The Officiating Chief Justice.- This is an application under section 23 of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, as amended by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, to set aside the order of the Provincial Government, dated 7th August, 1947, passed under section 7 (3) of the said Act, directing the petitioner who is the publisher of a newspaper entitled, “Prajasakthi” to deposit with the District Magistrate of Krishna on or before 25th August, 1947, security to the amount of Rs. 2,000. The ground on which the order was passed is contained in the preamble to the order of the Government which runs thus:- “Whereas it appears to the Government of Madras that the issues, dated 7th, 12th March, and 8th, 26th and 28th July, 1947, of the newspaper entitled “Prajasakthi” published at the “Prajasakthi Press”, Bezwada and in respect of which newspaper security under the provisions of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, has not been required, contained matter of which a translation in English is appended hereto, of the nature described in section 4 (1) (d) and (i) of the said Act;” The enclosure contained five extracts from the issues of the above dates. Section 4 (1) (d) and (i) run as follows:- “4. Section 4 (1) (d) and (i) run as follows:- “4. (1) Whenever it appears to the Provincial Government that any printing press in respect of which any security has been ordered to be deposited under section 3 is used for the purpose of printing or publishing any newspaper, book or other document containing any words, signs or visible representations which tend directly or indirectly; (d) to bring into hatred or contempt His Majesty or the Government established by law in British India or the administration of justice in British India or any class or section of His Majesty’s subjects in British India, or to excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the said Government, or (i) to prejudice the recruiting of persons to serve in any of His Majesty’s forces, or in any police force, or to prejudice the training, discipline or administration of any such force;” It is necessary also to refer to two explanations to this section: “Explanation 2.- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection shall not be deemed to be of the nature described in clause (d) of this subsection. Explanation 3.- Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection shall not be deemed to be of the nature described in clause (d) of this sub-section.” It may be mentioned at the outset that in our opinion there is nothing in any of the passages appended to the order of the Government which would fall within clause (i) of section 4, sub-section (1). The clause appears to be wholly inapplicable to the articles in question as they do not have any ‘reference to recruiting of persons to serve in any of His Majesty’s forces or in any police force, nor have they any prejudicial effect on the discipline or administration of any such force. The question therefore for determination is whether the passages in question contain any words which bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in British India, or any class or section of His Majesty’s subjects in British India, or excite disaffection towards the said Government. The question therefore for determination is whether the passages in question contain any words which bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in British India, or any class or section of His Majesty’s subjects in British India, or excite disaffection towards the said Government. This clause has been considered recently in two decisions of Special Benches of this Court, namely, in O.P. No. 171 of 1947, and in O. P. No. 249 of 1947, (published as footnotes below) and we have derived considerable assistance from these two decisions. Judgment of the Special Bench in O.P. No. 171 of 1947 dated 29th August, 1947: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Chief Justice.-The applicant is the publisher of a Weekly Tamil Newspaper “Janasakthi”. Pursuant to section 7 (3) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, by notice in writing dated February 4, 1947, the Provincial Government ordered the applicant to deposit the sum of Rs. 2,000 with the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, as security, on the ground that an issue of the newspaper, published on September 11, 1946, contained matter of the nature described in section 4 (1) (d) of the Act, appended to the notice. The amount of the security was duly deposited as directed by the order. This is an application under section 23 (1) of the Act to set aside the order. Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 4 provides: “........any newspaper, book or other document containing any words, signs or visible representations which ......tend, directly or indirectly.- (d) to bring into hatred or contempt His Majesty or the Government established by law in British India or the administration of justice in British India, or any class or section of His Majesty’s subjects in British India or to excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the said Government . . . .” The applicant contends that the newspaper matter, in respect of which the order by the Provincial Government was made, does not come within clause (d). Before, the impugned newspaper matter is considered it is convenient to refer to some relevant authorities. The intention of the author of an impugned article or matter is immaterial and has not to be taken into account - vide In re Anandabazar Patrika1 and the truth or falsity is also immaterial - vide In re Pothan Joseph2. Before, the impugned newspaper matter is considered it is convenient to refer to some relevant authorities. The intention of the author of an impugned article or matter is immaterial and has not to be taken into account - vide In re Anandabazar Patrika1 and the truth or falsity is also immaterial - vide In