Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
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
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:
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 :
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;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;- M.T. KHAN, S/o Late M.B. Khan, Age: 72 years, Occupation:
Journalist, 21-5-409, Puranapul Gate, Hyderabad - 500 064; - 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
The Union of India, represented by the Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi.- Ministry of Law, represented by its Principal Secretary, New Delhi.
The Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), Wing 2,
West Block 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110 066.Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its
Chief Secretary, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022.- The Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers, presently Joint/
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Office of theCommissioner 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:
I am the 4th 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.
The 1st 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 2nd 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 3rd Petitioner is a Retired teacher, senior journalist and well-known civil liberties leader. I, the 4th 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.
- 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 5th 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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’.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.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
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’.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
Such other grounds as may be urged at the hearing of this petition.
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.
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:
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 4th 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 4th 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:
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.
10th & last page:
Corrections:
Solemnly affirmed and signed in my presence here at
Hyderabad on this Tuesday, the 19th day of April 2005. D E P O N E N T.
Hyderabad on this Tuesday, the 19th day of April 2005. D E P O N E N T.
Before me :
ADVOCATE : HYDERABAD.
Friday, October 2, 2009
What happened after our WP 22585/2004 was filed
Developments After filing the WP 22585/2004
The readers may have noted that the WP affidavit was dated 6 December 2004 and when it came up for admission it seems 'Notice for admission' was first issued by the High Court of AP to the respondents. The Respondents did not file their Counter Affidavit even after 3-4 adjournments.
Meanwhile we were planning to convert the occasional bulletin to regular fortnightly and with Late Sri V. Venkataramanaiah (former Advocate General) as Convener, a Reception Committee for the function to release the inaugural issue of LAW ANIMATED WORLD was also set up. The first issue - a Martyrs Memorial Special issue - was to be released on the National Martyrs Day of 23 March - the Day of martyrdom of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. As many as 6 Judges of the High Court were invited to address the meeting (ultimately 3 of them attended and spoke).
But without the registration given by the RNI how can an official ('legal') inaugural issue be published? We were in a quandary. So I - IM Sharma - as counsel began to repeatedly mention before the judge before whom the case was to be listed and at last the Judge agreed to hear our writ petition. However, due to delays by the respondents even arguments could not be completed by 23 March 2004.
Undaunted we brought out a nicely printed inaugural Martyrs Memorial Issue of LAW ANIMATED WORLD and did hold the release cum Martyrs Day function on 23 March 2005 at about 6 PM in Press Club, Basheerbagh, HYDERABAD. Three Judges of the AP High Court - Sri Bilal Nazki (now Judge, Bombay High Court), Sri Chalameshwar (now Chief Justice, Guwahati High Court) and Sri L. Narasimha Reddy (Judge, AP High Court then and now) - graciously attended the meeting and spoke well about Bhagat Singh and his virtues and sacrifices and also about the release of the journal. The Journal was actually released by veteran octogenarian freedom fighter Sri Y.V. Krishna Rao. The meeting was an intellectual success we can say. But sorrily due to the defects in our law and bureaucratic administrative system we could not get registration - not even title verification - by that time.
Later in the first week of April my arguments for the petitioner have been completed and only at the conclusion of the arguments has the counter affidavit of the Respondents been filed! As such we had no occasion to file a reply affidavit countering their silly objection about not affixing Rs. 2/- court fee stamp and other baseless averments.
On the next date of adjournment i.e. on 25-04-2005 I brought this anomaly to the notice of the Judge and requested him short time not more than a week to file a reply. But to my astonishment the Judge said the Judgment is already written and pronounced its operative part. We could do nothing but keep silent awe-struck.
Of course we had to appeal against it immediately but then the judgment copy would not be supplied to us immeidately and the Court will close for summer vacation on 1 May and 30 April 2005 would be the last working day. What to do?
We were already furious and discontented about the very requirement of filing declaration for bringing out a newspaper - a colonial legacy and oppressive requirement in our opinion violative of our fundamental right to speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) and also of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. We were long thinking about challenging the constitutional validity of that provision - Section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act - and this development called for urgent action in that regard.
Late Sri V. Venkataramanaiah, former Advocate General, enthusiastically came forward to be first petitioner in the public interest litigation we were planning. With Prof. RVR Chandrasekhar Rao, Sri M.T. Khan and I. Balamani (the Publisher of this journal) as the other three petitioners we without delay moved to file PIL Writ Petition No. 9025 of 2005 attacking the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act and filed an interim application in it to immediately direct the RNI to verify the title for our newspaper and also register it without delay. The interim application was taken up on the last working day and it was ordered. Only pursuant to that interim order, the Registrar of Newspapers for India, New Delhi released this title for us and thereafter it took another 6 months or so to get the registration of this journal completed. That Writ Petition No. WP 9025 of 2005 is still pending disposal.
And then the Judgment of the single Judge in WP 22585 of 2004 had to be challenged and we did that also by way of WA No. 1178 of 2005 in June 2005. We will first post the developments regarding this Writ Appeal hereunder and later also post the details regarding the more important [constitutional] writ petition No. 9025 of 2005 in the coming posts.
The Memorandum of Grounds in our Writ Appeal 1178/2005 challenging WP 22585/2004 is as follows:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,
ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD.
W.A. No. 1178 of 2005
against
W.P. No. 22585 of 2004
Between:
I. BALAMANI, W/o I. Mallikarjuna Sharma,
H. No. 6-3-1243/156, D. Sanjeevaiah Nagar, M.S. Makta,
Opposite Raj Bhavan, HYDERABAD - 500 082. … APPELLANT/
Petitioner in WP 22585/2004.
A N D
1. The Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers -
presently, Mr. Ismail, Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Basheerbagh, HYDERABAD - 500 029.
2. The Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), Wing 2,
West Block 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110 066.
3. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Chief Secretary, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022.
4. Ministry of Information and Public Relations,
Government of India, headed and represented by
Sri S. Jaipal Reddy, Union Cabinet Minister,
14, Akbar Road, NEW DELHI - 110 011. … RESPONDENTS.
* * *
The address for service of notices, process etc. to the above named appellant/petitioner is that of her counsel, I. Mallikarjuna Sharma, Advocate, H.No. 6-3-1243/116, D. Sanjeevaiah Nagar (M.S. Makta), Opposite Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad - 500 082.
Aggrieved by the Order dated Monday, the twenty-fifth day of April, Two thousand five [25-04-2005] of a single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 22585 of 2004, the appellants-petitioner herein submits this Memorandum of Writ Appeal on the following among other
G R O U N D S :
1. The impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is contrary to the facts and law of the case.
2. The learned Judge erred in not declaring that either the Commissioner of Police or the Joint Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad or whoever police officer acting as the 1st respondent herein has no jurisdiction to act as the Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers, especially when he categorically found that no provision of law or notification authorizing any of them to act so could be produced before the Court by the respondents;
3. The learned Judge erred in stating that a police officer acting as an Executive Magistrate would be more suitable and efficient person to be the Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers, when it is clearly defined in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 that only a person with full powers of a Magistrate or a Magistrate of Police could come under the denomination and both the categories of Magistrates could only be that of Judicial Magistrates by virtue of construction of the references in Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and also in S. 3 of the later Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
4. The learned Judge failed to note that in a metropolitan area, such judicial Magistrate empowered to act as Magistrate can only be a Metropolitan Magistrate; and this applies to even Section 5 of the Press Act.
