In 1968, summons were issued under 153A of Indian Penal Code from a Magistrate Court in the Tees Hazari complex in Delhi to shri PN.Oak for writing an historic article on Sultan Ferozshah Tughlak and also to late Baburao Patel, publisher of the monthly “MOTHER INDIA’ which had theguts and the honesty to publish the scholarly article. The case lasted for many
months from September 1968 to April 1970.

Copies of the extracts from English translations of Muslim chronicles (the same chronicles from which Prof. P.N. Oak had cited in his article) were made for distribution to the trying Magistrate, the Prosecutor and the defense counsels as handy material to save time of the Court.

The Prosecution, duly furnished with the handy reference material, readily conceded that Prof. P. N. Oak’s article was based on authentic extracts from Muslim chronicles themselves.

Prof. P. N. Oak himself pleaded his case as he was a qualified lawyer but never had the occasion to practise law. He contended that far from committing any crime his articles played an important educative role in informing the public of how their ancestors had suffered at the hands of the invading enemies, who were Muslims.

He also stated that since the facts of history have been systematically tampered with, the public had a right to know the truth; and that finding and discovering the truth was the goal of his research work.

The court was so convinced by his arguments that Baburao Patel and Prof. P. N. Oak were honorably acquitted of all charges.

They had the satisfaction of blazing a new pioneering trail amidst a host of scholars in India and abroad, who, for the last 200 years have, out of ignorance, incompetence, cowardice, or considerations of self interest, been toeing the line of glorifying Muslims not only by covering up Muslim cruelties and treachery but even by inventing lies to give them sumptuous credit for concocted contributions enriching life in India.

Writers of history must realize that if making history needs courage then writing true, unvarnished history too needs courage. It is the courage of a different kind. It is the courage to stand up against a phalanx of sycophantic bureaucrats ranged in serried ranks of governmental authority and power.

2. The Bombay High Court Judgment in a similar case

During 1992 there was a lot of debate in Parliament on the opinions expressed by Prof. P. N. Oak in his book “SOME BLUNDERS OF INDIAN HISTORICAL RESEARCH".

A demand had been made for removing the book from the Parliament House Library. Among others, the Shahi Imam had called for a ban on the book; prosecution of its author and had otherwise threatened serious consequences. The book contains Prof. Oak’s understanding of history of the Arabs and the prophet of Islam.

It was the case of Varsha Publications Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra. It was decided by a special Bench consisting of 3 Judges of Bombay High Court. It is reported in 1983 Cr. Law Journal on page 1446. (W.P.No.723/82)

The facts were thus: ‘Shree’, a Marathi weekly, published an article by one D. B. Pradhan . According to the petitioner “the article set out the religious, cultural and socio-historical background prevailing in Western Asia before the advent of Islam”.

The Government of Maharashtra banned the copies carrying the said article. According to the notification issued by the Government to ban the publication, it “contains matter which purports to prove that in Pre-lslamic times the ancient Indian culture and Hindu religion were in vogue in Arabia and that the Islamic religion, culture and art were greatly influenced by the Indian culture and religion...”

The notification alleged that the article promoted or attempted to promote on the ground of religion disharmony and ill-will between the Hindus and Muslims.

The author of the article, Prof. P. N. Oak, had supplied all the evidence. His book “SOME BLUNDERS OF INDIAN HISTORICAL RESEARCH which was submitted as evidence and the findings were treated as authentic. The High Court quashed the ban. In an illuminating judgment the Special Bench of the High Court held as follows:-

“It is true that sometimes in a given case even a truthful account may come within the mischief of S. 153-A of the Penal Code. But this will be too broad a proposition. Different considerations will prevail when we are to consider a scholarly article on history and religion based upon research with the help of a number of reference books. It will be very difficult for the State to contend that a narration of history would promote violence, enmity or hatred. If such a contention is accepted, a day will come when that part of history which is unpalatable to a particular religion will have to be kept in cold storage on the pretext that the publication of such historywould constitute an offence punishable under Section 153-A of the Penal code.”

“The scope of Section 153-A cannot be enlarged to such an extent with a view to thwart history. For obvious reasons, history and historical events cannot be allowed to be looked as a secret on the specious plea that if the history is made known to a person who is interested to know that history, there is likelihood of someone else being hurt.

Similarly, an article containing a historical research cannot be allowed to be thwarted on such a plea that the publication of such material would be covered by Section 153-A. Otherwise, the position will be very precarious. A nation will have to forget its own history and in due course the nation will have no history at all. This result cannot be said to have been intended by the Legislature when Section 153-A of the Penal Code and Section 95 of the Cr. P. C. were enacted.”

“If anybody intends to extinguish history (by prohibiting its publication) of the nation on the pretext of taking action under the above sections, his act will have to be treated as a mala fide one.”