2000 Supreme(SC) 2054

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
In Re: S.K. Sundaram
Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 5 of 2000
Decided 15-12-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Contemner : S. Karuppan, Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocates.
To Assist the Court : Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The contempt of court jurisdiction is not to protect an individual judge, it is to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. Hence, when his (contemner) expectation that the Chief Justice of India himself would have personally filed a petition against the contemner did not fructify, he cannot question the maintainability of the action which was initiated suo motu by the court.
2. When the court appoints an advocate as Amicus it is for the court to get assistance in the proceedings. Power of the court in making such appointment is plenary and cannot be objected to by others.
3. Telegraphic communication of imputing defamatary allegations amounts to publication of defamatary statement.
4. Where the contemner, an Advocate sent telegraphic communication to Chief Justice of India commanding him to step down from constitutional posts alleging that by falsification of his year of birth usurped CJI Post and threatened to file criminal complaint against him, contemner was awarded six months imprisonment.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- Section 2(c)-Criminal contempt- Telegraphic Communication to Chief Justice of India by Contemner, an Advocate, to step down alleging that CJI falsifying her date of birth usurped CJI post-Contemner threatening to file criminal complaint and in fact filed criminal complaint in Criminal Court alleging offence under Sections 420, 406, 466, 468 and 471-Suo motu contempt proceedings by Supreme Court-Contemner s plea that suo motu action could have been taken-Plea untenable-Contempt of Court jurisdiction is to protect administration of Justice-Contemner cannot question maintainability of suo motu action-Telegraphic Communication of Contemner scandalised authority of Court as a whole undermining majesty and dignity of Courts and law-Sending telegram definitely amount to publication -Plea of good faith untenable-Contemner s claim of false-Attitude of Contemner malafide-Action of Contemner is a case of gross criminal contempt of Court-Six months imprisonment imposed-Sentence would stand suspended for a period of five years if he gives an undertaking that he would not or even attempt to commit any criminal contempt-Suspension of sentence would stand revoked if Contemner commits any act of criminal contempt during five years.

       The contempt of court jurisdiction is not to protect an individual judge, it is to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. Hence, when his (contemner) expectation that the Chief Justice of India himself would have personally filed a petition against the contemner did not fructify, he cannot question the maintainability of the action which was initiated suo motu by the court. (Para 7)

       It was argued that (i) the action initiated against the contemner is on the telegraphic communication sent by him to the CJI and it would not amount to publication and hence no contempt action could be taken on that premise (ii) that the contemner bona fide believed that the year of birth of Dr. Justice Anand was 1934 and hence he was actuated by good faith in resorting to the acts done by him and (iii) that sending of the telegram, even if it amounts to publication, would not tend to undermine the administration of justice and hence the proceedings are liable to be dropped. (Para 11)

       Held : Criminal contempt is vivisected into two categories. One is publication of any matter which scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of any court etc. etc. Second is the doing of any act whatsoever which scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of any court etc. etc. If an act is not a criminal contempt merely because there was no publication such act would automatically fall within the purview of the other category because the latter consists of "the doing of any other act whatsoever". The latter category is thus a residuary category so wide enough from which no act of criminal contempt can possibly escape. The common denominator for both is that it scandalises or tends to scandalise etc. etc. of any court. (Para 13)

       The position is that a defamatory attack on a judge may be a libel so far as the judge is concerned and it would be open to him to proceed against the libellor in a proper action if he so chooses. (Para 15)

       The telegraphic communication sent by the contemner contains four biddings. The first is a command hurled at the CJI to step down forthwith from the constitutional office. The second is a threat administered to him that if the command is not obeyed forthwith, the CJI would be described as an offender having committed offences of cheating and falsification of records and criminal breach of trust. The third is another intimidatory epithet that he would file a writ petition for a direction that Chief Justice of India should pay a sum of Rs. 3 crore. Fourth is an imputation that the CJI A.S. Anand is a usurper in the office of Chief Justice of India. Any one of those postulates would certainly scandalise and at any rate would tend to scandalise and lower the authority of the courts as a whole, and particularly the Supreme Court of India. Chief Justice of India by virtue of his constitutional ranking is the head of the Indian judiciary. When threats of the above nature have been hurled at him they would unmistakably tend to undermine the position, majesty and dignity of the courts and the law. (Para 23)

       In this connection we also considered the contention of the learned counsel for the contemner that sending such a telegram would not amount to publication. On the legal premise the contention is unacceptable. A telegraphic message can be transmitted only after the sender gives the contents of the message to the telegraph office which would invariably be manned by the staff of that office. The message after transmission reaches the destination office which also is manned by the members of the staff. From there only the message would be despatched to the sendee. At all those levels the message is open to be read by at least those who are engaged in the process of transmission. It must be remembered that a telegraphic message is not like a letter handwritten by the sender and enveloped in a sealed cover to be opened only by the sendee for reading. That apart, it is not now open to the contemner to contend that there was no publication of the telegraphic communication despatched by him to the Chief Justice of India because when he filed the criminal complaint in the court in implementation of the telegraphic threat hurled to the CJI, he appended a copy of the telegram therewith. Thus, he made it public at his own volition. (Paras 24 & 26)

       Alternative contention that it was act done in good faith as he believed in good as he believed honestly that the year of birth of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand was 1934 would not be accepted. The expression "good faith" in criminal jurisprudence has a definite connotation. Its import is totally different from saying that the person concerned has honestly believed the truth of what is said. Good faith is defined in Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code thus:

       "Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention."