5. The learned Judge erred in not categorically declaring that the demand for user-charges for newspaper declarations by the 1st respondent is illegal and hence all the user-charges so illegally collected by him so far are liable to be refunded to the respective publishers who were made to pay those;
6. The learned Judge erred in observing that affixation of 1 Rupee Court Fee Stamp is essential for the processing of an application dated 16-08-2004 filed by the petitioner herein, when there is no such requirement indicated either in the Press and Registration of Books Act or the Rules framed under that Act;
7. The learned Judge failed to note that the application dated
16-08-2004 was given by the petitioner to facilitate the discharge of his duty by the 1st Respondent and there is no specific provision in the Press and Registration of Books Act for any such application and as such no court fee is payable on it;
8. The learned Judge failed to see that even if 1 Rupee Court Fee is payable on the application, the 1st Respondent did not take any objection in that regard and did not give an opportunity to the petitioner to correct her lapse and re-present the application, and that Section 5 of the AP Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act is categorical in laying down that if any such court fee is paid at a later stage, it would be deemed to have been paid in the first instance itself;
9. The learned Judge erred in directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application in connection with filing declaration before the District Magistrate instead of directing a competent Metropolitan Magistrate to process the already filed application/declaration and authenticate the declaration expeditiously;
10. Such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of this writ appeal.
The fixed Court Fee of Rs. 100/- is paid.
Hyderabad. Sd/-
Dated 21-06-2005. COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/PETITIONER.
Of later developments subsequent to filing this Writ Appeal to be continued in the next post...
Our Affidavit in WP 22585 of 2004 of which judgment has been already posted
This is our Writ Petition Affidavit in WP 22585 of 2004, the judgment of which has been posted in this blog yesterday:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD.
W.P. No. 22585 of 2004.
Between:IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD.
W.P. No. 22585 of 2004.
I. BALAMANI, w/o I. Mallikarjuna Sharma,
H. No. 6-3-1243/156, D. Sanjeevaiah Nagar, M.S. Makta,
Opposite Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad - 500 082. … PETITIONER.
A N D
1. The Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers - presently
Mr. Ismail, Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 029.
2. The Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), Wing 2,
West Block 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110 066.
3. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its
Chief Secretary, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022.
4. Ministry of Information and Public Relations,
Government of India, headed and represented by
Sri S. Jaipal Reddy, Union Cabinet Minister,
14, Akbar Road, New Delhi - 110 011. ... RESPONDENTS.
* * *
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER :
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER :
I, Smt. I. Balamani, wife of I. Mallikarjuna Sharma, Age: 38 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 petitioner herein and, as such, well acquainted with the facts of the case. I am filing this writ petition aggrieved by the callousness and inaction of the 1st respondent herein who is illegally demanding user-charges for even processing my application for verification of title for my proposed newspaper, of the 2nd respondent who has not verified the title despite my direct representation to him in this regard and the policy decisions and practices of 3rd and 4th respondents in this connection, all of which cumulatively infringe my freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19 as also my right to a dignified and free life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. I am deposing to this affidavit to the best of my information, knowledge and belief, and that I believe to be true.
2. 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 as the sole proprietress of Ravi Sasi Enterprises, with the inspiration and support given by my husband who is a practicing advocate and talented writer. Recently I decided, with the idea given by my husband and encouragement 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. And with my husband I. Mallikarjuna Sharma as Editor,
I brought out some trial issues of the same also. Along with the first trial issue I had given an application dated 16-08-2004 to the Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers enclosing application in Annexure III to the Registrar of Newspapers of India for verification of title. I requested the Magistrate who happens to be a Deputy Commissioner of Police to process the same expeditiously so that a title verification letter can be got by me soon. Such verification letter is said to be essential to me 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 2 herein) dated 16-08-2004, apprising him of my application in this regard and enclosing a copy of it as well as of the trial issue of the journal.
3. But my application to Respondent 1 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 and as such I have not got any response/verification letter from them even till date. After waiting for about 2 months, and causing enquiries in the meanwhile with the personnel in the office and also the person of the Magistrate concerned, I was convinced that the Magistrate concerned was demanding some user-charges which are not sanctioned by law and that he is refusing to send my application for verification of title to the Registrar of Newspapers for India until such user-charges are paid by me. As such I wrote him a letter-notice dated 16-10-2004 protesting against such conduct by him. Therein I made it clear to him that
I am required only to give a declaration before him as per Section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, which has to be transmitted by him to the RNI (R-2 herein). The process of verification of title seems to have been introduced to prevent multiplicity of newspapers with one and the same title and is only a preliminary and aid to the requisite legal provision of Section 5. However, Respondent 1 has not carried out even the preliminary act of forwarding my application for verification and already two months have elapsed. He (R-1) was withholding the transmission of this preliminary application in Annexure III only because he insists on my payment of user-charges and he cited one G.O. Ms. 601 (Finance), dated 22-05-2002 [P-6] as giving him the authority and power in this connection.
4. With much difficulty I was able procure a copy of that G.O. [P-6] but I did not find any mention therein about any need to pay user-charges in connection with registration of newspapers. So I made it clear to the Respondent 1 in my above letter-notice that - his office slip [P-7] requiring me to pay “Rs. 2000/- user-charges for ‘police clearance certificate’ for declaration…” seems to be 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 my constitutionally protected fundamental right to speech and expression. Further I 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 requested him to immediately correct his blatant and arbitrary mistake and send my 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 expressed my hope that he - Respondent 1 - would certainly do so and also reply to me within two weeks of receipt of this letter-petition by him about any further action he might take in this regard. I also mailed another letter dated 18-10-2004 to the RNI (R-2 herein) complaining about the illegality by R-1 and also requested him to protect press freedom by suitably advising the Magistrate concerned. I also stressed therein that it is 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 I requested him to cause verification of the said title on his own and issue me a verification letter for my proposed law fortnightly at the earliest.
5. However, I regret to submit that so far I have not received any response or reply from either of the two respondents 1 & 2 [except P-10]. As such I am effectively and for no fault of mine deprived of my right to publish a regular newspaper and avail the facilities extended for the publication and dissemination of such newspapers such as postal concessions. Also this whole process is causing me a lot of anxiety, mental worries and loss of reputation and credit in society. Further the chances of increasing the prestige and circulation of the proposed law reporter by enrolling more and more number of subscribers and canvassing for liberal donors and advertisers are also adversely affected since the lack of regularization of the journal is discouraging several interested readers and prospective donors/advertisers from enthusiastically supporting our proposed journal. All this has caused a definite and considerable financial loss to me. All this due to the action and/or inaction of Respondents 1 and 2, which is a certain and clear infringement of my freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) of our Constitution.
6. I am advised to submit 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. And it seems such reasonable restrictions could be imposed only by a parliamentary law. Further the publication of books and newspapers is governed by a central enactment, The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1867 Act’), which 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 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. I am advised to say that it is obviously a duty of the Magistrate concerned to get verified the title and satisfy himself about its availability for the particular applicant printer/publisher. It would not be fair or just for the Magistrate to, for the costs of carrying out his own duty, charge the applicant. Anyway there is nothing in the 1867 Act or the rules made under it either by the Central Government or the State Government stipulating any such user-charges.
