Case Number
HCJ 73/53
Date Decided
10-16-1953
Decision Type
Original
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Two communist newspapers, respectively owned by the petitioners, published articles containing material which, in the opinion of the Minister of the Interior, was likely to endanger the public peace, and acting under s. 19(2) (a) of the Press Ordinance the Minister suspended both the newspapers for periods of ten and fifteen days respectively. On the return to orders nisi calling upon the Minister to show cause why the orders of suspension should not be set aside,
Held: In exercising his power of suspension under s. 19(2) (a) of the Press Ordinance, the guiding principle is that the Minister must consider whether it is probable that as a consequence of the publication a danger to the public peace has been disclosed. A mere tendency to endanger the public peace will not suffice to fulfil that requirement Even if he is satisfied that the public peace is likely to be endangered by the publication, the Minister must nevertheless consider whether that danger is so grave as to justify the use of so drastic a power as suspension of a newspaper. Although the court will not interfere with the discretion of the Minister when properly exercised, the Minister in this case had not considered the probability of the public peace being endangered, but had acted in the belief that a mere tendency in this direction was sufficient.
In the circumstances the orders of suspension had been wrongly issued and should be set aside.
Keywords
Constitutional Law -- Freedom of Expression
