Punjab-Haryana High Court
Master Aman Preet Singh And Others vs Government Of India And Others on 19 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR1996P&H284, AIR 1996 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 284, (1997) 1 CIVLJ 276 (1996) 2 RRR 579, (1996) 2 RRR 579
Author: R.P. Sethi
Bench: R.P. Sethi
ORDER
1. Basing their rights as originating from the preamble of the Constitution and alleging violation of Articles 25 and 29, this Public Interest Litigation has been filed for issuance of appropriate directions for deleting the alleged derrogatory remarks regarding Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Guru of Sikhs, as have been incorporated at page 19 in the book "Modern India, A History Text Book for Class XII, Third Edition", published by National Council of Educational Research and Training (in short called as "NCERI"). The aforesaid book is prescribed in the schools of Central Board of Secondary Education (in short "CBSE") pattern throughout India and is authored by Shri Bipan Chandra, respondent No. 3.
2. It is alleged that the offending remarks are factually incorrect and intended to hurt the religious feelings of the Sikhs, who have rightly been claimed to be a part and parcel of the Indian polity.
3. The writ petition has been initiated at the instance of petitioner No.1, who is a student of History, Class XII and petitioner No. 2, who claims to be a renowned poet of Punjabi, involved in constant research of Sikh history and particularly the life of Sikh Gurus. He claims to have written the life of Guru Nanak in the poetic form under the title "Sach Da Sooraj" besides other numerous poems, describing the lives of Sikh Gurus. The objectionable remarks have been reproduced in the petition, which read as under:--
"The Sikhs: Founded at the end of the 15th Century by Guru Nanak, the Sikh religion spread among the Jat peasantry and other lower castes of the Punjab. The transforma-
tion of the Sikhs into a militant, fighting community was begun by Guru Hargobind (1606-45). It was, however, under the leadership of Guru Gobind Singh (1666-1708), the tenth and last Guru of the Sikhs, that' they became a political and military force. From 1699 onwards, Guru Gobind Singh waged constant war against the armies of Aurangzeb and the hill rajas. After Aurangzeb's death Guru Gobind Singh joined Bahadur Shah's camp as a noble of the rank of 5000 zat and 5000 sawar and accompanied him to the deccan where he was treacherously murdered by one of his pathan employees."
4. It is submitted that the unanimous view of the historians is that Guru Gobind Singh sacrificed his whole family for upholding the freedom of conscience and while defending those principles, he fought against the moughal empire throughout his life. Guru Gobind Singh has rightly been claimed to be the spiritual Guru of millions of Sikhs, living in India and abroad. The remarks are alleged to be giving an impression of the said Guru being an employee of Bhadur Shah, a Moughal king, which are allegedly contrary to the facts and opposed to the teachings and writings as also the mission of the Guru's life. The impression created by the offending writing is stated to have hurt the feelings of the Sikhs and other followers, who though are non-sikhs, but the followers of Guru Gobind Singh.
5. In their reply, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have raised a technical objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against the NCERT and CBSE. It is admitted that the aforesaid books has been recommended in the syllabus prescribed by the CBSE. The alleged remarks are stated to be not offending the religious feelings of the Sikhs. The offending words arc stated to be in the praise of Sikhism as they lay stress on the popular, egalitarian, and socially radical character of the Sikh religion founded by Guru Nanak. Regarding the authenticity of the objectionable remarks, it is stated in the reply:
"The basic question regarding historical accuracy relates to Guru Gobind Singh becoming a noble of 5000 zats and 5000 sawar the historical accuracy of the reference to Guru Gobind Singh becoming a noble and his rank as a noble can be a matter of legitimate historical debate. Many historians do not agree with the view which has been expressed in this text book. The disagreement is, how-ever, on very different grounds and can be resolved by historians alone by discussing it in a spirit of historical objectivity on the basis of acceptable historical evidence. The statement is open to revision by the author of this textbook, who himself is among leading historians. This brings us to the second question of derogatory and hurt. We should like to point out that the author's view in this regard has been based almost entirely on that historical writings present as the view of the Sikhs, even when these historical writings disagree with this view. Therefore, it is preposterous to suggest that the reference to Guru Gobind Singh becoming a noble of 5000 zat and 5000 sawar is derogatory of Sikhs and their religion and hurting the sentiments of Sikhs."
