Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1715 of 1975, decided on 14th October 1975.

Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971-

-- Rr. 53(1)(d), (e)-Issue of newspaper containing prejudicial material-Further publication of such issue can be prohibited-Publica tion, sale or distribution of newspaper itself cannot be prohibited irrespective of fact whether any of its subsequent issues contains prejudicial material or not.

Mst. Mumtaz Begum v. The Government of Punjab Writ Petition No. 2310 of 1975 ref.

Rafiq Ahmed Bajwa for Petitioner. Advocate-General for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 14th October 1975.

The petitioner, Mr. Shaukat Hussain Shaukat is Editor & Publisher of Weekly Afaq', Lahore. A show-cause notice was issued to him on 11-7-1975 by the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Home Department, calling upon him to explain as to why the issue of the Weekly, dated 18-5-1975 may not be forfeited to the Government under rule 53(1)(e) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, and why further publication of any subsequent issue of the newspaper should not be prohibited under rule 53(1)(d) of the said Rules, read with rule 213 thereof. Consequently the necessary order in this behalf was passed by the Governor of the Punjab on 29-7-1975 whereby the publication, sale and distribution of any subsequent issue of the weekly was prohibited for a period of six months with effect from the date of the issuance of the order.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that so far as the prohibi tion of subsequent issues of the newspaper is concerned, the same cannot be done under the relevant provision of law as the issue of the newspaper containing the objectionable material can only be forfeited or prohibited to be published subsequently.

3. In order to properly appreciate the point raised by the learned counsel reproduction of the relevant provision will be necessary

"53(1).-Where in the opinion of the Central Government any document made, printed or published, whether before or after the Ordinance comes into force, contains any confidential information, any informa tion likely to assist the enemy or any prejudicial report the Central Government may, by order-

(a) require the editor, printer, publisher or person in possession of such document to inform the authority specified in the order of the name and address of any person concerned in the supply or communication of such information or in the making of such report ;

(b) provide for the safe keeping by person in possession of such document and copies thereof ;

(c) require the delivery of such document and any copy thereof to an authority specified in the order ;

(d) prohibit the further publication, sale or distribution of such document, or any extract therefrom or of any translation thereof, including, in the case of a newspaper or other periodical, the publication, sale or distribution of any subsequent issue thereof ;

(e) declare such document and every copy thereof or extract therefrom, to be forfeited to the Central Government.

The provision as reproduced. above would .show that if any printed or published document contains any prejudicial matter, the Government can require the Editor, Printer, Publisher or person in possession thereof to inform the authority concerned about the name and address of the person responsible for the supply or communication of such material. Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) provides for the safe keeping of such document while clause (c) provides for the delivery of such document and any copy thereof to the concerned authority. The provision relevant for the purposes of this case is contained in clause (d) which prohibits further publication, sale or distribu tion of such document, containing the prejudicial material, and in the case of a newspaper or other periodical publication, sale or distribution of any subsequent issue thereof. According to clause (e) of sub-rule (1) the Govern ment can forfeit any such document or every copy thereof, or translation thereof or extract therefrom.

4. Interpretation of the relevant provision as contained in clause (d) of sub-rule (1) is in question in this case as to whether specific issue of the newspaper or periodical, containing prejudicial material, can be banned for publication, sale or distribution ; or the newspaper or periodical itself can be prohibited to be published, sold or distributed. In the present case the publication, sale and distribution of any issue of the newspaper itself has been prohibited for a period of six months.

5. If we read the provision of rule 53(1) as a whole, it becomes clear that no such order can be passed in law. The provision in question authorises the Government to prohibit the further publication, sale or distribu tion of such document, or in the case of a newspaper such issue thereof, which contains prejudicial material and such issue of the newspaper can be prohibited to be published subsequently, meaning thereby that the issue of the newspaper which ,contains prejudicial material can be prohibited to be published again or in other words, such prejudicial material cannot be ,allowed to be published subsequently. But it does not mean that the publication, sale or distribution of the newspaper or periodical itself can be prohibited irrespective of the fact whether any of its subsequent issues ,contains prejudicial material or not. The word "thereof" as used in clause (d) or sub-rule (1) of rule 53 .refers to the issue of the newspaper, ,or periodical, which contains prejudicial material ; it does not relate to any other issue of a newspaper or periodical itself. Clause (e) of the said sub-rule makes the matter further clear, as it authorises the Government to declare -such document, or every copy thereof or translation thereof to be forfeited. It shows that the entire provision is in relation to the prejudicial material whether it is contained in a separate document or in an issue of a newspaper or periodical. Publication, sale or distribution of that prejudicial material is ,desired to be prohibited and for that purpose this provision authorises the Government to take necessary action only in relation thereto. This view ,finds support from an unreported judgment passed by my learned brother Nasim Hasan Shah, J. in Writ Petition 2310 of 1975 (Mst. Mumtaz Begum v. The Government of Punjab), regarding the banning of the publication, sale and distribution of Weekly ADAKAR', Lahore. It has been held therein that the reading of sub-rule (1) of rule 53 in its entirety yields the result that it is not concerned with obtaining cessation of the future publication of a periodical or newspaper wherein some prejudicial report might have published. lit is merely concerned with dealing with the prejudicial report itself.

6. This being the position the impugned order dated 29-7-1975, as passed by the Governor of the Punjab prohibiting the publication, sale and distribution of Weekly Afaq', Lahore for a period of six months cannot be sustained in law and the same is hereby set aside being illegal and without lawful authority. The petition is accepted without any order as to costs.

Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.