       See the language of the law in this regard. It starts in the negative tone excluding all except what is allowed to be within its amplitude. Insistence sought to be achieved through the commencing words of the definition "nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith" is that the solitary item included within the purview of the expression "good faith" is what is done with "due care and attention". Due care denotes the degree of reasonableness in the care sought to be exercised. In Black s Law Dictionary, "reasonable care" is explained as "such a degree of care, precaution, or diligence as may fairly and properly be expected or required, having regard to the nature of the action, or of the subject matter and the circumstances surrounding the transaction. It is such care as an ordinary prudent person world exercise under the conditions existing at the time he is called upon to act." So before a person proposes to make an imputation on another the author must first make an enquiry into the factum of the imputation which he proposes to make. It is not enough that he does just a make-believe show for an enquiry. The enquiry expected of him is of such a depth as a reasonable and prudent man would make with the genuine intention in knowing the real truth of the imputation which is up in his sleeves. If he does not do so he cannot claim that what he did was bona fide i.e. done in good faith. Thus, a contemner, if he is to establish "good faith" has to say that he conducted a reasonable and proper enquiry before making an imputation that Dr. Justice A.S. Anand has usurped in the office of CJI as his year of birth was definitely 1934 and that was the reason which actuated him to venture for launching the acts which he perpetrated. (Paras 28 to 30 & 32)

       When the President of India resolved the question of age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand in 1991 when he was the Judge of the High Court, that too pursuant to the contemner himself raking up the question then, he should have, as a dutiful citizen of India, realised that the said decision attained finality so far as the question of the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand is concerned. Such decision was based on very weighty and formidable materials available to the President of India then. Thus the telegraphic communication and the criminal complaint launched by him smacks of utter lack of bona fides. Well, if he is determined to feign that he would not look at any one of those materials as well as the final decision rendered by the President of India regarding the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, and then decided to persistently jump into the foray with the tirade, putting himself into the outfit and chasuble of his professional insignia, it is only reminiscent of the Spanish hero Don Quixote of La Mancha. On the part of this Court we may observe that if the contemner had stopped with his telegram we would have persuaded ourselves to ignore it as a case of ranting gibberish. But when he followed it up with lodging of a criminal complaint before a criminal court in which CJI was arrayed as an accused having committed offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and falsification of records, we realised that he seriously meant to malign and undermine the dignity and authority of this Court. It may be relevant to point out that the note of the Registrar, on the basis of which Suo Motu Contempt was initiated against the contemner specifically referred to and reproduced the Presidential Order dated 16.5.1991 issued under Article 217(3) of the Constitution. The defiant and malafide attitude of the Contemner is apparent from the fact that despite knowing about the actual date of birth of the Chief Justice of India and the Presidential Order dated 16.5.1991 which was read over by the Solicitor General in the open Court on 21st November, 2000 in presence of the contemner, he chose to adhere to his false claim alleging the age of the Chief Justice of India to be the year 1934. (Paras 37 to 39)

       We have, therefore, not a speck of doubt in our mind that the impugned action of the contemner is a case of the gross criminal contempt of court. It is a serious matter for this Court because vilification of the high personage of Chief Justice of India would undermine the majesty of the court and dignity of this institution. We, therefore, hold him guilty of criminal contempt and convict him thereunder. We sentence him to undergo imprisonment for six months. The contemner said that he is a heart patient. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Solicitor General pleaded with us that the said statement of the contemner may be considered as a ground in deciding how to inflict the punishment. We therefore, order that the sentence of imprisonment for six months will stand suspended for a period of one month from today. If the contemner would give an undertaking in this court, in the form of an affidavit, to the effect that he would not commit or even attempt to commit any act of criminal contempt, then the sentence now imposed by us would remain suspended for a further period of five years. But if the contemner commits any act of criminal contempt during the said period of five years, the suspension of the sentence will stand revoked and then he will have to undergo the sentence of imprisonment for six months. Otherwise the question of revival of the sentence would depend upon the order which this Court would pass on the expiry of five years. Ordered accordingly. (Paras 40 & 41)

       (ii) Amicus Curiae-Power of Court in making appointment is plenary-Cannot be objected by others.

       When the court appoints an advocate as Amicus it is for the court to get assistance in the proceedings. Power of the court in making such appointment is plenary and cannot be objected to by others. (Para 9)

       (iii) Publication-Defamatory publication-What amounts to-Telegraphic communication-Whether amounts to publication of contents? (Paras 11, 23 & 24)

       (iv) Defamation-Publication of defamatory material-Telegraphic communication imputing defamation-Amounts to publication. (Paras 11, 23 & 24)

       (v) Good faith-In criminal jurisprudence-Meaning-What amounts to good faith. (Paras 28 to 32)