employed housewife; R/o H.No. 6-3-1243/116, D. Sanjeevaiah Nagar (M.S. Makta), Opposite Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad - 500 082, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

1. I am the 4^th petitioner herein and, as such, well acquainted with the facts of the case. I and other petitioners herein are filing this writ petition in public interest, aggrieved by the serious infringements to freedom of speech and expression for bringing out a newspaper by Sections 5, 6 and the consequent provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, which amount to unreasonable restrictions on our fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19, and violations of Articles 21 and 14, of the Constitution. I am deposing to this affidavit on my behalf, as also on behalf of the other petitioners herein duly authorized by them to do so, to the best of my information, knowledge and belief, and that I believe to be true.

2. The 1^st petitioner herein is a senior advocate and former Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh. He also acted as Chairman of the Committee to organize the inaugural function of LAW ANIMATED WORLD. He has great concern for the protection and promotion of civil rights in the country. The 2^nd Petitioner is a Retired Professor of Politics and Retired Vice Chancellor of Andhra Pradesh Open University. He is also on the Advisory Board of the proposed law journal, LAW ANIMATED WORLD. The 3^rd Petitioner is a Retired teacher, senior journalist and well-known civil liberties leader. I, the 4^th petitioner, am the printer and publisher of the proposed law fortnightly LAW ANIMATED WORLD. The description of the Respondents herein is as given in the cause title.

3. I submit that I am a postgraduate in commerce and also a self-employed housewife, undertaking occasional publications of some socially useful good books in English and Telugu. About 10 months back I had decided, with the encouragement of my husband and blessings of several eminent persons like Dr. Lakshmi Sahgal, Sri V. R. Krishna Iyer, Sri B.P. Jeevan Reddy, et al who consented to be on the Advisory Board, to print and publish a fortnightly law journal to report world law decisions and developments under the title Law Animated World, with my husband as the Editor. Along with the first trial issue I had given an application dated 16-08-2004 to the Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers enclosing an application in Annexure III to the Registrar of Newspapers of India for verification of title. I requested the Magistrate who happens to be a Joint/Deputy Commissioner of Police (Respondent 5 herein) to process the same expeditiously so that a title verification letter can be got soon. Such verification letter is said to be essential for giving a declaration concerning the proposed newspaper before the Concerned Magistrate. I had also sent a letter to the Registrar of Newspapers for India (Respondent 3 herein) dated 16-08-2004, apprising him of the application in this regard and enclosing a copy of the trial issue of the journal. But the application to Respondent 5 herein dated 16-08-2004 with Annexure III (for verification of title) had not been forwarded by him to the Office of the Registrar of the Newspapers for India, New Delhi even after two months on the ground that Rs. 2000/- user-charges have not been paid. The 5^th Respondent herein cited one GO Ms. No. 601, Finance (BG) Department, dated 22-05-2002 of Government of Andhra Pradesh, as empowering him to collect such user charges. When that GO was procured with difficulty it was found that there was not any mention therein about any need to pay user-charges in connection with registration of newspapers. So thereupon I made a complaint dated 16-10-2004 to the Respondent 5 in which it was clarified that his requiring me to pay “Rs. 2000/- user-charges for ‘police clearance certificate’ for declaration…” was wholly arbitrary and illegal; that no restrictions could be imposed on press freedom, which receives constitutional protection under Article 19 and any reasonable restrictions to it have to be made by a law of the parliament alone; that in the instant case no such restrictions or requirements are made or specified by any law of the parliament and hence his action in not forwarding my application for verification of title to the Registrar of Newspapers for India so far was completely unconstitutional and illegal; and that I need not pay any user-charges to anybody for the exercise of the constitutionally protected fundamental right to speech and expression. Further I also informed him that his action was causing a lot of anxiety, tension and mental worries as also loss of reputation and credit in the society to me. As such I had requested that he immediately correct his blatant and arbitrary mistake and send the application for verification of title forthwith to the Registrar of Newspapers of India, with a request to him (RNI) to process my application and verify the title expeditiously - preferably within one week of its receipt by him. I also mailed another letter dated 18-10-2004 to the RNI (R-3 herein) complaining about the illegality committed by R-5 and requested that he protect press freedom by suitably advising the Magistrate concerned. Therein I also stressed that it was high time that the authority and powers of verification and attestation of declarations be taken away from the police department and entrusted to any other departments. As such it was requested that he (RNI) cause verification of the said title on his own and issue a verification letter for the proposed law fortnightly at the earliest.