re Pothan Joseph2. In Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Balerao 3, the Board considered the provisions of rule 34 (6) of the Defence of India Rules in which the words “intended or is likely” are used; their Lordships appear to have been of the opinion that those words are wider than the words “brings or attempts to bring” used in section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, and at page 84, the language of Strachey, J., at page 135 in Queen-Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak4 was adopted where he said: “But even if he neither excited nor intended to excite any rebellion or outbreak or forcible resistance to the authority of the Government, still if he tried to excite feelings of enmity to the Government, that is sufficient to make him guilty under the section (section 124-A, Indian Penal Code).” In sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Press Act, a newspaper article is brought within the purview of the legislation if it tends, directly or indirectly, to do the things set out in clause (d), the language of which goes beyond section 124-A - vide In re Pothan Joseph2. The police form part of “the Government established by law in British India” - vide In the matter of The Zamindar Newspaper, Lahore5. In the matter of the Janasakthi6, a newspaper article criticised the action of nine police officers but it was held not to fall within section 4(1) of the Press Act as there was no suggestion, in the article, that the conduct of the officers was approved by the administration and, hence, it was not with relation to established Government in British India. “Government established by law in British India” means the various Governments constituted by Statutes and denotes the persons authorised by law to administer executive Government - vide Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Emperor7. Abuse of Government officials, as officials, is to make an endeavour to bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in British India - per Rankin, J., at page 1089 in Emperor v. Satya Ranjan Bakshi8. Abuse of Government officials, as officials, is to make an endeavour to bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in British India - per Rankin, J., at page 1089 in Emperor v. Satya Ranjan Bakshi8. Now to return to the impugned article in the “Janasakthi” newspaper. At the date of its publication Mr. T. Prakasam was the Prime Minister in a Cabinet of Congress Ministers. It is beyond doubt that that ministry was authorised by law to administer executive Government in the Presidency of Madras and was Government established by law in British India. There were two The learned advocate for the petitioner wanted to rely upon certain affidavits filed by persons not parties to this petition deposing to certain events articles in the impugned publication, one relating to a strike on the South Indian Railway at Trichinopoly and the other to strikes at Salem and Madras. The first article is headed “A Jallianwallabagh at Golden Rock (Trichinopoly).” The word “Jallianwallabagh” implies the use of unnecessary and excessive force by the authorities. The article speaks, and purports to give details, of force used by the police against men, women and children by which death and injury were caused; the police are called “murderous villains” and are alleged to have beaten and tortured women and children, boys and girls, and beaten and threatened a maistry; many persons, it is said, were arrested and women and children were kept in detention without food and drink. The last statement is headed “Hitlerism” and, at its conclusion, it is stated that: “We have heard of the torture that took place during Hitler’s regime. The last statement is headed “Hitlerism” and, at its conclusion, it is stated that: “We have heard of the torture that took place during Hitler’s regime. These women experienced it at Trichy.” The article, elsewhere, states that none of the Nazi cruelties remained unperpetrated; that people were threatened and abused in vulgar language and “the reign of the devil set in” and that, “The police, the pivot of the administration, behaved frenziedly like a drunkard pilot navigating a leaky ship in the face of a whirlwind.” References to proceedings in a Court of law are made thus: “the trial that took place was a big farce; the magistrate was seated in the Court of (injustice)”; it is suggested that the Magistrate would not allow witnesses to be called for the defence; that a Special Magistrate’s Court had come into being at Golden Rock (Trichinopoly), and that its function was to enforce police orders then and there. The article mentions Mr. Prakasam and his ministers in several places in these ways: The communiques of Ministers and the false propaganda of subsidised newspapers were inadequate to wean away the public from the labourers; after referring to 1942 (the disorders and their repression following the resolution of the Congress in Bombay in that year) when: “Our sisters were disgraced .... The country rose in anger in condemnation of it. But in the congress reign (Mr. Prakasam’s ministry) there is the rule of the same wrongdoers”; After mentioning the shooting of 10 labourers, the article proceeds: “That is a Police Durbar in Prakasam’s Government.” The second article states that Mr. Prakasam had given an assurance of protection to the police and had shamelessly said the police and himself had become one. For the purpose of the present consideration it is immaterial whether the statements are true or false; the sole question is Whether the articles come within clause (d). The language and mode of expression are superlative and exaggerated; that alone does not bring the subject-matter within the mischief of the Press Act but the language and mode of expression must be borne in mind when considering the substance of the statements. The use of the word “Jallianwallabagh” in the heading of the article, is an