7. I am legally advised to further state that it is colonial legacy and mindset to continue to endow some top police officers with the status and powers of executive magistrates and appoint them as Magistrates for Newspapers. The British imperialists in order to suppress the revolt of the people against their oppressive and plundering rule might have devised and implemented such policing measures but it is quite unwarranted to continue such practice anywhere in independent India. Fortunately this seems to be not the case all over India or perhaps even in all centres in our State. In Karnataka only a Judicial Magistrate can be appointed as Magistrate for Newspapers. Even as per the now existing law (1867 Act), Magistrate is interpreted as “any person exercising the full powers of a Magistrate and includes a Magistrate of Police.” But nowadays there are no Magistrates of Police; as per Section 3 of the old Criminal Procedure Code any reference to Magistrate of Police was to be deemed as reference to Presidency Magistrate and as per Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, this only means a Metropolitan Magistrate (Section 3). In such circumstances, I am advised to say that Respondent 1 has no jurisdiction at all to entertain my application for verification of title (for my subsequent filing of declaration). As such the Respondent 2 has to discharge the entire obligation and burden of directly verifying the title, as also receiving the subsequent declaration that would be filed by me. Or else Respondents 3 and 4 together have to devise some other way and appoint only Judicial Magistrates as Concerned Magistrates for Newspapers and authorize them to receive declarations filed by me or persons similarly situated as me.
8. In such circumstances and for the said reasons, I submit that the action of Respondents 1 and 2 in not verifying the title for my proposed newspaper as also the appointment and continuance of Respondent 1 as Magistrate for Newspapers is unjust, unconstitutional and illegal and needs appropriate intervention by this Court for the following among other
G R O U N D S:
(i) The actions of the respondents are in violation of the law of the land and infringe the fundamental rights laid down in our Constitution.
(ii) As per Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, only a Magistrate having full powers can be a Magistrate concerning Newspapers and as such Respondent 1 being not such a Magistrate, has no jurisdiction to act so.
(iii) The imposition of user-charges or any other charges is not authorized by or even contemplated in the 1867 Act or the rules made under it. As such requiring the petitioner to pay any user-charges or withholding her application for verification of title on the ground of non-payment of user-charges is arbitrary and illegal.
(iv) The right to publish newspapers is part of press freedom, which in turn is part of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) of the Constitution, which can only be interfered with by any ‘reasonable restrictions’ as per 19 (2). As such any other sort of interference by the State Government in this regard is unconstitutional and hence ab initio void.
(v) Right to life also contemplates right to live with dignity and freedom and is not mere animal existence. In the instant case the action of the respondents has already caused me a lot of strain, mental worry, financial loss and damage to reputation. As such the action of Respondents 1 and 2 infringes my right under Article 21 also.
(vi) The inaction, commissions and omissions of R-1 and R-2 are quite arbitrary and as such violate Article 14 too.
(vii) Such other grounds as may be urged at the hearing of this petition.
9. I submit that I am constrained to approach this Honourable Court to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy in this case by way of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution since I do not have any other alternative remedy in this regard.
10. 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:
11. In such circumstances, it becomes just and necessary that this Court may be pleased to direct Respondent 2 herein to immediately verify the title for my proposed newspaper as per the titles-status as on 16-08-2004, the date of my first application for verification of title, so as to enable me to file a declaration at the earliest before Respondent 2 or before any duly qualified Magistrate to be appointed by Respondents 3 and 4 or by this Court; 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:
12. 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 that any imposition of user-charges by Respondents 1 and 3 as regards the process of verification of title and filing and receiving of declarations from publishers and printers in connection with newspapers as also the appointment and continuance of top police officers by investing them with executive magistracy as Magistrates for Newspapers is unconstitutional, illegal and ab initio void, with a consequent direction for refund of all the user-charges collected so far in this connection to the respective payers/declarants; award costs of the writ petition to me and pass any such order or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
7th & last page:
Corrections:
Solemnly affirmed and signed in my presence here at
Hyderabad on this Monday, the 6th day of December 2004. D E P O N E N T.
1. I am the petitioner herein and, as such, well acquainted with the facts of the case. I am filing this writ petition aggrieved by the callousness and inaction of the 1st respondent herein who is illegally demanding user-charges for even processing my application for verification of title for my proposed newspaper, of the 2nd respondent who has not verified the title despite my direct representation to him in this regard and the policy decisions and practices of 3rd and 4th respondents in this connection, all of which cumulatively infringe my freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19 as also my right to a dignified and free life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. I am deposing to this affidavit to the best of my information, knowledge and belief, and that I believe to be true.
2. 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 as the sole proprietress of Ravi Sasi Enterprises, with the inspiration and support given by my husband who is a practicing advocate and talented writer. Recently I decided, with the idea given by my husband and encouragement 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. And with my husband I. Mallikarjuna Sharma as Editor,
I brought out some trial issues of the same also. Along with the first trial issue I had given an application dated 16-08-2004 to the Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers enclosing application in Annexure III to the Registrar of Newspapers of India for verification of title. I requested the Magistrate who happens to be a Deputy Commissioner of Police to process the same expeditiously so that a title verification letter can be got by me soon. Such verification letter is said to be essential to me 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 2 herein) dated 16-08-2004, apprising him of my application in this regard and enclosing a copy of it as well as of the trial issue of the journal.
3. But my application to Respondent 1 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 and as such I have not got any response/verification letter from them even till date. After waiting for about 2 months, and causing enquiries in the meanwhile with the personnel in the office and also the person of the Magistrate concerned, I was convinced that the Magistrate concerned was demanding some user-charges which are not sanctioned by law and that he is refusing to send my application for verification of title to the Registrar of Newspapers for India until such user-charges are paid by me. As such I wrote him a letter-notice dated 16-10-2004 protesting against such conduct by him. Therein I made it clear to him that
I am required only to give a declaration before him as per Section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, which has to be transmitted by him to the RNI (R-2 herein). The process of verification of title seems to have been introduced to prevent multiplicity of newspapers with one and the same title and is only a preliminary and aid to the requisite legal provision of Section 5. However, Respondent 1 has not carried out even the preliminary act of forwarding my application for verification and already two months have elapsed. He (R-1) was withholding the transmission of this preliminary application in Annexure III only because he insists on my payment of user-charges and he cited one G.O. Ms. 601 (Finance), dated 22-05-2002 [P-6] as giving him the authority and power in this connection.
4. With much difficulty I was able procure a copy of that G.O. [P-6] but I did not find any mention therein about any need to pay user-charges in connection with registration of newspapers. So I made it clear to the Respondent 1 in my above letter-notice that - his office slip [P-7] requiring me to pay “Rs. 2000/- user-charges for ‘police clearance certificate’ for declaration…” seems to be 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 my constitutionally protected fundamental right to speech and expression. Further I 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 requested him to immediately correct his blatant and arbitrary mistake and send my 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 expressed my hope that he - Respondent 1 - would certainly do so and also reply to me within two weeks of receipt of this letter-petition by him about any further action he might take in this regard. I also mailed another letter dated 18-10-2004 to the RNI (R-2 herein) complaining about the illegality by R-1 and also requested him to protect press freedom by suitably advising the Magistrate concerned. I also stressed therein that it is 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 I requested him to cause verification of the said title on his own and issue me a verification letter for my proposed law fortnightly at the earliest.
5. However, I regret to submit that so far I have not received any response or reply from either of the two respondents 1 & 2 [except P-10]. As such I am effectively and for no fault of mine deprived of my right to publish a regular newspaper and avail the facilities extended for the publication and dissemination of such newspapers such as postal concessions. Also this whole process is causing me a lot of anxiety, mental worries and loss of reputation and credit in society. Further the chances of increasing the prestige and circulation of the proposed law reporter by enrolling more and more number of subscribers and canvassing for liberal donors and advertisers are also adversely affected since the lack of regularization of the journal is discouraging several interested readers and prospective donors/advertisers from enthusiastically supporting our proposed journal. All this has caused a definite and considerable financial loss to me. All this due to the action and/or inaction of Respondents 1 and 2, which is a certain and clear infringement of my freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) of our Constitution.