6. These respondents have further relied upon the writings of Joseph Davey Cun-ningham (History of the Sikhs 1918), William Irvine in his 'Later Mughals', Sir Gukul Chand Narang in his Transformation of Sikhism' and also upon a gurmukhi script, 'Panth Parkash', written by Bhai Gian Singh and a persian work 'Umdat-ul-Twarikh', in order to show that the offending writing is not totally without any basis. Reliance has also been placed upon the research work of Professors J. S. Grewal and S. S. Bat, the historians and Vice-Chancellors of Guru Nank Dev University. After referring to various alleged sources of history, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have again tried to sum up by submitting, "whether Guru Gobind Singh became or did not become a noble of Eemperor, "Bahadur Shah is a matter of historical debate to be resolved by the historians."
7. Respondent No. 5 has filed a separate reply, stating therein that the petition was not maintainable against the said respondent as no cause of action has arisen against it. It is submitted that the book has been prescribed for study by respondents Nos. 2 and 4 and that respondent No. 5 is bound to comply with the syllabus prescribed by respondents Nos. 2 and 4. It is further contended that respondent No. 5 has the highest regards and reverence for the Sikh religion and Guru Gobind Singh. No attempt has been made to hurt the religious sentiments of the Sikhs by this respondent.
8. The other respondents, including respondent No. 3, have not filed any reply.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.
10. Despite raising the objection regarding non-maintainability of the writ petition, against respondents Nos. 2 to 4, counsel 'for the respondents have not seriously contested the petition on this ground. Without entering into the controversy as to whether NCERT and CBSE is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, this petition can be disposed of inasmuch as respondents Nos. 1 and 5 are admittedly the State within the meaning of Article 12. It has been rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the relief can be moulded by giving directions only to such of the respondents, who are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and whose status of being a State is not in dispute before us. Otherwise also, Article 12 of the Constitution while defining the State declares, "Unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India. . . ," The word 'includes' clearly suggests that the definition of State is not completely exhaustive. The duty to abide by the Constitution is cast upon all branches of the State namely, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The Apex Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Natb Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC 1571 has held that the meaning of the expression "the State" so as to include within it also what otherwise may not have been comprehended by that expression when used in its ordinary legal sense. The term "State" is distinguishable from the Government, which represents only one organ of the State namely, the Executive.
11. The argument, though half heartedly addressed, has not persuaded us to refrain from deciding the writ petition on merits.
The Preamble of the Constitution declares :-
"WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:"
The establishment .of a secular democratic republic it a solemn declaration of the people of India. Secularism postulates and is erected on the foundation of tolerance. Respec.t for the sentiments of all religious communities is the foundation of a secular polity. Deviation from the basic principles of tolerance and respect for all religions would negate the purpose for which the people of India gave to themselves the Constitution of India. It is acknowledged that religion is an ,essential element of the Indian culture and its polity. The evolution of the concept of secularism in India has to be ascertained in the light of the past history, based upon the spirit of tole-rance and liberalism. In Suresh Chandra Chiman Lal Shan v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Delhi 168, it was observed 'that secularism in India developed as a part of nationalism and Freedom Movement, which assured protection to the minorities and neautrality of the State in regard to all religions. The Court referred to the resolution of the Congress passed in 1931 at Karachi, the observations of Setalvad in his book of "Secularism" and other authors. It was held :--
"The Debates in the Constituent Assembly show that "what was intended by the Constitution was not the secularisation of the State in the sense of its complete dissociation from religion, but rather an attitude of religious neautrality with equal treatment to all religions and reiigious minorities". Secularism p. 18.
It is perhaps because the word "secular" was associated with the Western concept that it as not used to describe the character of Indian Constitution in the same way that the word "Socialism" was not used in the Consitution because of the diverse meanings which can be attached to it. In 1961 Dr. Radhkrishnan in his capacity as the Vice President of India said:--
"I want to state authoritatively that secularism does not mean irreligion. It means we respect all faiths and religions. Our State does not identify itself with any particular religion." Cited at page 127 in "Secularism in India" edited by V. K. Sinha (1968)."
