7. The Review Application

In the Matter of an application for condonation of delay in the submission of the review application.

In the matter of

1. The Hon�ble Mr. Satish Chandra, the Chief Justice and His Companion Justices of the said High Court.

The humble petition of the applicant above-named most respectfully

S H E W E T H :

1. That the judgment in the above matter was delivered on 17th May, 1985.

2. That the review petition which has to be moved within 30 days, ought to have been moved by 17th June, 1985, 16th June, 1985, being a Sunday and a holiday.

3. That the applicant got hurt in the palm of his right hand on 13th June, 1985, got a stitch and bandage and was advised not to move his right hand for some days.  A medical certificate is enclosed, marked as annexure �A�.

4. That due to the aforesaid reason the review application has become delayed by a day.

It is therefore prayed that the delay of one day in the submission of the said application may kindly be condoned.

And for which act of kindness your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. 

An application for review of judgement dated 17.5.1985.

Being aggrieved by some mistakes or errors apparent from the judgment dated 17.5.85 passed by His Lordship Mr. Justice Bimal Chandra Basak dismissing in limine the Court Application in Matter No. 297 of 1985 from which no appeal has been filed and due to the discovery of new and important matter which inspite of exercise of due diligence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the matter was heard, the applicant above-named begs to file this memo of review against the aforesaid decision on the following amongst other

1. For that the findings in paragraph 28 of the judgment that the Koran is of divine origin and that the Koran has no earthly source, based as they are not on any evidence but on mere religious beliefs, are derogatory to the basic constitutional principle of secularism and are therefore unconstitutional.

2. For that the finding given in paragraph 34 of the judgment that a court cannot sit in judgment on a holy book is unconstitutional.

3. For that a book, even if it be a book held sacred by any community living in India, loses protection of Sec. 295 if its publication amounts to offences under Section, amongst others, 295A I.P.C. and should have been held accordingly.

4. For that the finding given in paragraph 31 that the Koran does not insult other religions is not correct in view of the various sayings of the book already quoted in para 6 of the Writ application.

5. For that the finding given in paragraph 37 of the judgment that Sec. 153A I.P.C. has no application in this case is not correct as the various sayings of the Koran, already quoted in para 5 of the Writ application, do promote, on grounds of religion, disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities.

6. For that the following submissions are not recorded nor dealt with in the said judgment:

(i) That Sec. 295 would not protect an object, even if held sacred by any class of persons, if the object happens to be a book and its publication amounts to commission of offences punishable u/s 295 I.P.C. itself apart from Secs. 153A and 295A I.P.C. inasmuch as whoever seeks protection of law must come with clean hands.

Some quotations from the book which exhorts its followers to take the idols (which are also the objects held sacred by other class of persons) to Hell for being burnt in hell-fire, were cited at the time of hearing.

(ii) In reply to a question which was raised by the Id. Judge, namely, could an object of art, even if somewhat obscene, be proscribed on the ground of obscenity, the following summary of a Supreme Court judgment in A.I.R. 1985 (S.C.) 881 given by Chittaley and Appu Rao, at page 2188 of their book on the Indian Penal Code was relied upon:

�Where obscenity and art are mixed up, art must be so preponderating as to throw the obscenity into a shadow or the obscenity so trivial and insignificant that it can have no effect and may be overlooked.�

The volume containing the report of the said judgment of the Supreme Court was also produced before the Judge.

7. For that the finding in paragraph 37 of the judgment that the contention of the respondent that this application is motivated cannot be completely ruled out, is not correct.

8. For that the Id. Judge ought to have held that the petition had been filed with bonafide motives and in the interest of the country and the public good.

I certify that the above are in my opinion good grounds of review.

May It Please Your Lordship

This is an application for review of the judgement delivered in the above matter on the 17th May, 1985, which it is submitted is based, amongst others, on the following premises:

(1) (As) the �Koran� is of divine origin, so are the religion and its tenets and the philosophy and the legal principles which the �Koran� inculcated.  The Koran has no earthly source. (Paragraph 28).

(2) The Court cannot sit in judgment on a holy book... (Paragraph 34).