Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Labourers she says, do all the work, and are starving: is this justice ? The rule of labour should be established by all labourers combining. Police and soldiers will join because they are really labourers. Everything is in the hands of labour, who want to break the powers of capitalists and imperialists, Then she says this can be done not by the methods of the terriorists of Bengal, or by the methods of Congress, but by the way of M. N. Roy, Then she says that Government are getting afraid of labour, and that labour leaders are sent to jail for long terms of imprisonment and that Congress leaders get much shorter terms, and then she ends by exhorting all labour to unite to destroy the capitalist system. So that the speech taken as a whole seems to be an exhortation to labour to unite with the object of being in a position to declare a general strike though there is no suggestion that a general strike should be declared at the present time, and the ultimate object seems to be to establish labour raj by the methods of M. N. Roy. The question is whether that speech is an offence under either of the sections, and I will deal with Section 153A first.

4. The case under Section 124A is different. The offence there is bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards Government. Now there was, as far as I can see, no occasion for the speaker here to refer to Government at all. The resolution which she was proposing was anti-capitalist and not anti-Government, and Mr. Talyarkhan has invited us to treat her reference to Government as being a chance reference which did not affect the general tenour of the speech. But having read the speech very carefully, it seems to me impossible to adopt that view. I think the real gravamen of the charge which the speaker brings against Government is that Government is siding with the capitalists. She refers to Government and the capitalists as the two enemies, she couples them as the enemies of labour, not once but many times, and she says that Government are getting frightened, and imposing long sentences on labour leaders. I think the whole effect of the speech, so far as Government is concerned, is to suggest to the persons to whom it was addressed that Government is taking sides against them, and is taking the part of their opponents. To make a charge of gross partiality of that sort against Government is calculated, in my view, to inspire feelings of enmity and disaffection towards Government. The learned Advocate General says that the speech goes much further than that, and that the speaker proposes to establish labour raj or labour rule, and thereby to displace the existing Government. But the difficulty the prosecution is in there is that the only concrete suggestion which the speaker makes is that labour raj would be established by the methods of M. N. Roy, and there is no evidence as to what the methods of M. N. Roy are. It is true that the evidence shows that M. N. Roy is a communist, and that he has been recently sentenced to a long term of imprisonment for waging war against the King Emperor, but we cannot assume from that, as against an accused person, that his methods of establishing labour raj in India are necessarily illegal, If the methods were legal, then the maker of this speech has only advocated the establishment of labour raj by legal means. The Court cannot in a criminal case draw inferences unfairly against the accused. It is for the prosecution to prove their case, and as they have omitted to prove what the methods of M. N. Roy are, we cannot hold that the speech advocated the establishment of labour raj by illegal means. I think, however, that there is an offence under Section 124A; but I am willing to accept the view which Mr. Talyarkhan puts forward that the speaker was somewhat overcome by the exuberance of her own oratory, and that she did not really intend to make an attack upon Government. She has, moreover, through Mr. Talyarkhan expressed regret for any phrases in her speech which went beyond her real intention, which was to exhort labour to unite and join their Unions, and she says that she does not intend to make objectionable speeches in the future. That being so, I think we may take a more lenient view of the matter than the learned Magistrate felt himself justified in taking. We propose to set aside the conviction under Section 153A. Under Section 124A the conviction will stand, but the sentence of imprisonment will be set aside, though the One of Rs. 300 will stand. The fine paid in respect of the conviction under a 153A will be returned.

12. As regards the advocacy to follow the path of M, N. Roy, I do not think it can be said that because M N. Roy was convicted in respect of his political activities of the offence of waging war it follows that any one who is asked to follow his way in improving the conditions of labour must also wage war against the Government. As far as one can gather from the speech itself, all that has gone before is directed towards exhorting labourers to combine in organised unions, so that labourers may be in a more favourable position for making their demands and obtaining redress. All that follows the suggestion to follow the way of Roy is also concerned with exhorting the hearers in favour of sangathan which means union or organisation. There is no reference to any other method so that the only inference must be that that is what the speaker intended when she referred to the way of Roy, If any other method was meant she would have at least described it somewhere in her speech. On the contrary she has definitely rejected the method of the Bengal terrorists and so there is material in the speech itself to show that she did not mean the method of waging war against the Government when she referred to the way of Roy.

13. It appears therefore, that the passages relied upon by the learned Magistrate will not, when examined, support the conviction. But it is said that the speech contains a gratuitous attack on Government inasmuch as it charges the Government as siding with the capitalists. I doubt whether such an aspersion could be held to excite disaffection against the Government if, as in the present case, it is made incidentally in the course of advocating a legitimate cause, and does not form as it were the burden of the song. But it is undoubtedly true that in making these exhortations it Was quite unnecessary to bring in any reference to Government, and it is also true that the speaker has more than once referred to Government as an adversary, and said in effect that they are on the side of the capitalists. She has also used some strong expressions with regard to Government such as "enemies" and "sucking blood." But, speaking for myself, I should be inclined to hold that these expressions that were uttered in the excitement of the moment were not necessary to the substance of her argument, and that some allowance should be made in the interests of freedom of discussion. But I can realise that it is possible to hold otherwise. The speech at any rate comes near the border line of what is permissible, and the section which we are now considering, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, is a wide and all-embracing section. The learned Chief Justice, while agreeing that the speech should be read as a whole and that undue weight should not be given to metaphorical expressions, has come to the opinion that the speech does transgress the limits laid down by the law, and his opinion is entitled to and must receive the greatest deference and respect. I do not think, therefore, that I should formally differ on this narrow question so as to have the case sent before a third Judge and be argued over again for another couple of days especially in view of the fact that we propose to reduce the sentence to one of fine only in the present case. I, therefore, agree in the order proposed.