Press Act security dispensation cancellation and forfeiture upheld on administrative power and disaffection test

The magistrate's power to withdraw an earlier dispensation from depositing security under the Press Act was administrative, not judicial, and the special statutory scheme excluded challenge by revision or certiorari; the cancellation was therefore valid. On forfeiture, the statutory test focused on whether the newspaper's passages, viewed in context and by their natural tendency, were calculated to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection against the Government or a protected class. Applying that construction, the declaration of forfeiture was properly supported. Both challenges failed and the orders under attack were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the magistrate could validly cancel an earlier dispensation from depositing security under the Press Act and whether such cancellation was open to challenge by revision or certiorari; (ii) Whether the declaration of forfeiture under the Press Act was justified on the contents of the newspaper.

Issue (i): Whether the magistrate could validly cancel an earlier dispensation from depositing security under the Press Act and whether such cancellation was open to challenge by revision or certiorari

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated security as the normal rule, with power in the magistrate to dispense with deposit for special reasons and thereafter cancel or vary any order made under the sub-section. The cancellation of a dispensation was held to be within that power. The act was characterized as administrative rather than judicial. Since it was not a judicial act, revision under the criminal procedure law was unavailable, and the special language of the Press Act, especially the clause making proceedings under it conclusive save as provided by the Act, was treated as excluding certiorari in this context.

Conclusion: The magistrate's cancellation of the dispensation was valid and the challenge to it was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the declaration of forfeiture under the Press Act was justified on the contents of the newspaper

Analysis: The forfeiture provision was construed by balancing the protection of public order and loyalty against lawful criticism and reform. In applying the statutory test, the governing principle was whether the passages were of such a nature as to excite, or attempt to excite, hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the Government or a class or section of His Majesty's subjects, judged by their natural tendency and context. The Court accepted the High Court's construction of the section and its application to the articles found objectionable, and held that the declaration of forfeiture was properly supported.

Conclusion: The declaration of forfeiture was upheld.

Final Conclusion: Both appeals failed. The orders under challenge were sustained, and the appellant obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers on a magistrate an administrative power to withdraw a dispensation granted under a regulatory scheme, the withdrawal is not a judicial act and, if the statute makes the Act's special procedure exclusive, collateral review by revision or certiorari is barred; forfeiture provisions aimed at suppressing disaffection are applied by assessing the natural tendency of the impugned publication as a whole.

---