4. However, when no response was received from either of the respondents 3 or 5 herein even after waiting for a month and a half, I was constrained to file a writ petition - WP 22585 of 2004, in this Honourable Court attacking the requirement of user-charges by the respondent 5 herein and also challenging the very jurisdiction of respondent 5 to entertain my applications as the concerned Magistrate for Newspapers since it was bad in law for top police officers to be endowed with such magisterial powers and in any case the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 only contemplated a judicial Magistrate to act as the Magistrate for Newspapers. I also assailed the policing methods of verification of the antecedents, etc. of proposed publishers. Thereupon, a single Judge of this Honourable Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated 30-12-2004 in WPMP No. 29644 of 2004 filed in that WP 22585/2004 by which the second respondent therein [R-3 herein] was “directed to verify the title of the proposed newspaper, as per the titles’ status as on 16-08-2004 and inform the same to the petitioner.” Pursuant to that both the R-1 therein [R-5 herein] and R-2 [R-3 herein] took further steps as a result of which the Registrar of Newspapers for India [R-3 herein] verified the title status and declared by his verification letter No. APENG 02630/01/1/2005-TC dated 25-01-2005 addressed to R-5 herein that the title LAW ANIMATED WORLD was available for publication and was approved in my favour.

5. Pursuant to a copy of that verification letter being received, and due to the WP 22585/2004 being still pending final disposal, and since from months I was planning to get released a regular issue of the journal on the National Martyrs Day of 23 March 2005, I, after prior intimation to the Respondent 5 herein by a letter of my husband dated 11-03-2005, went personally to the office of R-5 herein on 17-03-2005 to give the needed declaration to start the newspaper and waited there from 12 Noon to 5 PM. However, Respondent 5 was on that day absent in the office due to his preoccupation with bandobust duties in connection with the visit of the Congress (I) President Smt. Soniya Gandhi to the City, whereupon I personally appeared before Mr. Ismail, the Deputy Commissioner of Police to whom my first application dated 16-08-04 was addressed and who was actually looking after the entire proceedings relating to filing of declarations, etc. Later the Declaration dated 17-03-2004 and duly signed by me was lodged in the office of Respondent 5 and proper receipt was also obtained on the office/personal copies of the declaration, covering letter etc. retained by me. But, though it was made clear and requested in the covering letter thereof that my declaration may be authenticated immediately in view of the inaugural function planned by me on 23-03-2004, to this day such authentication seems to have not been done or at any rate not communicated to me. And, since the inaugural function was planned months ahead with some luminaries being invited to grace it, I had to and did hold it as per schedule, releasing the first issue of the regular journal in that function on 23-03-2004. But now, since so far an authenticated declaration has not been sent to me, I am in a fix as to bringing out the next issues of the journal and as such my rights to publish and promote the journal are seriously harmed - temporarily extinguished even.

6. I am advised to and do submit here that in this background the cardinal question of infringement of freedom of press not only by the executive but also by the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1867 Act’) itself comes to the fore. It is well known that freedom of press is embodied in the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article
   19 (1) of our Constitution and it could only be interfered with in the manner indicated in Article 19 (2), that is by way of any ‘reasonable restrictions’ in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of state, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. In the instant case, since the publication of books and papers (including newspapers) is governed by a central law, it seems such reasonable restrictions could be imposed only by a parliamentary law. The 1867 Act is ‘an Act for the regulation of printing-presses and newspapers, for the preservation of copies of books and newspapers printed in India, and for the registration of such books and newspapers’. Section 5 (2) of the 1867 Act requires “the printer and publisher of … newspaper [to] appear in person or by agent authorized … before a District, Presidency or Sub-divisional Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such newspaper shall be printed or published…” But the Proviso to Section 6 of the 1867 Act lays down that “the declaration shall not … be … authenticated unless the Magistrate is, on inquiry from the Press Registrar, satisfied that the newspaper proposed to be published does not bear a title which is the same as, or similar to, that of any other newspaper published either in the same language or in the same State.” As such a practice has developed of sending the application of the printer and the publisher of a proposed newspaper first to the Registrar of Newspapers for India for verification of title. And only on verification of the title proposed the concerned Magistrate takes on file the declaration by such printer and publisher and authenticates it. This is a preliminary process ostensibly introduced to avoid multiplicity of newspapers bearing the same or similar names and thus avoid any undesirable future litigation, injuries to the interests of concerned third parties and confusion to the public. However, it means and results in restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression insofar as the same may not be exercised (through the newspaper) until and unless such declaration is filed and authenticated. Usually it takes months for this process to be completed by the existing bureaucratic machinery. In the instant case even after 10 months this process has not been completed in consequence of which the petitioner is put to great hardship, loss of prestige and reputation and mental tension and worries in addition to physical trauma and monetary losses attendant thereon. It may be pointed out that all these restrictions are not in any way in the interests of ‘the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of state, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence’.