offensive method of suggesting indiscriminate and excessive display of violence and force. The use of the word “Jallianwallabagh” in the heading of the article, is an offensive method of suggesting indiscriminate and excessive display of violence and force. The details and accounts of the alleged wrongful acts committed by the police are not confined to plain descriptive record and sane condemnation. The article states that the police inflicted the same tortures as were practised by the Nazis of Germany during the Hitler regime and that their behaviour was that of a frenzied pilot in charge of a leaky ship. The conduct of the police is called the setting in of the reign of the devil. In regard to Mr. Prakasam and his ministry, who were the executive government of the day, they are alleged to have been responsible for false statements of the affair which were published in newspapers subsidised by them; their rule, it is stated, was the same as that which, as members of the Congress party, they condemned in 1942, when members of that party were the object of police action; and that the many alleged police violences and excesses were sanctioned by Mr. Prakasam who assured protection to the police in regard to those matters and identified himself with them. In the latter connection, the present article is to be distinguished from that in the Janasakthi case in Calcutta in which it was not alleged that the administration had approved of the action of some police officers whose conduct was criticised and condemned. The statements relating to the Court (called a Court of Injustice), which tried some, if not all, of the persons arrested by the police, characterise it as one where trial was a farce and it was brought into existence for the purpose of carrying out orders given to it by the police, that is to say, its trials were a travesty of justice. In my view, the words in the impugned newspaper indubitably tend to bring into hatred or contempt the police and the Prakasam ministry which, at the date of publication, were government established by law in British India and also tend to bring the administration of justice in British India into hatred and contempt. Mr. Rajagopal, for the applicant, placed considerable reliance upon a statement that the Trade Union Congress had demanded an impartial public enquiry. Mr. Rajagopal, for the applicant, placed considerable reliance upon a statement that the Trade Union Congress had demanded an impartial public enquiry. I am unable to accept that this alleviates in any way the mischief committed elsewhere, more particularly as that part of the article is followed by a further statement that, should there be a public enquiry, the decision would only be that “Harrison should be impaled.” Harrison is a police officer whose conduct receives special reference in several places and the result of the impartial enquiry, according to the article, would be a foregone conclusion. In my opinion, for the reasons given, this application should be dismissed with costs. Bell, J.:- I agree. Govindarajachari, J.:- I agree. alleged to have happened in the villages to which they belong. These affidavits were obviously filed to support a contention that the facts alleged in Judgment of the Special Bench In O.P. No. 249 of 1947 dated 25th September, 1947: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Chief Justice.-The applicant is the publisher of a Malayalam daily newspaper called the “Deshabhimani.” In December, 1946, the applicant deposited the sum of Rs. 4,000 as security, pursuant to section 9 (1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 (hereinafter called “the Act”). Under section 10 (1), by notice in writing dated 20th June, 1947, the Provincial Government declared the amount of the security and all copies of the issue of the newspaper dated 26th February, 1947, wherever found in British India, to be forfeited since in the opinion of the Government,‘that issue contained matter of the nature described in clauses (a) and (d) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act, as appended to the notice. This is an application under section 23 (1) of the Act to set aside the declaration of the forfeiture. The learned Advocate-General, appearing for the Government of Madras, conceded that the impugned article does not contain matter described in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4; it is, therefore, necessary only to consider whether the article offends clause (d) of sub-section. The learned Advocate-General, appearing for the Government of Madras, conceded that the impugned article does not contain matter described in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4; it is, therefore, necessary only to consider whether the article offends clause (d) of sub-section. The relevant provisions of that sub-section and clause are: “.....any newspaper, book or other document containing any words, signs, or visible representations which.....tend, directly or indirectly- (d) to bring into hatred or contempt His Majesty or the Government established by law in British India or the administration of justice in British India or, any class or section of His Majesty’s subjects in British India or, to excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the said Government............” “Explanation 2.- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection shall not be deemed to be of the nature described in clause (d) of this subsection. Explanation 3.- Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, shall not be deemed to be of the nature described in clause (d) of this sub-section.” If the words in a newspaper tend, directly or indirectly to bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in British India, the newspaper contains matter of the nature described in clause (d) unless the words are comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means or expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government, as provided in Explanations 2 and 3; but, in that event, the words must not excite or attempt to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection. Mr. Rajagopalan, for the applicant, sought to place before us a number of documents which, he said, were in the possession of the author of the impugned article at the time when it was written and would reflect the truth of the statements in the article. Mr. Rajagopalan, for the applicant, sought to place before us a number of documents which, he said, were in the possession of the author of the impugned article at the time when it was written and would reflect the truth of the statements in the article. They purport to be the statements by various persons, certified copies of proceedings in Magistrates’ Court and an American Magazine, “The Readers Digest.” All of them are later in date than the issue of the “Deshabhimani” in which the impugned article appeared; the six written statements are dated four months later; the certified copies relate to proceedings which took place, in one case four months, and, in the other case nearly six months, after the above issue; and the magazine is dated August, 1947, six months thereafter. Upon this being pointed out to learned counsel he then sought to read them on the ground that they relate to events and happenings anterior to the article. We refused to allow reference to be made to them. Next it was sought to refer to an affidavit containing matter alleged to have occurred before the publication of the impugned article and relative to a statement in it; the affidavit was affirmed on 15th September. 1947, some eight days before the hearing of the application; a copy was not supplied to the learned Advocate-General until shortly before the hearing commenced. We refused to allow the affidavit to be read. During some months prior to, and at the date of the publication of the impugned article, the government of the Province of Madras was administered by a Cabinet of Ministers belonging to the Congress Party and it is beyond doubt that that Ministry was authorised by law to administer executive government in the Presidency and was government established by law in British India. The police form part of the Government established by law in British India (In the matter of The Zamindari Newspaper, Lahore1).But a newspaper article criticising the action of nine police officers was held not to fall within section 4 (1) of the Act when it was not suggested that their conduct was approved by the administration (In the matter of The Janasakthi2). When considering whether words in a newspaper contain matter of the nature described in clause (d) their truth or falsity and the intention of the author are immaterial (In re Pothan Joesph3, In re: Janasakthi, Ramamurthi, v. The Government of Madras4, (unreported) and In re Anandabazar Patriko 5). some of the articles in question were true or in any event the writer or writers of the articles had material before them which justified the articles. We have The impugned article is headed “To cause re-call of the M.S.P.; to strengthen the march of achievement of liberty; to cause restoration of the Civic Liberties of citizens and to bury the ordinance.” The letters M.S.P. indicate the Malabar Special Police; the ordinance, referred to, is the Madras Public Safety Maintenance Order, 1947. The article commences “The atrocities of the M.S.P. and of those traitorous wretches who spy for them in Malabar have exceeded all bounds.” It proceeds that, in Chirakkal Taluk offences of beating, shooting and stabbing persons to death, seizing and severally belabouring them, taking bribes, setting fire to and destroying houses and materials, looting and filching samans, trespassing on property and intimidating, starving and hunting down people had all become matters of very ordinary occurrence. On that account black-marketeers stalked about unchecked in the height of pride and self-importance; jenmies who were out to harass common folk were staging a regular infernal dance; plundering capitalists were making jolly over their opportunities to make more money; bribe takers, self-appointed aristocrats and officials drunk mad with the wine of authority, were staging their frenzied dance in the height of their influence and power. In short, under cover of having placed the Congress in authority and under jugglery stunt of opposing Communists, British Imperialism had begun stalking across the whole country in a nude fascist hunt for their victims. The article continues by referring to industrial workers, agricultural labourers and other sincerely patriotic persons, who earnestly desired freedom, who were being roasted in a seething death spelling furnace of fire; those who worked against food scarcity, black-market activity, hoarding and usurious gains were liable to be prosecuted for theft, robbery, plunder, misbehaviour and to be jailed and directed to furnish security. Everything done for the good of the people and to further the cause of the country’s independence was regarded as an offence against the law and the country. Everything done for the good of the people and to further the cause of the country’s independence was regarded as an offence against the law and the country. And, as if that were not enough, British Imperialism had begotten an omnibus ordinance which threatened to crush all kinds of activities left open to lovers of freedom; and the Congress Ministers’ Cabinet was seeking to feed with milk and rear that satanic offspring. As a result of the promulgation of the ordinance, there were countless arrests and confiscations of property all over the country; the very existence of freedom lovers and their property had become repugnant rocks of offence in the eye of the law. By reason of the acts and conduct of the police a peasant had said: “Is there any Government functioning here at all?” Everything belonging to some peoples, workers and to the innocent