6. I am advised to submit 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. And it seems such reasonable restrictions could be imposed only by a parliamentary law. Further the publication of books and newspapers is governed by a central enactment, The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1867 Act’), which 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 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. I am advised to say that it is obviously a duty of the Magistrate concerned to get verified the title and satisfy himself about its availability for the particular applicant printer/publisher. It would not be fair or just for the Magistrate to, for the costs of carrying out his own duty, charge the applicant. Anyway there is nothing in the 1867 Act or the rules made under it either by the Central Government or the State Government stipulating any such user-charges.
7. I am legally advised to further state that it is colonial legacy and mindset to continue to endow some top police officers with the status and powers of executive magistrates and appoint them as Magistrates for Newspapers. The British imperialists in order to suppress the revolt of the people against their oppressive and plundering rule might have devised and implemented such policing measures but it is quite unwarranted to continue such practice anywhere in independent India. Fortunately this seems to be not the case all over India or perhaps even in all centres in our State. In Karnataka only a Judicial Magistrate can be appointed as Magistrate for Newspapers. Even as per the now existing law (1867 Act), Magistrate is interpreted as “any person exercising the full powers of a Magistrate and includes a Magistrate of Police.” But nowadays there are no Magistrates of Police; as per Section 3 of the old Criminal Procedure Code any reference to Magistrate of Police was to be deemed as reference to Presidency Magistrate and as per Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, this only means a Metropolitan Magistrate (Section 3). In such circumstances, I am advised to say that Respondent 1 has no jurisdiction at all to entertain my application for verification of title (for my subsequent filing of declaration). As such the Respondent 2 has to discharge the entire obligation and burden of directly verifying the title, as also receiving the subsequent declaration that would be filed by me. Or else Respondents 3 and 4 together have to devise some other way and appoint only Judicial Magistrates as Concerned Magistrates for Newspapers and authorize them to receive declarations filed by me or persons similarly situated as me.
8. In such circumstances and for the said reasons, I submit that the action of Respondents 1 and 2 in not verifying the title for my proposed newspaper as also the appointment and continuance of Respondent 1 as Magistrate for Newspapers is unjust, unconstitutional and illegal and needs appropriate intervention by this Court for the following among other
G R O U N D S:
(i) The actions of the respondents are in violation of the law of the land and infringe the fundamental rights laid down in our Constitution.
(ii) As per Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, only a Magistrate having full powers can be a Magistrate concerning Newspapers and as such Respondent 1 being not such a Magistrate, has no jurisdiction to act so.
(iii) The imposition of user-charges or any other charges is not authorized by or even contemplated in the 1867 Act or the rules made under it. As such requiring the petitioner to pay any user-charges or withholding her application for verification of title on the ground of non-payment of user-charges is arbitrary and illegal.
(iv) The right to publish newspapers is part of press freedom, which in turn is part of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) of the Constitution, which can only be interfered with by any ‘reasonable restrictions’ as per 19 (2). As such any other sort of interference by the State Government in this regard is unconstitutional and hence ab initio void.
(v) Right to life also contemplates right to live with dignity and freedom and is not mere animal existence. In the instant case the action of the respondents has already caused me a lot of strain, mental worry, financial loss and damage to reputation. As such the action of Respondents 1 and 2 infringes my right under Article 21 also.
(vi) The inaction, commissions and omissions of R-1 and R-2 are quite arbitrary and as such violate Article 14 too.
(vii) Such other grounds as may be urged at the hearing of this petition.
9. I submit that I am constrained to approach this Honourable Court to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy in this case by way of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution since I do not have any other alternative remedy in this regard.
10. 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:
11. In such circumstances, it becomes just and necessary that this Court may be pleased to direct Respondent 2 herein to immediately verify the title for my proposed newspaper as per the titles-status as on 16-08-2004, the date of my first application for verification of title, so as to enable me to file a declaration at the earliest before Respondent 2 or before any duly qualified Magistrate to be appointed by Respondents 3 and 4 or by this Court; 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:
12. 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 that any imposition of user-charges by Respondents 1 and 3 as regards the process of verification of title and filing and receiving of declarations from publishers and printers in connection with newspapers as also the appointment and continuance of top police officers by investing them with executive magistracy as Magistrates for Newspapers is unconstitutional, illegal and ab initio void, with a consequent direction for refund of all the user-charges collected so far in this connection to the respective payers/declarants; award costs of the writ petition to me and pass any such order or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
7th & last page:
Corrections:
Solemnly affirmed and signed in my presence here at
Hyderabad on this Monday, the 6th day of December 2004. D E P O N E N T.
Before me :
ADVOCATE : HYDERABAD.
ADVOCATE : HYDERABAD.
WHOEVER CAN, GO TO RESCUE THE PEOPLE OF KURNOOL CITY, ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA
WHOEVER CAN GO TO RESCUE PEOPLE OF KURNOOL CITY, ANDHRA PRADESH
Kurnool, former capital of Andhra (1953-56) and the biggest city of Rayalaseema Region of Andhra Pradesh, is in danger of total inundation due to the worst ever floods since independence. Already several parts of the city are submerged to 3-25 feet depth. One citizen of Kurnool even expressed the fear that the 17th century Saint Veerabrahmendra Swamy's (known as Indian Nostradamus) saying that "The crow sitting atop the Kondareddy Tower (a tall tower in Kurnool) would drink water there" would come true. Scores of villages have already been submerged and lakhs of people rendered homeless; more dangerously, thousands are trapped in flood waters even in Kurnool city.
So I appeal to all our facebook friends that WHOEVER CAN GO TO RESCUE THE PEOPLE OF KURNOOL CITY BY WHATEVER MEANS AT THEIR COMMAND. Doctors can go to medicate and treat the needy, Boatmen are much in demand, take light carriable rubber boats with you, etc.
So I appeal to all our facebook friends that WHOEVER CAN GO TO RESCUE THE PEOPLE OF KURNOOL CITY BY WHATEVER MEANS AT THEIR COMMAND. Doctors can go to medicate and treat the needy, Boatmen are much in demand, take light carriable rubber boats with you, etc.
Editorial: 'CRISIS CONGRESSIONAL' in the 30 September 2009 issue of LAW ANIMATED WORLD.
