SC refuses to lift ban on 'Dharmakaarana'

New Delhi, May 6 (UNI) The Supreme Court has refused to lift the ban imposed by Karnataka government on the controversial novel 'Dharmakaarana' which contained objectionable references to the 12th century eminent saint Basaveshwara also known as Basavanna.

The saint was born in Bagewadi in Bijapur district of Karnataka.

His elder sister Akkanagamma was a saintly woman. Her son Channabasaveshwara was also a great social reformer and a preacher of 'Veerashaivism', a religious sect of the Basava philosophy.

The family consisted individuals of progressive thoughts who sought to promote social reform in Hindu society and for that purpose preached that all were equal.

The novel written by Dr P V Narayanna was selected by the Karnataka Sahitya Academy for an annual award as the best novel, for the year 1995.

There were some eminent figures including former Vice-President of India B D Jatti, who wrote to the state government that the novel should be forfeited as it contained objectionable, inflammatory, hurtful and insulting statements about the sentiments and feelings of the followers of the great saint.

The proposal of the annual award was withdrawn and the state government issued a notification dated March 27, 1997 under Section 95 of CrPC ordering the forfeiture of the book.

The government order was challenged by the author and the publisher Sri Baragur Ramachandrappa.

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition on April 16, 1998 holding ''that the state government was justified in issuing the order as the matter was maliciously intended to promote feelings of enimity and hatred between different classes of citizens of India as envisaged under Section 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, 292,293 and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and such a notification could not be ultra vires of article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India as it was a reasonable restriction imposable under the article.'' A bench comprising Justices B P Singh and Harjit Singh Bedi in judgement dated May 2 observed, ''We therefore endorse the suggestion made by the learned Advocate General and the counsel for the intervener that Chapter 12 is not in sync with the rest of the novel and has been deleberately designed to be hurtful and to bring the family to shame.

We also have no hesitation in observing that the novel with this complimentary passages in favour of Basaveshwara is merely a camouflage to spin and introduce a particularly sordid and puerile story in Chapter 12.

As the forfeiture of the novel would have the result of shutting out its publication and distribution for all time, we had requested Mr Ramachandran to consult to find out if he could be persuaded to remove the portions which had been found to be offensive by the state government. Mr Ramachandran had however informed us that the author was willing to remove only three or four references from the novel, which we have found on examination would only be cosmetic changes and would not satisfy the need of the hour. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.'' The objectionable portion in the novel which is in the form of narration in the first person by the saint himself, that the sister of the saint was an unwedded mother and the family had to shift in order to avoid shame for giving birth to a child without getting married.

UNI