7. I may attempt here to present a brief overview of the 1867 Act and the subsequent legislation affecting it, which I submit would go to substantiate our contentions that the 1867 Act and the subsequent legislation and executive measures result in gross infringement of our fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19, of equality before law by Article 14 and of right to life by Article 21. The 1867 Act was made by the British colonial rulers mainly in order to secure information as to and collect the publications made in the country from time to time and mainly concentrates on books. The word newspaper is not even used in the original Act or in the Statement of Objects and Reasons leading to that enactment. However, it is therein that a prior declaration was for the first time sought for ‘printed periodical work containing public news or comments on public news’ and the Section 5 of the Act which is couched in negative language and also penalties of fine and imprisonment up to 6 months are also imposed for contravention of that section in Section 15 of the Act. Obviously the British imperialists introduced the section to curb the growing national awakening and movement in the country for which the newspapers served as a chief vehicle. This is a pre-constitution law and there was no constitution in those times but autocratic rule by the imperialists clothed in various legislative and executive garbs. Unfortunately the very same autocratic provisions are being continued in post-independent India by the present rulers too. However, it is obvious that this patent restriction is not even adverted to have been made for “the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of state,” etc. This 1867 Act was chiefly amended before independence by the Press Law Repeal and Amendment Act, 1922 (14 of 1922) by which for the first time the word ‘newspaper’ was substituted for ‘printed periodical work containing public news or comments on public news’ in Section 5 thereof.

8. After independence this repressive law, a part of the ‘lawless laws’ incessantly castigated by our national leaders who fought for our independence has been shamelessly adapted by two adaptation orders - A.C.A.O., 1948 and A.L.O., 1950 - by the Central Government [President of India]. However, it is submitted here itself that such adaptation under Article 372 cannot in any way save a law as ‘existing law’ if it is contravening the requirements of Article 13 due to any patent infringements of the fundamental rights embodied in the Constitution. In 1947 a Press Law Enquiry Committee was instituted by the Central Government which was required to go deeply and comprehensively into the entire history and development of press law in India and submit suitable suggestions for improvement. It submitted its report in 1948 on the basis of which a Press and Registration of Books (Amendment) Bill, 1952 was introduced in the Parliament. However, the same was withdrawn in August 1955 since by that time a Press Commission has been constituted by the Union Government and it had submitted its first, sufficiently comprehensive, report. On the lines of the First Press Commission Report, the Press and Registration of Books (Amendment) Bill, 1955 was introduced in the Parliament in August 1955 and was adopted after lengthy but insufficient and uninformed discussion and debate that took place for a few hours on 21 November 1955 and for a few minutes the next day.

9. I submit here that it is pertinent to note that the then Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Dr. Keskar, while moving the above-said Press and Registration of Books (Amendment) Bill, 1955 had clearly stated: “I would like to make at the very outset one thing clear, because it has been brought to my notice by representatives of the proprietors, and then also by the comments published in certain papers, more especially outside the country, that this is an indirect way of controlling the press. It is clear that the present is purely a kind of statistical measure…. But what I want to make clear is that the object of the Bill and the appointment of a central registering authority are concerned purely with the statistical and business side of newspapers.” However, the Honourable Minister as well as the Members of the Parliament missed the principal point of prior declaration being required for newspapers only, in contrast to books for which no such restriction was placed. Further there was no clause-wise discussion of the Bill and it was almost unthinkingly and aggregately adopted. I submit that we petitioners are not against any central registering authority but only against prior restraints - pre-publication restraints being imposed on newspapers by Sections 5 and 6 and consequent penal provisions of Section 15 of the Act. Thereafter the Act 26 of 1960 also brought in some further amendments in the above sections and the still later amendment Acts are not much relevant for the purpose of this petition.