CRISIS CONGRESSIONAL
surely seems to have enveloped the State of Andhra Pradesh pursuant to the 2 September helicopter crash which took the life of the popular chief minister with pleas for making his son the ruler espoused by powerful sections of his party. This is no wonder in a country used to despots and dynastic succession wars and rituals but is certainly awful and unfortunate for the progress of democracy in modern days. It has also generated an illusion of a constitutional crisis. However, the majestic Constitution of India never gave its citizens the fundamental right to vote even and so to think that it would have given their representatives a basic right to choose their own leader is stupidity simple. The Governor in a State is endowed with wide powers – more so than the President of India possesses vis-Ã -vis his ministers, not only to use his discretion in several circumstances, but also to choose not to be bound by the advice of his ministers. And there is nothing in the Constitution except the ordaining of ‘collective responsibility’ of the council of ministers to the house of the people or the legislative assembly as the case may be, and it would require the interpretational skill of uncommon judicial minds to infer it as requiring invariably the ‘confidence of the House’. Conventions, of course, there are that the ministry has to prove such confidence in it but it is the Governor who decides the time and place and even the need for the same. Moreover, conventions old can more easily be replaced by newer ones than the provisions of the constitution. As long as the incumbent chief minister, who is a senior, experienced and talented legislator, enjoys the confidence of the Governor, and more particularly of the ‘congress high command’, which term again sounds an element of despotism no doubt, there may not be any crisis of survival for his government. The ever stinging wails and curses of their own discontented representatives cannot be avoided though, but there are more urgent problems of health, finance and floods to be confronted than this turbulent struggle for succession.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Legal troubles LAW ANIMATED WORLD had to face and still encounters
Dear Readers,
Though it is said press freedom flourishes to a great extent in India, it is a sad fact of the day that we have only inherited colonial legacy in this matter. The imperialist rulers wanted to curb press freedom to protect their own oppressive and rapacious regime, which tradition our modern brown lords are following to this day. The Constitution has not brought any radical break with the past but shamelessly proclaims continuance of all the colonial laws under the notorious Article 372. Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is one such colonial act shamelessly continued by our black lords. I don't understand why publishers of newspapers have to give a declaration before any Magistrate and how a police officer can be appointed to be a Magistrate for newspapers. We have challenged these provisions by way of writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and hereunder we give judgment in one writ petition where the Judge accepting both contentions of ours on important points of law mixed with facts - user charges cannot be levied and Dy. Commissioner of Police cannot be Magistrate for newspapers - still rejected our petition on the flimsy ground of not affixing Rs. 1/- court fee stamp even though it was submitted to him that in view of press freedom (part of Art. 19) even that stamp was not warranted and when that plea was not the real bone of controversy at all! Of course an appeal by us is pending and we hope this mistake of court will be corrected by the division bench. Please read the Judgment now:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,
ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD.
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION NO: 22585 of 2004
Though it is said press freedom flourishes to a great extent in India, it is a sad fact of the day that we have only inherited colonial legacy in this matter. The imperialist rulers wanted to curb press freedom to protect their own oppressive and rapacious regime, which tradition our modern brown lords are following to this day. The Constitution has not brought any radical break with the past but shamelessly proclaims continuance of all the colonial laws under the notorious Article 372. Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is one such colonial act shamelessly continued by our black lords. I don't understand why publishers of newspapers have to give a declaration before any Magistrate and how a police officer can be appointed to be a Magistrate for newspapers. We have challenged these provisions by way of writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and hereunder we give judgment in one writ petition where the Judge accepting both contentions of ours on important points of law mixed with facts - user charges cannot be levied and Dy. Commissioner of Police cannot be Magistrate for newspapers - still rejected our petition on the flimsy ground of not affixing Rs. 1/- court fee stamp even though it was submitted to him that in view of press freedom (part of Art. 19) even that stamp was not warranted and when that plea was not the real bone of controversy at all! Of course an appeal by us is pending and we hope this mistake of court will be corrected by the division bench. Please read the Judgment now:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,
ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD.
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION NO: 22585 of 2004
Between:
I. BALAMANI, W/o I. Mallikarjuna Sharma,
H. No. 6-3-1243/156, D. Sanjeevaiah Nagar, M.S. Makta,
Opposite Raj Bhavan, HYDERABAD - 500 082. … PETITIONER.
A N D
1. The Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers -
presently, Mr. Ismail, Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Basheerbagh, HYDERABAD - 500 029.
2. The Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), Wing 2,
West Block 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110 066.
3. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Chief Secretary, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022.
4. Ministry of Information and Public Relations,
Government of India, headed and represented by
Sri S. Jaipal Reddy, Union Cabinet Minister,
14, Akbar Road, NEW DELHI - 110 011. … RESPONDENTS.
* * *
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, particularly a Writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, to declare that any imposition of user-charges by Respondents 1 and 3 as regards the process of verification of title and filing and receiving of declarations publishers and printers in connection with newspapers as also the appointment and continuance of top police officers by vesting them with executive magistracy as Magistrates for Newspapers is unconstitutional, illegal and ab intitio void, with a consequent direction for refund of all the user-charges collected so far in this connection to the respective payers/declarants; award costs of the Writ Petition to the Petitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. I. MALLIKARJUNA SHARMA
Counsel for the Respondents: MR. A. RAJASHEKAR REDDY
(ASST. SOLICITOR GEN.)
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION No. 22585 of 2004.
ORDER:
This petition is filed to declare the imposition of user charges for processing the application submitted by the petitioner for registration of a magazine entitled ‘Law Animated World’ to be published by her as a newspaper is bad and also for a declaration that appointment of police officers, as Executive Magistrates for purposes of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (the Act) is unconstitutional.
(2) The case, in brief, of the petitioner is that she, who is a housewife with post-graduate degree in commerce, is the proprietrix of ‘Ravi Sasi Enterpreneurs’ [sic - Enterprises] and is running the same with the assistance of her husband who is an advocate and is occasionally undertaking publication of socially useful books in English, and had with an intention to print and publish a fortnightly law journal, to report decisions of court and developments in law, with her husband as editor, brought out some trial issues of the magazine entitled ‘Law Animated World’ and submitted an application in the prescribed proforma on
16-08-2004 to the first respondent for verification of title and requested him to process the same expeditiously for filing the required declaration as per the Act and sent a letter to the Registrar of Newspapers for India (second respondent) enclosing a copy of the trial issue of the journal. Since first respondent did not forward her application to the second respondent, she did not get any response from the second respondent, even after expiry of two months and when she got enquiries made she was informed that payment of user charges of Rs. 2000/- is a condition precedent for forwarding her application to the second respondent for verification, as per G.O. Ms. No. 601 (Finance), dated 22-05-2002. Since there is nothing in the said G.O. to show that payment of user charges of Rs. 2000/- is necessary for verification of title for newspapers, first respondent cannot insist on payment of user charges for verification of title. Since appointment of police officers as Magistrates is frowned upon by Courts, the Deputy Commissioner of Police being designated as Executive Magistrate for verification of title of the petitioner, is improper. Hence, the petition.
(3) First respondent filed his counter-affidavit. The allegations, in brief, therein are on 16-08-2004 petitioner submitted an unstamped application seeking permission to publish a law reporter entitled ‘Law Animated World’ at Rs. 10/- per copy with a copy of the trial issue dated 15-08-2004 and with a request to forward the same to the second respondent for title clearance. In spite of the petitioner not affixing the requisite court fee stamp to her application, her application was sent to the Inspector of Police, Special Branch City, for verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner, to avoid delay. As per G.O. Ms. No. 601, Finance (BG) Department, dated 22-05-2002 read with Circular of the DGP I.D. No. 167-7-08/V6/2002 dated 06-05-2003, an application, for verification of character and antecedents of an employee of a Private Organization/Agencies or Non-Corporate Sectors, Rs. 2000/- towards user charges has to be deposited and so petitioner was asked to remit
Rs. 2,000/- towards user charges for verification of her character and antecedents for forwarding the application to second respondent. Petitioner without affixing Court fee of Rs. 2/- to her application and without paying the user charges, cannot seek title clearance, nor start a newspaper.
(4) No counter affidavit is filed by or on behalf of second respondent.
