 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
BANNING of books in modern democratic societies has always been a matter of serious concern for it amounts to an infringement on the citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of expression. That the forfeiture, by a recent high court order, of two booklets, Sachchi Ramayana written by Periyar E V Ramasamy (EVR) and Brahmanvad Se Bacho by Buddh Sharan Hesh, was reported quite enthusiastically in a section of the local press while the question of merits of the blank order was totally ignored by a passive public, therefore, speaks volumes for the anomy in our intellectual and social life. The interim order of restrictions on the publication, sale and display of the booklets in question imposed by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on September 1, 1999 in connection with a public interest petition filed 12 days earlier does not attempt to justify the step or its immediacy. It would perhaps be pertinent to mention here that the Supreme Court has stated in regard to the forfeiture of a book that “An order may be brief but not a blank”. Appreciating the gravity of such a measure, our law-makers laid down in Section 96(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that forfeiture cases should “be heard and determined by a Special Bench of the High Court composed of three judges”. Even in the apex court, such cases are decided by a full bench. But the case in question has been handed over to a division bench.
Moreover, the apex court has opined that such cases should be handled with “governmental wisdom overseen by judicial review”. This perhaps means that the court should refer forfeiture cases to the government for contemplation of possible action after due investigation and only then the governmental action should be reviewed by the court.
Obviously, the more important of the two booklets is EVR’s Sachchi Ramayana, a trenchant critique of the popular Hindu epic which, the petitioner pleads, is likely to hurt the sentiments of Ram ‘bhaktas’ across the country.
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |