HC upholds ban on book,says criticism should be healthy

The book was released in 2003. The state on March 9,2007 issued a notification under relevant sections of the CrPC,declaring that every copy of the book as well as of the translation thereof shall be banned and forfeited to the government.

The judges,in their 150-page judgment,held that while every person has a right to criticise,criticism must be healthy and not malicious.

Bhasin had contended that the book brings in the lesser known aspects of Islam before public eye. Advocate General Ravi Kadam along with acting public prosecutor P A Pol submitted that the book is forfeited on the ground that it contains offensive material.

The court wanted to verify whether the author has done this exercise with bonafide interest and with a real desire to explore the tenets of Islam and give his opinion.

However,if a book reeks of hatred for a particular community,if it contains rabid material and there appears to be no sincere handling of the subject but a malafide exercise to stir communal passions,one must pause and consider whether it is in the interest of general public to allow its circulation. In such a situation,the restriction imposed on the freedom of speech and expression by the Constitution must spring into action,the court observed.

“According to us,the lurid details allegedly of Mohammad Paigambar’s life,the authenticity of which may be challenged by some,could have been avoided by the author,” the judges held. The court observed that it is difficult to hold that the alleged details of Mohammad Paigambar’s personal life are based on any folklore or history. It is not possible for us to conclude that they are in the nature of historical research,they said.

“We feel that the attempt is to show Mohammad Paigambar in poor light to hurt Muslim sentiments,” the judges said. They added that the author’s interpretation may not necessarily be correct and observed that the criticism is not academic.

The judges noted that the author has gone on to pass insulting comments on Muslims with particular reference to Indian Muslims. “That is most objectionable,” the judgment said.

“It is an aggravated form of criticism made with a malicious and deliberate intention to outrage the religious feelings of Muslims. The contents are so interwoven that it is not possible to excise certain portions and permit circulation of the book,” the bench noted.