(5) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though all the provisions in the Act, which was enacted when this country was under British rule, were made to prevent publication of seditious newspapers etc., and though some of the provisions of the Act have the effect of curtailing the freedom of speech and expression, which is violative of freedom of the fundamental right envisaged in the constitution, since the petitioner is not interested in questioning the constitutional validity of the provision of the Act and is interested only in bringing out the magazine as early as possible, is questioning the action of the first respondent in demanding Rs. 2,000/- towards user charges, and since designation of a police official as ‘Magistrate’ under the Act is inconveniencing not on the petitioner, but several others also due to his non-availability in the office, as he is entrusted with several other duties; law and order problems etc., as whenever a representative of the petitioner went to the office of the first respondent for information, he was being informed that first respondent is not available and is busy on some other duties, instead of designating a police official as the Magistrate under the Act, regular judicial Magistrate may be designated as the Magistrate for the purpose of the Act since in V. MOHAN RANGA RAO V. STATE OF A.P. and S. BHARATH KUMAR V. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA , the notification, appointing police officers as Executive Magistrates were struck down by this Court and since ‘Police Magistrates’ contemplated by Section 1 of the Act are not in vogue after the advent of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
(6) The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 170, Finance and Planning (FW:BG) Department, dated 23-04-2001 read with G.O. Ms. No. 601 (Finance), dated 22-05-2002, first respondent is collecting Rs. 2000/- as user charges for verification of character and antecedents and so the petitioner has to pay the user charges for verification of her character and antecedents for the first respondent to send his remarks to the second respondent, who is the competent authority to issue the license for starting a newspaper and in any event since the application of the petitioner is not duly stamped, it is not a valid application and se the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
(7) Though the institution of police Magistrates became obsolete,
I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that ‘Magistrate’ under the Act can only be a Metropolitan Magistrate, but not an Executive Magistrate.
(8) As per Section 5(2) of the Act, a declaration has to be made by the printer and publisher before a District, Presidency or Sub-Divisional Magistrate i.e. District Magistrate or Presidency Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Since Hyderabad is not a Presidency Town, the Magistrate under the Act can only be a ‘District Magistrate’ or a ‘Sub-Divisional Magistrate’.
As per Section 20 Cr.P.C., State Government has the power to appoint as many persons as it thinks fit as Executive Magistrates in a District or Metropolitan area and shall have to appoint one of them as the District Magistrate. Section 20(5) of Cr.P.C. empowers the State Government to confer upon a Commissioner of Police, all or any of the powers of an Executive Magistrate in relation to a Metropolitan area, under any law for the time being in force. So, from Section 20(5) Cr.P.C. it is clear that the Government can confer all or any of the powers of an Executive Magistrate, on a Commissioner of Police in a Metropolitan area.
(9) Section 5 of the Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli reads –
“the control and supervision of the aforesaid police force shall, subject to the orders of the Government, be vested in officer which shall the called the Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad for the city of Hyderabad and who may from time to time be appointed and removed by the Government.”
Section 6 of the Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 F enables appointment of Deputy and Assistant Commissioners of Police in the city of Hyderabad. As per Section 6(2) of Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 F every Deputy Commissioner of Police shall, subject to the orders of the Commissioners of City Police, Hyderabad, be competent to exercise all powers or perform some of the duties which are required to be performed by the Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad under this Act or any other enactment for the time being in force. Obviously on the basis of the above Section 6(2) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 F, first respondent is given the power to act as the ‘Magistrate’ under the Act. But such delegation is not a valid delegation because Section 20 (5) Cr.P.C. empowers the Government to confer the powers of an Executive Magistrate only on the ‘Commissioner of Police’ in any area and such power conferred on an officer cannot be delegated to his subordinate officer. Since there can only one Commissioner of Police for Hyderabad, it is the Commissioner of Police that can exercise any of the powers of the District Magistrate, if conferred on him.
(10) Learned Government Pleader did not produce any notification to show that Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad was conferred with any of the powers of a ‘District Magistrate’ by the Government. Similarly no notification authorizing [the] first respondent to perform the duties of a Magistrate under the Act is produced. As stated early [sic – earlier], even if such a notification was issued, the same is invalid because question of the Commissioner of Police delegating powers of an Executive Magistrate vested in him by the Government under Section 20 (5) Cr.P.C. cannot be delegated by him to any other officer. So, first respondent cannot act as ‘Magistrate’ for the purpose of Section 5 of the Act. It is only the Commissioner of Police, if he is vested with the power of ‘District Magistrate’, for the purpose of the Act by the Government, that can act as the ‘Magistrate’ under the Act. (emphasis ours)
(11) V. Mohana Ranga Rao’s case, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relates to the Government appointing Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District as Special Executive Magistrate for the Vijayawada Urban Police District and conferring on him the power to deal with cases under Sections 107, 108, 110, 133, 143 to 145 Cr.P.C., by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 21 Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the fact that Central Act 63 of 1980 took out from the Judicial Magistrates, the powers under Sections 107 to 110 Cr.P.C., and conferred those powers on the Executive Magistrates, the Division Bench in the above case observed:
“In a given case the possibility of calling upon the poets of civil society, under Sections 107, 108 and 133 or suspects or habitual offenders in a proceeding under Section 109 and 110 of the Code to furnish excessive bond so as to see that the citizen (indigent) cannot make avail of the right to be free, cannot be ruled out and as a result he has to languish behind the bars losing his legitimate fundamental personal liberty affecting his reputation. Thereby, it not only sullies the stream of justice at its source but also chills the confidence of the general public and is detrimental to the rule of law, and erosion to the efficacy thereof. Therefore, a person having an interest in the outcome of the action shall not be made a Judge,”
and struck down the notification inasmuch as a prosecutor cannot be a Judge.
(12) In S. Bharat Kumar’s case (2 supra) notification confers power to deal with a case under Sections 107 and 110 Cr.P.C. by appointing some Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent of Police as Executive Magistrates for their exercising control over the sympathizers of the leftwing extremist groups, was struck down by this Court on the ground that it suffered from three vices i.e., doctrine of vagueness, usurpation of legislative functions and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(13) The above two decisions have no application to the facts of this case, because the role of the ‘Magistrate’ under the Act is only to take a declaration and to verify the antecedents of a printer and the publisher of a magazine. It is well known that Judicial Magistrates do not have the necessary infrastructure or the personnel to make an enquiry into the antecedents of a printer and publisher. If Commissioner of Police is vested with the power of the District Magistrate for the purpose of the Act, such vestity can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be placing him in the position of a judge and prosecutor, as under the Act the ‘Magistrate’ does not discharge any judicial functions. He only makes an enquiry into the antecedents of the printer and publisher and receives a declaration under Section 5 of the Act. So the Government can appoint the Commissioner of Police of Hyderabad as ‘District Magistrate’ for the purpose of the Act.
(14) Except G.O. Ms. No. 170, Finance and Planning (FW:BG) Department, dated 23-04-2001 and G.O. Ms. No. 601 (Finance), dated 22-05-2002, no other proceedings are produced before me to show that the police department can collect user charges. From a reading of the counter-affidavit of first respondent it is seen that as per Circular of the DGP, dated 06-05-2003 whenever a person applies for verification of character and antecedents of employees of a private organization or non-corporate sectors, a sum of Rs. 2000/- has to be remitted to the Government as charges for verification of their character and antecedents. A person who wants to establish a newspaper is not asking for the verification of antecedents of anybody, since he after giving information about himself states that he is establishing a newspaper. Since the Registrar has to know the antecedents of the printer and publisher, for him to grant or reject the application, police have to verify the antecedents of the printer and publisher. Thus police would be assisting the second respondent by reporting to him about the antecedents of the person who wants to start a newspaper. Had the petitioner sought for the antecedents of some person or an employee in her organization, it is a different matter; the police have to perform an extra duty of finding out of finding out the antecedents of an individual, for the benefit of a private person or organization, and so they can collect some charges for rendering services to the private persons or an organization but when they are discharging the duty on behalf of the second respondent, to enable him to come to conclusion whether or not to grant permission to start the newspaper, question of the petitioner being called upon to pay user charges does not and cannot arise, because it is a part of the duty of the police to inform the second respondent about the antecedents of the petitioner. So the contention of the petitioner that first respondent has no power or authority to collect user charges has to be accepted. (emphasis ours)
(15) Since the contention of the first respondent that petitioner did not affix Court fee is not denied or disputed by the petitioner by filing a reply affidavit, it is clear that she did not affix the requisite court fee to her application. As per Section 4 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, no document chargeable with fee under that Act cannot be acted upon. The application filed by the petitioner falls either under Article 10 (K) or Article 11 of Schedule II to that Act and so application has to be affixed with Court fee stamp of one Rupee. The learned Government Pleader is not able to show the provision under which a stamp of Rs. 2/- as stated in the counter affidavit of the first respondent has to be affixed to an application filed before a Magistrate.