members of their families, had been forcibly seized by the emissaries (the M.S.P.) of the Britishers and carried away. Special reference is made to the seizure of married women’s talis by the roughened mean, bribe-stained hands of the shameless, hard-hearted police officials (elsewhere described as the hunting hounds of British Imperialism). The violation of the chastity of three peasant women by the M.S.P. and their wretched emissaries is stated to have occurred. The article proceeds that those acts of high-handedness and injustice should be inveterately opposed and ended by the people of the country acting in concert as one man, to break down the bars to progress. A call is made to students, comrades, lion-hearted young men, venerable aged folk, peasants, industrial workers, respectable businessmen, enthusiastic co-workers for freedom, friends and esteemed sisters to unite to put an end to the high-handedness and to let the skies shake with their cries of protest, voiced unitedly by their hostile demonstrations. The article concludes “Save the country by forcing the withdrawal of the M.S.P. Bury deep the ordinance which deals death to all kinds of liberties in the country and help to restore the civic liberties of the citizens.” The article is couched in vitriolic language but that, in itself, does not bring it within clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act; but the language and mode of expression must be borne in mind when considering the substance of the statements. In so far as it is material in the present instance, the language of section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, defining the crime of sedition, and Explanations 2 and 3 to that section is the same as the language of clause ( d) and Explanations 2 and 3 of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Press Act. The offence of sedition is committed by written words which bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law in British India. In Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao1, the Board considered the meaning and effect of rule 34 (6) of the Defence of India Rules, which is similarly phrased as section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code. At page 84 of the report it was observed, in regard to that section, that “the acts or words complained of must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that that is their intention or tendency.” Later, their Lordships expressed approval and adopted the language of Strachey, J., in Queen-Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak2, as correctly expressing their view; in the course of his summing up to a jury trying an offence under section 124-A Strachey, J., said: “If he tried to excite feelings of enmity to the Government that is sufficient to make him guilty under the section.” Now to return to the impugned article to examine what it really says and means. It commences with the police (M.S.P.) “atrocities” and details their acts, in that connection, including taking bribes, causing death, using violence against people, starving people and looting which, it states, had become matters of very ordinary occurrence. It adds that on account of the conduct and action of the police black-marketeers, bribe takers, officials and others were free to pursue their wrongdoings and those who opposed their activities were liable to prosecution. Elsewhere the police excluded these affidavits from consideration, because it has been ruled in the two Special Bench decisions referred to above that the truth or falsity of the impugned matter is immaterial for a determination of the question arising under section 23 of the Act. We have also refused to take into account two articles which appeared in two other Telugu newspapers which, according to the petitioner, contained matter more or less similar to the matter contained in the impugned articles. We have also refused to take into account two articles which appeared in two other Telugu newspapers which, according to the petitioner, contained matter more or less similar to the matter contained in the impugned articles. The contention evidently is that as the Government have not taken any action under the Act against the said two newspapers the action taken by the Government against the petitioner was not justified. In our opinion, this argument is based upon a fallacy. If the impugned matter is such that it would fall within any of the clauses of section 4, then the fact that the Government failed to take action against other newspapers which published such matter cannot be a plea in defence to action taken by the Government against the petitioner. Further, we are unable to hold that extracts from other newspapers would be admissible evidence under any section of the Evidence Act. It is convenient to deal with the passages extracted in the appendix to the Government order according to the dates. The first is from the issue dated 7th March, 1947. The impugned article is headed “Workers’ Minimum Demands Day - Meeting and demonstrations to be Celebrated on March 18, 1947.” The sub-heading runs: “Andhra Trade Union’s call to the Workers.” The particular passage on which special emphasis was laid by the learned Advocate-General may be reproduced. It runs thus:- “The Congress leaders who have become ministers at the Centre and the Provinces, have been trying to put down this movement having fallen victims to the capitalistic and imperialistic pressure. The cruel policy of repression of the Imperialists is to-day being adopted by the Congress Ministers over these movements. The Madras Ministry abandoned the election manifesto and has taken recourse to the Public Safety Ordinance resulting in detentions and opening of fire by the police. It has intended to crush down the communists who are conducting the workers’ fight. On the other side the Workers’ Dispute bill intended to destroy the workers’ right to strike is being enforced. The workers and