The recommendation under (a) does not amount to much and we will not mention it.
Under (b) they recommend:
In the first place we think that a permanent enactment on the lines of Rule 25A under the Defence of India Act is required. That rule provides for the punishment of persons having prohibited documents (which may have to be defined anew) in their possession or control with (as we read the effect of the words used) intent to publish or circulate them....
We also recommend that the principle of section 565 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which provides for an order requiring notification of residence after release in the case of persons convicted a second time for certain offences) should be extended to all persons convicted of offences under Chapter VI of the Penal Code (offences against the State) whether previously convicted or not. Such persons might be ordered to give security for a period not exceeding two years for good behaviour so far as offences under Chapter VI are concerned, and in default be directed to notify their residence to Government, who should have power to restrict their movements for the period of two years after their release and prohibit them from addressing public meetings,—the term “public meetings” including in its scope political subjects as in section 4 of the Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act of 1907.
Lastly, we think that in all cases where there is a question of seditious intent, evidence of previous conviction for seditious crime or association (of an incriminating kind, of course) with persons so convicted should be admissible upon written notice to the accused with such particulars and at such a time before the evidence is given as might be fair. What we have called seditious crime would of course have to be accurately defined.
Now it is evident that after such legislation all liberty of speech and action becomes extinct. These recommendations will we fear directly lead to secret propaganda and secret action.
Under the head of emergency punitive measures the committee recommends:
Emergency Provisions for Trials. Coming now to the measures themselves, we are of opinion that provision should be made for the trial of seditious crime by Benches of three Judges without juries or assessors and without preliminary commitment proceedings or appeal. In short, the procedure we recommend should follow the lines laid down in sections 5-9 inclusive of the Defence of India Act. It should be made clear that section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (relating to the giving in evidence under certain circumstances of depositions taken in the absence of an absconding accused) applies to these trials, it having, we understand, been questioned whether section 7 of the Defence of India Act has that effect.
We think it necessary to exclude juries and assessors mainly because of the terrorism to which they are liable. But terrorism apart, we do not think that they can be relied upon in this class of cases. They are too much inclined to be affected by public discussion.