Since the application of the petitioner is not stamped, in view of Section 4 of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, first respondent did not commit any error in not acting on such application.
(16) In these circumstances, holding the first respondent has no power to act as Magistrate under the Act, and that it is only the Commissioner of Police, if he is vested with such power under Section 20 Cr.P.C. or the Collector, Hyderabad District that can act as the ‘Magistrate’ under the provisions of the Act, and holding that collection of user charges for processing an application under the Act does not hae the sanction of any law for the time being in force, petitioner is given liberty to file a proper application before the District Magistrate, Hyderabad for processing her application under the Act. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/- P. EKAMBARAM
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.
// TRUE COPY //
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER.
To
1. The Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers - presently,
Mr. Ismail, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Office of the
Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, HYDERABAD - 500 029.
2. The Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), Wing 2,
West Block 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110 066.
3. The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh,
A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022.
4. The Ministry of Information and Public Relations,
Government of India, Head, Union Cabinet Minister,
14, Akbar Road, NEW DELHI - 110 011.
5. 2 C.D. copies.
6. One C.C. to Mr. I. Mallikarjuna Sharma, Advocate (OPUC)
* * * * *.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. I. MALLIKARJUNA SHARMA
Counsel for the Respondents: MR. A. RAJASHEKAR REDDY
(ASST. SOLICITOR GEN.)
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION No. 22585 of 2004.
ORDER:
This petition is filed to declare the imposition of user charges for processing the application submitted by the petitioner for registration of a magazine entitled ‘Law Animated World’ to be published by her as a newspaper is bad and also for a declaration that appointment of police officers, as Executive Magistrates for purposes of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (the Act) is unconstitutional.
(2) The case, in brief, of the petitioner is that she, who is a housewife with post-graduate degree in commerce, is the proprietrix of ‘Ravi Sasi Enterpreneurs’ [sic - Enterprises] and is running the same with the assistance of her husband who is an advocate and is occasionally undertaking publication of socially useful books in English, and had with an intention to print and publish a fortnightly law journal, to report decisions of court and developments in law, with her husband as editor, brought out some trial issues of the magazine entitled ‘Law Animated World’ and submitted an application in the prescribed proforma on
16-08-2004 to the first respondent for verification of title and requested him to process the same expeditiously for filing the required declaration as per the Act and sent a letter to the Registrar of Newspapers for India (second respondent) enclosing a copy of the trial issue of the journal. Since first respondent did not forward her application to the second respondent, she did not get any response from the second respondent, even after expiry of two months and when she got enquiries made she was informed that payment of user charges of Rs. 2000/- is a condition precedent for forwarding her application to the second respondent for verification, as per G.O. Ms. No. 601 (Finance), dated 22-05-2002. Since there is nothing in the said G.O. to show that payment of user charges of Rs. 2000/- is necessary for verification of title for newspapers, first respondent cannot insist on payment of user charges for verification of title. Since appointment of police officers as Magistrates is frowned upon by Courts, the Deputy Commissioner of Police being designated as Executive Magistrate for verification of title of the petitioner, is improper. Hence, the petition.
(3) First respondent filed his counter-affidavit. The allegations, in brief, therein are on 16-08-2004 petitioner submitted an unstamped application seeking permission to publish a law reporter entitled ‘Law Animated World’ at Rs. 10/- per copy with a copy of the trial issue dated 15-08-2004 and with a request to forward the same to the second respondent for title clearance. In spite of the petitioner not affixing the requisite court fee stamp to her application, her application was sent to the Inspector of Police, Special Branch City, for verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner, to avoid delay. As per G.O. Ms. No. 601, Finance (BG) Department, dated 22-05-2002 read with Circular of the DGP I.D. No. 167-7-08/V6/2002 dated 06-05-2003, an application, for verification of character and antecedents of an employee of a Private Organization/Agencies or Non-Corporate Sectors, Rs. 2000/- towards user charges has to be deposited and so petitioner was asked to remit
Rs. 2,000/- towards user charges for verification of her character and antecedents for forwarding the application to second respondent. Petitioner without affixing Court fee of Rs. 2/- to her application and without paying the user charges, cannot seek title clearance, nor start a newspaper.
(4) No counter affidavit is filed by or on behalf of second respondent.
(5) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though all the provisions in the Act, which was enacted when this country was under British rule, were made to prevent publication of seditious newspapers etc., and though some of the provisions of the Act have the effect of curtailing the freedom of speech and expression, which is violative of freedom of the fundamental right envisaged in the constitution, since the petitioner is not interested in questioning the constitutional validity of the provision of the Act and is interested only in bringing out the magazine as early as possible, is questioning the action of the first respondent in demanding Rs. 2,000/- towards user charges, and since designation of a police official as ‘Magistrate’ under the Act is inconveniencing not on the petitioner, but several others also due to his non-availability in the office, as he is entrusted with several other duties; law and order problems etc., as whenever a representative of the petitioner went to the office of the first respondent for information, he was being informed that first respondent is not available and is busy on some other duties, instead of designating a police official as the Magistrate under the Act, regular judicial Magistrate may be designated as the Magistrate for the purpose of the Act since in V. MOHAN RANGA RAO V. STATE OF A.P. and S. BHARATH KUMAR V. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA , the notification, appointing police officers as Executive Magistrates were struck down by this Court and since ‘Police Magistrates’ contemplated by Section 1 of the Act are not in vogue after the advent of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
(6) The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 170, Finance and Planning (FW:BG) Department, dated 23-04-2001 read with G.O. Ms. No. 601 (Finance), dated 22-05-2002, first respondent is collecting Rs. 2000/- as user charges for verification of character and antecedents and so the petitioner has to pay the user charges for verification of her character and antecedents for the first respondent to send his remarks to the second respondent, who is the competent authority to issue the license for starting a newspaper and in any event since the application of the petitioner is not duly stamped, it is not a valid application and se the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
(7) Though the institution of police Magistrates became obsolete,
I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that ‘Magistrate’ under the Act can only be a Metropolitan Magistrate, but not an Executive Magistrate.
(8) As per Section 5(2) of the Act, a declaration has to be made by the printer and publisher before a District, Presidency or Sub-Divisional Magistrate i.e. District Magistrate or Presidency Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Since Hyderabad is not a Presidency Town, the Magistrate under the Act can only be a ‘District Magistrate’ or a ‘Sub-Divisional Magistrate’.
As per Section 20 Cr.P.C., State Government has the power to appoint as many persons as it thinks fit as Executive Magistrates in a District or Metropolitan area and shall have to appoint one of them as the District Magistrate. Section 20(5) of Cr.P.C. empowers the State Government to confer upon a Commissioner of Police, all or any of the powers of an Executive Magistrate in relation to a Metropolitan area, under any law for the time being in force. So, from Section 20(5) Cr.P.C. it is clear that the Government can confer all or any of the powers of an Executive Magistrate, on a Commissioner of Police in a Metropolitan area.
