times of india news item NEW DELHI: Sensing it is "mischief and cheap publicity'' which drove two men to seek a ban on `Satyarth Prakash', a book being published for past 135 years, Delhi High Court<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Delhi/Plea_seeking_ban_on_Dayanand_book_is_mischief/articleshow/3696627.cms#>has dissolved proceedings to this effect going on in a civil court.
Justice S N Dhingra quashed the case filed by one Usman Ghani before a civil court where he and another petitioner sought a ban on publication of book "Satyarth Prakash'' written by Swamy Dayanand 135 years ago. They claimed it hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims and portrayed themselves as "public spirtited persons.'' Dissolving the civil suit, pending before a civil court, HC also rejected a submission to restrain Sarvadeshik Press, a publication house, from printing<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Delhi/Plea_seeking_ban_on_Dayanand_book_is_mischief/articleshow/3696627.cms#>and distributing the book in any language. HC was categorical that civil court had no jurisdiction to hear such a suit and it could only be courts with writ jurisdiction who could adjudicate it. The court also ticked off Ghani for seeking such a ban and observed, "A suit by Hindus against the Quran or by Muslims against Gita or Satyarth Prakash claiming relief... are in fact, meant to play mischief in the society and by filing such suits they would get nothing but cheap publicity and create more disharmony and disturbance in the society.'' "It is not the province or duty of the court to pronounce the truthfulness of the religious books or to regulate the religious sentiments and feelings of the sections of the society,'' said Justice Dhingra and allowed a petition filed by Sarvadeshik Press and some Arya Samaj organisations seeking quashing of the civil proceedings against them in the lower court following a suit by Ghani. HC also wondered how some book which had been circulating for past 135 years could suddenly be a source of trouble and worthy of a ban. "It had not caused any ill will and damage to society. Perhaps Ghani, now after 135 years wanted to use it as a toll to cause damage to society. The civil court should have not entertained the suit merely on the basis of two persons claiming themselves to be public spirited, but wanted to indulge in mischief,'' HC noted. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thatha_patty?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