trade unions are taking the primary place in these peoples’ fight facing the repressive policy of Government .... The sacrifices made and the courage exhibited by the workers with an ultimate idea of crushing down the Imperial and Capitalists’ lootings can never be forgotten. The workers and trade unions are taking the primary place in these peoples’ fight facing the repressive policy of Government .... The sacrifices made and the courage exhibited by the workers with an ultimate idea of crushing down the Imperial and Capitalists’ lootings can never be forgotten. So it is incumbent on us to take up the fight with the united strength and revolutionary spirit on behalf of those who have sacrificed their lives for achieving their sacred ideals.” are charged with wringing (which must mean taking by violence) talis from the possession of married women (a grave insult and wrong committed upon Hindu ladies) and violation of women, i.e., committing the crime of rape upon them. Few acts are more likely to excite condemnation of and resentment, hatred and anger against any men, more particularly policemen, than the last two allegations. The statements in the article are not confined to the acts of a few members of the police but are made in respect of the force as a body. As regards the Cabinet, comprised of Congress Ministers which the article suggests is a cover for British Imperialism; they are charged with seeking to feed and rear, that is to say to strengthen and enforce the provisions of, the satanic offspring of the British Imperialism, the Madras Public Safety Maintenance Order of 1947. That order was promulgated during the time when that Ministry was in office By reason of the ordinance it is stated, countless people had been arrested and their property confiscated and lovers of freedom and their possesions had become repugnant rocks of offence in the eye of the law; and, by reason of the acts and conduct of the police (of which the Cabinet is the superior executive authority) no government was functioning The suggestion made is that the Ministry was no more than the complacent nominees of British Imperialism; it did not take any step to prevent wrongs being committed by the police or to interfere by aiding persons who sought to prevent those wrongs but allowed such persons to be subjected to prosecution; the Ministry was completely ineffective as the government of the Province. As pointed out previously, the Congress Ministry, which was in office on the date of the publication of the impugned article, was government established by law, as also was the Police. As pointed out previously, the Congress Ministry, which was in office on the date of the publication of the impugned article, was government established by law, as also was the Police. The many statements in the article, to which reference has been made, and the article read as a whole, are not confined to comments expressing disapprobation of the government’s measures and actions without exciting hatred or contempt but the things said, the manner in which they are stated and the language used could have effect only to excite hatred or contempt towards both the Ministry and the Police and to bring them into hatred or contempt. Mr. Rajagopalan placed considerable reliance on the closing part of the impugned article, where a call is made to and the alleged misdoings and malpractices It was argued that this portion of the article shows that the intention was to have remedied what was thought to be wrong. The sole question for consideration is whether the It has been held by a Special Bench of this Court that the Cabinet of Ministers belonging to the Congress party which was administering the Government of the Province of Madras must be held to be the Government established by law in British India within the meaning of those words in section 4 (1) (d). The question then is whether there is any tendency, direct or indirect, in these words to bring into hatred or contempt this Government established by law, or to excite disaffection towards the said Government. The gravamen of the charge made in the article in question is that the Congress party in power has taken a capitalistic attitude and has an intention of crushing down the communists. It is this policy of the Ministry and the action taken in pursuance of this policy that come in for criticism. Now it is quite clear that before we can hold that the words in question have the tendency set out in clause (d) of section 4(1) of the Act it must be clear to us that this tendency must be felt by the ordinary man in the street. In our opinion, it would not be sufficient that a member of the Communist party, on reading the article in question, will entertain feelings of enmity or hatred against the Government, to bring the words within the mischief of the enactment. In our opinion, it would not be sufficient that a member of the Communist party, on reading the article in question, will entertain feelings of enmity or hatred against the Government, to bring the words within the mischief of the enactment. It will be indeed a dangerous doctrine to hold that any adverse expression of opinion of the action of a particular party then in power by an organ or member of an opposite party should by itself be held to fall within the enactment. No doubt if the language used is so violent and exciting as to lead to violence, insurrection or disturbance, it may fall within other provisions under which appropriate action might be taken against the authors of such writing. Taking the present article, there is nothing to suggest that the Government was guilty of any lootings. The utmost that can be said is that the action of the Government is described as being definitely anti-communist and that it is inspired by capitalistic tendencies. In our opinion, this criticism of the action of the Government, even if the disapprobation is expressed in strong language, would not fall within section 4 (1) (d) of