2007 Supreme(SC) 966

2007(5) Supreme 265
Supreme Court of INdia
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain, JJ.
Haridas Das — Petitioner
versus
Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 7948 of 2004
Decided on : 16-07-2007

Important Point
Apart from the fact that a particular statement is libelous, it can constitute criminal contempt if the imputation is such that the same is capable of lowering the authority of the Court.

Headnote:a)Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) – “Judge bashing” and using derogatory and contemptuous language against Judges has become a favourite pastime of some people – That cannot be permitted to be undermined because that will be against the public interest. (Para 1)

       b)Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 5 – Judge bashing is not and cannot be a substitute for constructive criticism – There is no doubt that the Court like any other institution does not enjoy immunity from fair criticism – Judiciary cannot be immune from criticism – But, when such criticism is based on obvious distortion or gross mis-statement and make in a manner which seems designed to lower respect of the judiciary and destroy public confidence in it, it cannot be ignored – Those who err in their criticism by indulging in vilification of the institution of Court, administration of justice and the instruments through which the administration acts, should take heed for they will act at their own peril. (Paras 2, 13 and 21)

       AIR 1970 SC 1318; 1900(2) QB 36 at 40 – Relied upon.

       c)Constitution of India – Article 19 – There is guarantee of the Constitution of India that there will be freedom of speech and writing, but reasonable restriction can be imposed – Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court’s environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. (Para 12)

       (1911) 86 Law Ed. 192; 1974 AC 273 – Relied upon.

       d)Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – The punishment for contempt of Court is inflicted, not for the purpose of protecting either the Court as a whole or the individual Judges of the Court from a repetition of the attack, but of protecting the public, and specially those who either voluntarily or by compulsion are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, from the mischief they will incur if the authority of the tribunal is undermined or impaired. (Para 15)

       AIR 1996 SC 2481; AIR 1936 PC 141; 1963(1) QB 696; 1970(1) All E.R. 1079; 1954(348) U.S. 11; 1972(1) All E.R. 997; (1980)3 SCC 311; (1978)3 SCC 339; AIR 1954 SC 10 – Relied upon.

       e)Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) – 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–If, however, the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law by such Court, it can be punished separately as contempt – Therefore, apart from the fact that a particular statement is libelous, it can constitute criminal contempt if the imputation is such that the same is capable of lowering the authority of the Court. (Para 22)

       AIR 1954 SC 10; AIR 1971 SC 221; AIR 1971 SC 1132–Relied upon.

       f)Administration of Justice – Judiciary is the bed rock and handmaid of democracy – If people lose faith in justice parted by a Court of law, the entire democratic set up would crumble down. (Para 24)

       (1968) 3 All E.R. 304 – Relied upon.

       g)Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) – The statements made by the contemnor amount to a scurrilous attack on the integrity, honesty and judicial competence and impartiality of judges – It is offensive and intimidating – The contemnor by making such scandalising statements and invective remarks has interfered and seriously shaken the system of administration of justice by bringing it down to disrespect and disrepute. (Para 25)

       (1981) 1 All E.R. 244; AIR 1953 SC 75 – Relied upon.

       h)Contempt of Courts Act, 1971–Section 12–The statements made by the contemnor clearly amounting to contempt of the Supreme Court and his apology not being genuine, he is guilty of contempt– He deserves no sympathy–Sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years. (Paras 31 and 32)

       Facts of the case :

       The contemnor had filed an application styled as “I.A for interim directions” purported with a prayer to initiate contempt proceedings against respondent No.4-Smt. Sharmista Das. Reference was made to a letter purported to have been written by respondent No.4 and sent to the President of India praying for removal of the then Chief Justice of India for his proved incapacity, misbehaviour and for appointment of Mr. Apu Banik (Contemnor). It was further stated as follows:

       “That a dispassionate study without harbouring any pre-conceived motion of water-tight evidences, under possession, will prove beyond doubt how incapable, corrupt and worthless is the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”

       Findings of the Court:

       Contemnor found guilty of contempt.