(9) Section 5 of the Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli reads –
“the control and supervision of the aforesaid police force shall, subject to the orders of the Government, be vested in officer which shall the called the Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad for the city of Hyderabad and who may from time to time be appointed and removed by the Government.”
Section 6 of the Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 F enables appointment of Deputy and Assistant Commissioners of Police in the city of Hyderabad. As per Section 6(2) of Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 F every Deputy Commissioner of Police shall, subject to the orders of the Commissioners of City Police, Hyderabad, be competent to exercise all powers or perform some of the duties which are required to be performed by the Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad under this Act or any other enactment for the time being in force. Obviously on the basis of the above Section 6(2) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 F, first respondent is given the power to act as the ‘Magistrate’ under the Act. But such delegation is not a valid delegation because Section 20 (5) Cr.P.C. empowers the Government to confer the powers of an Executive Magistrate only on the ‘Commissioner of Police’ in any area and such power conferred on an officer cannot be delegated to his subordinate officer. Since there can only one Commissioner of Police for Hyderabad, it is the Commissioner of Police that can exercise any of the powers of the District Magistrate, if conferred on him.
(10) Learned Government Pleader did not produce any notification to show that Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad was conferred with any of the powers of a ‘District Magistrate’ by the Government. Similarly no notification authorizing [the] first respondent to perform the duties of a Magistrate under the Act is produced. As stated early [sic – earlier], even if such a notification was issued, the same is invalid because question of the Commissioner of Police delegating powers of an Executive Magistrate vested in him by the Government under Section 20 (5) Cr.P.C. cannot be delegated by him to any other officer. So, first respondent cannot act as ‘Magistrate’ for the purpose of Section 5 of the Act. It is only the Commissioner of Police, if he is vested with the power of ‘District Magistrate’, for the purpose of the Act by the Government, that can act as the ‘Magistrate’ under the Act. (emphasis ours)
(11) V. Mohana Ranga Rao’s case, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relates to the Government appointing Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District as Special Executive Magistrate for the Vijayawada Urban Police District and conferring on him the power to deal with cases under Sections 107, 108, 110, 133, 143 to 145 Cr.P.C., by virtue of the power vested in it by Section 21 Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the fact that Central Act 63 of 1980 took out from the Judicial Magistrates, the powers under Sections 107 to 110 Cr.P.C., and conferred those powers on the Executive Magistrates, the Division Bench in the above case observed:
“In a given case the possibility of calling upon the poets of civil society, under Sections 107, 108 and 133 or suspects or habitual offenders in a proceeding under Section 109 and 110 of the Code to furnish excessive bond so as to see that the citizen (indigent) cannot make avail of the right to be free, cannot be ruled out and as a result he has to languish behind the bars losing his legitimate fundamental personal liberty affecting his reputation. Thereby, it not only sullies the stream of justice at its source but also chills the confidence of the general public and is detrimental to the rule of law, and erosion to the efficacy thereof. Therefore, a person having an interest in the outcome of the action shall not be made a Judge,”
and struck down the notification inasmuch as a prosecutor cannot be a Judge.
(12) In S. Bharat Kumar’s case (2 supra) notification confers power to deal with a case under Sections 107 and 110 Cr.P.C. by appointing some Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent of Police as Executive Magistrates for their exercising control over the sympathizers of the leftwing extremist groups, was struck down by this Court on the ground that it suffered from three vices i.e., doctrine of vagueness, usurpation of legislative functions and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(13) The above two decisions have no application to the facts of this case, because the role of the ‘Magistrate’ under the Act is only to take a declaration and to verify the antecedents of a printer and the publisher of a magazine. It is well known that Judicial Magistrates do not have the necessary infrastructure or the personnel to make an enquiry into the antecedents of a printer and publisher. If Commissioner of Police is vested with the power of the District Magistrate for the purpose of the Act, such vestity can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be placing him in the position of a judge and prosecutor, as under the Act the ‘Magistrate’ does not discharge any judicial functions. He only makes an enquiry into the antecedents of the printer and publisher and receives a declaration under Section 5 of the Act. So the Government can appoint the Commissioner of Police of Hyderabad as ‘District Magistrate’ for the purpose of the Act.
(14) Except G.O. Ms. No. 170, Finance and Planning (FW:BG) Department, dated 23-04-2001 and G.O. Ms. No. 601 (Finance), dated 22-05-2002, no other proceedings are produced before me to show that the police department can collect user charges. From a reading of the counter-affidavit of first respondent it is seen that as per Circular of the DGP, dated 06-05-2003 whenever a person applies for verification of character and antecedents of employees of a private organization or non-corporate sectors, a sum of Rs. 2000/- has to be remitted to the Government as charges for verification of their character and antecedents. A person who wants to establish a newspaper is not asking for the verification of antecedents of anybody, since he after giving information about himself states that he is establishing a newspaper. Since the Registrar has to know the antecedents of the printer and publisher, for him to grant or reject the application, police have to verify the antecedents of the printer and publisher. Thus police would be assisting the second respondent by reporting to him about the antecedents of the person who wants to start a newspaper. Had the petitioner sought for the antecedents of some person or an employee in her organization, it is a different matter; the police have to perform an extra duty of finding out of finding out the antecedents of an individual, for the benefit of a private person or organization, and so they can collect some charges for rendering services to the private persons or an organization but when they are discharging the duty on behalf of the second respondent, to enable him to come to conclusion whether or not to grant permission to start the newspaper, question of the petitioner being called upon to pay user charges does not and cannot arise, because it is a part of the duty of the police to inform the second respondent about the antecedents of the petitioner. So the contention of the petitioner that first respondent has no power or authority to collect user charges has to be accepted. (emphasis ours)
(15) Since the contention of the first respondent that petitioner did not affix Court fee is not denied or disputed by the petitioner by filing a reply affidavit, it is clear that she did not affix the requisite court fee to her application. As per Section 4 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, no document chargeable with fee under that Act cannot be acted upon. The application filed by the petitioner falls either under Article 10 (K) or Article 11 of Schedule II to that Act and so application has to be affixed with Court fee stamp of one Rupee. The learned Government Pleader is not able to show the provision under which a stamp of Rs. 2/- as stated in the counter affidavit of the first respondent has to be affixed to an application filed before a Magistrate.
Since the application of the petitioner is not stamped, in view of Section 4 of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, first respondent did not commit any error in not acting on such application.
(16) In these circumstances, holding the first respondent has no power to act as Magistrate under the Act, and that it is only the Commissioner of Police, if he is vested with such power under Section 20 Cr.P.C. or the Collector, Hyderabad District that can act as the ‘Magistrate’ under the provisions of the Act, and holding that collection of user charges for processing an application under the Act does not hae the sanction of any law for the time being in force, petitioner is given liberty to file a proper application before the District Magistrate, Hyderabad for processing her application under the Act. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/- P. EKAMBARAM
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.
// TRUE COPY //
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER.
To
1. The Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers - presently,
Mr. Ismail, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Office of the
Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, HYDERABAD - 500 029.
2. The Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), Wing 2,
West Block 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110 066.
3. The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh,
A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022.
4. The Ministry of Information and Public Relations,
Government of India, Head, Union Cabinet Minister,
14, Akbar Road, NEW DELHI - 110 011.
5. 2 C.D. copies.
6. One C.C. to Mr. I. Mallikarjuna Sharma, Advocate (OPUC)
* * * * *.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)