Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- While special leave petition No. 9661 of 1981 (National Textile Workers Union v. P. R. Ramakrishnan) was being argued before a five Judge Bench on September 8, 1982, Shri G. Vasantha Pai, who was appearing on behalf of the respondents, drew the attention of the Court to certain statements which had appeared in the Press under the name of one P. M. Kumaraswamy alias Kailaimannan. On a petition presented by Shri Pai on behalf of one R. Baba Chandersekhar under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court issued a notice to P. Kumaraswamy asking him to show cause why he should not be committed for committing Contempt of Court.

2. Thereafter, the Contempt Petition came up for hearing before us on various dates. On some of those dates the contemner asked for adjournment on the ground of his illness while on some dates he remained absent. On one occasion, he was absent without informing the Court as to the reasons of his absence. At long last, the contempt petition was heard at some length on March 30, 1983. On a motion made by Shri S. K. Jain, Advocate, on behalf of the contemner, the latter was permitted to argue his case in person, in Tamil. Another Advocate whom the contemner had engaged, Shri S. Ramaswamy, translated the contemners argument into English for our benefit. One of us, namely, Varadarajan, J., of course knows Tamil. We reserved our Judgment on that date and directed that the matter be listed for Judgment on April 26, 1983. We observed that the contemner may, if so advised, tender a written apology to this Court as also to each of the four learned Judges of the Madras High Court against whom he had made unfounded allegations, namely, Justice Gokulakrishnan, Justice Ramanujam, Justice v. Ramaswami and Justice Shunmugham. We directed that the apologies be tendered in writing, if at all, by April 7, 1983 and be published on the front page of the two so-called newspapers. International Chronicle and Sigappu Nada, which the contemner conducts.

3. The contemner submitted a written apology to this Court on March 30 itself, to the following effect :

"I state that I understand that my writings created an impression in the mind of this Honble Court that the articles are contemptuous in nature. I am therefore submitting my sincere and honest apology to this Honble Court and also to Mr. Justice Gokulakrishnan, Mr. Justice Ramanujam, Mr. Justice Shunmugham of the Madras High Court and I am extremely sorry for writing the impugned article.

I further undertake not to write anything against the Madras High Court Judges in my journals Sigappu Nada and International Chronoicle in future. I also undertake to publish the text of this affidavit in the abovesaid two journals."

4. How hollow and unmeaning the apology was, is clear from the fact that within 10 days after submitting the apology to this Court the contemner published an article in Sigappu Nada on April 8, 1983 purporting to give an account of what had transpired in this Court on March 30, 1983. This is what he says in the said issue of his journal :

"The Court told me : We convict you to the maximum punishment of six months imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine; if you tender apology, we will consider. Under the circumstances, what can I do.? I agreed for tendering apology.

After this, they told me that I have to appear before each and every Judges about whom, I have written in my paper and tender apology. Since, I have accepted for the first apology, I have agreed for this also."

5. On April 14, 1983 the contemner came out with a front page article in Sigappu Nada in which he has stated as follows :

"KAILAIMANNAN IS READY TO GO TO JAIL

In the case filed against me in the SC, Judgment is to be delivered on 26-4-1983.

The Judgment has been announced already and it has been published as news item in Newspapers. The SC has ordered that I must go to four of the High Court Judges personally and tender apology. But my conscience does not permit me to tender apology to th