the Act. The passage is from the issue, dated 12th March, 1947, entitled “ New Criminal Tribes Act - Public Destruction Act - Worse than C.T. Act.” This article is, in its entirety, a criticism of the Public Safety Act. Comparison is made between the alleged drastic provisions in the two Acts impinging on the freedom of the citizen, and it is said that the new Act, namely, the Public Safety Act, is in some respects, worse than the Criminal Tribes Act and that it may be styled the Public Destruction Act. Some of the provisions of the new Act are severely attacked, and the article ends with these words:- “It is the duty of the public to agitate for the repeal of the Act which crushes the civil liberties. The patriots should bring pressure over the Ministry for the release of the detenus suffering under this Act.” We have no hesitation in holding that this article would fall within Explanation 2 as being in the nature of an expression of disapprobation of the measure of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means. There is here no exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection. There is here no exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection. As has been held in one of the Special Bench cases, mere use of even vitriolic language is not by itself sufficient to bring the words within section 4 (1) (d) of the Act. (Vide O.P. No. 249 of 19471). The three extracts from the issues of 8th, 26th and 28th July, 1947, go together. They relate to alleged atrocities committed by the police in certain villages, namely, article contains words which offend the clause. Whilst there is nothing in this part of the article which is covered by the clause, its inclusion does not detract from the mischief in the early part. Under a cloak of a purported righteous appeal, words coming within the clause cannot be used or excused. In my opinion the impugned article contains words of the nature described in section 4 (1) (d), which are not excepted by the two Explanations to the sub-section. The action by the Government of Madras under section 10 of the Act was justified and it follows that this application must be dismissed with costs. Rajamannar, J.:- I agree entirely. Tyagarajan, J.: -I am in entire agreement and have nothing to add Munagala, Karivarala and Kolakova. The acts which the police are alleged to have committed are certainly high-handed, cruel and indecent. But there is little or no comment in any of these three articles besides a statement of events alleged to have occurred. It has been held that the police force as such forms part of the Government established by law in British India, vide In the matter of The Zamindar Newspaper, Lahore1 and O.P. No. 249 of 19472. In In re Janasakthi, Sylhet3, it was held by a Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court that when accusations were directed at nine police officers but there was no suggestion that the misconduct of these officers was approved of by the administration or was part of a deliberate policy of repression, the words were not of the nature described in section 4(1). This statement of the law was apparently approved by the learned Judges who took part in the two Special Bench decisions referred to above. This statement of the law was apparently approved by the learned Judges who took part in the two Special Bench decisions referred to above. The learned Judges say that a newspaper article criticising the action of nine police officers was held not to fall within section 4(1) of the Act when it was not suggested that their conduct was approved of by the administration (vide O.P. No. 249 of 19472). We have carefully examined the three articles. There is nothing in any of them to suggest that the high-handed and atrocious acts alleged to have been committed by the police were committed under the orders or at the instance of the Government or with the approval express or tacit of the Government. On the other hand, the last of the articles dated 28th July, 1947, concludes with an appeal to the Government. The article which appears to be a statement issued by the Munagala Ryots’ Association and the Communist committee ends with these words: “We can prove the atrocities of the police if you personally visit the place and enquire into the matter. The police should be withdrawn so that the people can approach you direct and present the matter. We request that the police who are responsible for the cruel acts should be punished and they should be withdrawn from the estate.” These words certainly do not indicate that in the opinion of the writer the acts of the police complained of were at the instance or with the approval of the Government. In O.P. No. 171 of 19474 in which the learned Judges held that the articles fell within section 4 (1) (d) there was an express imputation that the atrocities committed by the police were with the approval of the Government. In one of the impugned articles it was stated that Mr. Prakasam, the then Prime Minister, had given an assurance of protection to the police and had shamelessly said that the police and himself had become one. In the other case, in O.P. No. 249 of 19472, the learned Judges held that there was a clear suggestion that the Ministry did not take any steps to prevent the wrongs being committed by the police and that on account of the conduct and action of the police, black-marketeers, bribe-takers and others were free to pursue their wrong-doings, and those who opposed their activities were liable to prosecution. As we have said, there is nothing in any of the last three articles similar to such suggestions. These also will therefore not come within the mischief of section 4 (1) ( d) of the Act. The petition is therefore allowed and the order of the Government is set aside. The amount deposited as security shall be refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner will be entitled to the costs of this petition. Petition allowed.