12. It cannot be denied that in India prior to the framing of the Constitution, various communities were identified on the basis of religion. Sikbism is admittedly an important constituent of the Indian polity, comprised of various religions. Guru Gobind Singh is admittedly the most revered, respected and last Guru of Sikhs. The State is under a constitutional obligation to preserve and protect the interests of Sikh Community. While protecting their interests, the respondent/authorities are under an obligation to refrain from becoming a party to such controversial writing, which may ultimately hurt the feelings of the Sikh community as a whole or a part of it. The writings about religious Gurus cannot be permitted to be justified on the basis of disputed and debatable historical truths, lest it may destroy the very secular fabric of the Constitution. It does not mean that the historians can be refrained from making research or expressing their opinions, based upon such research. The purpose of writing has, to be seen in the context for whom it is meant and under what circumstances it is intended to be publicised. Every truth cannot be permitted to be publicised if it infringes the fundamental right as enshrined in Part-111. Self restrain is expected in matters like- religion, particularly when they are apprehended to affect the sentiments of a section of the society, forming part of the Indian polity.
13. During the course of arguments, we made all efforts to persuade the learned counsel for the respondents for deletion of the remarks without entering into the controversy regarding their authenticity', which has been admitted to be debatable. We are also of the opinion that the petitioners, or any other person like them, should not be permitted to become in such matters, but such portion of the writing, which directly or indirectly intends to hurt the religious feelings, should not be made part of syllabus for the young students of the classes. It is not disputed before us that Guru Gobind Singh was one of the ten and was last Guru of the Sikhs, who is respected, revered and worshipped not only by the Sikhs but many others in the States of Punjab, Haryana and other parts of the country. A Guru, who is respected, revered and worshipped, cannot be permitted to be projected to students to be an employee of one of the Moughal emperorers, particularly when the said Guru throughout his life is admitted to have fought against the Moughals and sacrified all that which was precious to him. We are of the opinion that the words : --
"After Aurangzeb's death. Guru Gobind Singh joined Bhadur Shah's camp as a noble of the rank of 5000 zat and 50CO sawar and accompanied him to the Deccan where he was treacherously murdered by one of his Pathan employees."
appearing at page 19 of the book aforesaid do give an impression that Guru Gobind Singh Ji had joined the camp or block of Bahadur Shah and that being a Mansabdar (noble) was perhaps in his employment. Permitting to describe a Guru of the Sikhs as in the employment of a Moughal emperor is un-disputedly likely to hurt the religious feelings of the Sikhs.
14. We do not agree with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that as the Sikh religion is stated to have been spread among the Jat peasantry and other lower castes of the Punjab in the aforesaid book, it adversely affected the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. If on account of teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji the religion had spread among the Jat peasantry and other lower castes of Punjab, there is nothing to be ashamed of by the persons professing Sikh religion. Rather it is a matter of privilege and pride for the persons professing the Sikh religion that the teachings of their Gurus attracted the poor and exploited.
15. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees right of freedom of religion and assures every person the freedom of conscience. This Article protects religious freedom so far as the individuals are concerned. Freedom or religion cannot be protected unless the State is declared to be under a constitutional obligation to protect the religious interests of the citizens. The intendment of Article 25 has been acknowledged to guarantee especially to the religious minorities the freedom to profess, practice and propagate their religion. It also casts a correponding obligation upon the State to protect any invasion upon such rights of a religious minority, by any person for authority.
16. We are not impressed by the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the allowing of the writ petition would be an infringement of the right of freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed to the respondent/author. Freedom of speech and expression implies reasonable restrictions. Freedom of speech can be exercised upto the extent and iimits when it does not infringe the right or faith of others. Such a writing can also not be claimed in the absence of any authoritative or authenticated right of the author.
17. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with the direction that in the book. "Modern India, A History Textbook for Class XII," published by the NCERT and written by Shri Bipan Chandra, at page 19 the words :--
"After Aurangzeb's death, Guru Gobind Singh joined Bahadur Shah's camp as a noble of the rank of 5000 zat and 5000 sawar and accompanied him to the Deccan where he was trechsrously murderd by one of his Pathan employees."
shall be deemed to have been omitted for the purposes of examinatios and teaching so far as the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh are concerned. The official respondents shall not permit the said portion to be made part of the studies or the subject of examination being held within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It would be appreciated if the respondents take steps for deletion of the aforesaid offending re-marks from this book in its future editions.
18. Petition allowed.