10. That the original State of Objects and Reasons of the 1867 Act contains not a mention of the word ‘newspaper’ or even ‘periodical printed work’ and is exclusively devoted to collecting and securing books published in India, that too by purchasing it from the publishers, shows that Sections 5, 6 and 15 of the Act suffer from the vice of over-inclusiveness in addition to being affected by undue discrimination. While no pre-publication restraints are imposed on books, which also could be published almost daily without any prior declarations being given, unjustly and arbitrarily prior declarations were sought for newspapers. Thus equal protection of law is denied, no reasonable classification is not apparent in the enactment, in fact no such classification is made and hence the Sections 5, 6 and 15 are infringing Article 14 and liable to be struck down on that count too.

11. I have already submitted that the Sections 5, 6, 15 etc. of the 1867 Act are a serious infringement on the rights guaranteed by Article 19 (1) since the restrictions due to the requirement of prior declaration are not made in the interests of ‘the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of state, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence’ which considerations alone render any reasonableness to the restrictions. Further given the generally accepted position of law that life does not mean mere animal existence but encompasses the entire physical, mental, intellectual and spiritual development process of life of human beings, the restraints imposed by these sections also infringe the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and the procedure of law - 1867 Act - can in no way be considered ‘reasonable, fair and just’. As such the impugned Sections 5, 6, 15 etc. of the 1867 Act are liable to be struck down as seriously infringing Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

12. In such circumstances and for the said reasons, I submit that the impugned Sections 5, 6 and 15 etc. of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 are unjust, unconstitutional and hence liable to be declared invalid and ab initio void by this Court for the following among other

G R O U N D S:

1. The impugned sections 5, 6, 15 etc. of the 1867 Act are pre-constitution restrictions on the freedoms of the people being callously continued by the government of the day for vested interests and against the public interest in general. Their continued existence in the statute-book is a clear violation of the fundamental duties imposed by Article 51A of the Constitution one of which is ‘to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom’.

2. The said Sections 5, 6, 15 etc. suffer from the vice of over-inclusiveness and lack of reasonable classification with manifest arbitrariness in their making and as such hit by Article 14.

3. The impugned sections 5, 6, 15 etc. of the 1867 Act are a serious infringement of Article 19 (1) of the Constitution since they are not any restrictions in the fields allowed by Article 19 (2), in addition to their total unreasonableness.

4. The impugned sections 5, 6, 15 etc. of the 1867 Act are a serious infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution too, since the procedure contemplated therein is not ‘reasonable, just or fair’.

5. The impugned sections 5, 6, 15 etc. of the 1867 Act are not saved by mere adaptation as per Article 372 since they are hit by the requirements of Article 13.

6. Such other grounds as may be urged at the hearing of this petition.

13. I submit that we petitioners are constrained to approach this Honourable Court for adequate remedy in this case by way of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution since we do not have any other alternative remedy in this regard.

14. I submit that I have not filed any other writ, suit or proceeding regarding the subject matter of this writ petition, in this Honourable Court or in any other court or legal forum.

INTERIM RELIEF:

15. In such circumstances, it becomes just and necessary that this Court may be pleased to direct Respondent 5 herein to immediately authenticate the declaration lodged in his office by me, the 4^th petitioner herein, for bringing out the law fortnightly - LAW ANIMATED WORLD - with effect from the date of lodging i.e. 17-03-2004 or alternatively the Court permit me the 4^th petitioner to continue publication of the journal pending disposal of this writ petition; and pass such other order or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

FINAL RELIEF:

16. In the circumstances narrated and for the reasons stated supra, I submit my request that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, to declare the Sections 5, 6 and 15 etc. of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 as unjust, unconstitutional and hence invalid and ab initio void; award costs of the writ petition and pass any such order or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

10^th & last page:
Corrections:

Solemnly affirmed and signed in my presence here at
Hyderabad on this Tuesday, the 19^th day of April 2005. D E P O N E N T.

Before me :

ADVOCATE : HYDERABAD.