IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Order: 24th October, 2008 +CM(M) No. 588/2008

24.10.2008

Sarvadeshik Press & Ors. Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.P. Bansal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Vimal Wadhawan & Mr. Atul Wadera, Advs.

Versus

Usman Ghani & Ors. Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Mahajan with Mr. Sheetesh Khanna,
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Mr. R.S. Tomar &
Mr. Sumit Tomar, Advs. for respondent no. 3.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not ?
3. Â Whether judgment should be reported in Digest ?

ORAL:

1. This petition gives rise to a question whether
Civil Court can entertain a suit for banning/issuing an injunction on
publication of a book, which is in existence and being published and read for
last 135 years, on the ground that its publication was likely to disturb public
tranquility and public order.

2. The brief facts leading to this question are that
the two respondents considered themselves public spirited persons and
filed a suit with ostensible object of protecting the religious feelings of
other persons of same religion seeking a declaration that publication and
distribution of the Satyarth Prakash written by Swami Dayanand was
injurious to the religious faith of Muhammadan Community and thay wanted a
perpetual injunction to be issued against the publishers and certain Arya Samaj
Organizations, restraining them from publishing, printing and distributing
The Satyarth Prakash in any language.

3. Section 9 of CPC provides that Civil Court in India
have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which the
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

4. It is evident that every Court while entertaining
suit must be cautious that it should entertain only those suits which are of
civil nature and have the characteristic of affecting one’s rights of civil
nature. Where no civil right or monitory loss or any function of the plaintiff
connected with his civil rights have been affected, the Court should not
entertain a suit, nor should fall in a trap of allowing someone to use it as a
tool for public disturbance. Putting restrictions on religious books or banning
publication of certain works, involves constitutional issues and cannot be
entertained by Civil Courts and can be raised only by way of writ petitions.
Taking cognizance of matters of religious nature, where no civil rights are
affected is fraught with danger. Today two persons from Muslim Community have
filed a suit for banning Satyarth Prakash tomorrow another two persons
from any other community may file a suit for banning The Bible, The Quran,
The Gita or such other religious books which are revered by one or the
other section of the society. It is not the province or duty of the Court
to pronounce on the truthfulness of religious tenants or
reasonableness of the contents of religious books or to regulate the religious
sentiment and feelings of the sections of society. A Suit by Hindus against the
The Quran or by Muslims against The Gita or The Satyarth Prakash
claiming relief of permanent injuction on the ground that these religious books
are likely to arouse or arouse injure the religious feelings and disturb peace
and harmony are in fact meant to play mischief in the society and by filling
such suits the plaintiffs would get nothing, but cheap publicity and create some
more dis-harmony and disturbance in the society. The questions involved in such
kind of suits are not of civil nature and are purely purely of religious nature,
involving rights under Article 225 of the Constitution of India.

5. The Civil Court, in this case ignored the fact that
there are specific provisions under law in respect of banning of books and
section 95 Cr. PC confers a power on the state to declare certain publication
forfeited if it appears to the state that any matter in the publication was in
violation of the provisions of IPC as mentioned in the section. Under section 96
Cr.P.C. the High Court could set aside such declaration of forfeiture made by
the state under the circumstances given therein. In view of the specific
provisions made by law for forfeiture of such publications, the Civil Court had
no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

6. Even otherwise the suit could not have been
entertained. The Satyarth Prakash admittedly was written 135 years ago and has
been in publication/ distribution for this much period. It had not caused any
ill-will and damage to the fraternity in the society. Perhaps the plaintiffs
now, after 135 years, wanted to use it as a tool to cause damage to the society.
The Court could not have entertained the suit of injunction and declaration
against publication of a book which was in existence for 135 years merely on the
basis of two persons claiming themselves to the public spirited persons
wanted to play mischief. I therefore allow this petition. The suit no. 68/2008
pending before the Trial Court is hereby dismissed being beyond jurisdiction of
the Civil Court.

Sd/-
Shiv Narayan Dhingra