Back
2010 (6) Supreme 289
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Indirect Tax Practitioners Association — Petitioner
versus
R.K. Jain — Respondent
Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.9 of 2009
in
Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.15 of 1997
Decided on : 13-8-2010
1993 AIR SC 1769: (1993) 4 SCC 119 – Relied upon
(b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c), 12 and 15 r/w Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India – Ordinarily, the Court would not use the power under the Act for curbing the right of freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed by the Constitution – Only when the criticism of judicial institutions transgresses all limits of decency and fairness or there is total lack of objectivity or there is deliberate attempt to denigrate the institution then the Court would use this power. (Para 15)
New York Times Company v. L.B. Sullivan; AIR 1936 PC 141; AIR 1943 PC 202; (1968) 2 All ER 319; (1978) 3 SCC 339; (1988) 3 SCC 167; (1974) 1 SCC 374 – Relied upon
(c) Words and Phrases – Scandalize – Word ‘scandalize’ has not been defined in the Contempt of Courts Act – A pleading is said to be ‘scandalous’ if it alleges anything unbecoming the dignity of the court to hear or is contrary to good manners or which charges a crime immaterial to the issue – However, the statement of a scandalous fact that is material to the issue is not a scandalous pleading. (Para 17)
50 LJQB 214 – Relied upon
(d) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) –– Criminal Contempt – Distorting orders of the court and deliberately giving a slant to its proceedings having the tendency to scandalise the court or bringing it to ridicule may constitute contempt of Court – Such activities cannot be permitted. (Para 19)
(1974) 1 SCC 374; (1999) 8 SCC 308 – Relied upon
(e) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 13 – The truth should ordinarily be allowed as a defence unless the Court finds that it is only a camouflage to escape the consequences. (Para 22)
(f) Words and Phrases – Whistleblower – Is a person who raises a concern about wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people. (Para 23)
(g) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 12 and 15 r/w Articles 129 or 215, Constitution of India – Respondent can appropriately be described as a whistleblower for the system who has tried to highlight the malfunctioning of an important institution established for dealing with cases involving revenue of the State – There is no reason to silence such person by invoking Articles 129 or 215 of the Constitution or the provisions of the Act. (Para 23)
(h) Judicial Review – A legal professional body instead of being vigilant and interested in transparent functioning of CESTAT indulging in denouncing the editorial and in the process misleading the Attorney General of India – Deprecated. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
Interpretation of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is the issue in this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
It is not possible to hold the respondent guilty of violating the undertaking given to the Supreme Court.
It is not possible to record a finding that by writing the editorial in question, the respondent has tried to scandalize the functioning of CESTAT or made an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.
Result: Petition dismissed with cost.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J. —
1. Whether by writing editorial, which was published in Excise Law Times dated 1.6.2009 with the title “CESTAT PRESIDENT SETS HOUSE IN ORDER - ANNUAL TRANSFERS FOR MEMBERS INTRODUCED - REGISTRY IN LINE”, the respondent violated the undertaking filed in this Court in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.15 of 1997 and whether contents of the editorial constitute criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, `the Act’) are the questions which need consideration in this petition filed by Indirect Tax Practitioners’ Association, Bangalore under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India.
2. This Court had, after taking cognizance of letter dated 18.9.1997 written by Justice U.L. Bhat, the then President of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to the Chief Justice of India pointing out that the respondent had published objectionable editorials in 1996 (86) Excise Law Times pages A169 to A179, 1996 (87) Excise Law Times pages A59 to A70 and 1997 (94) Excise Law Times pages A65 to A82 containing half truths, falsehoods and exaggerated versions of the alleged deficiencies and irregularities in the functioning of the Tribunal, initiated contempt proceedings against the respondent which came to be registered as Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.15 of 1997. On 25.8.1998, the respondent filed an undertaking, the relevant portions of which are reproduced below:
“I realize that my approach and wordings in the Impugned Editorials of ELT have given the impression of scandalising or lowering the authority of CEGAT. I state that I had no such intention as I had undertaken the exercise in good faith and in public interest. I sincerely regret the writing of the said Editorials which have caused such an impression.
That I have been advised by my senior counsel - Mr. Shanti Bhushan that in future whenever there are any serious complaints regarding the functioning of CEGAT, the proper course would be to first bring those matters to the notice of the Chief Justice of India, and/or the Ministry of Finance and await a response or corrective action for a reasonable time before taking any other action. I undertake to the court to abide by this advise of my counsel in future.”
After taking cognizance of the same, the Court passed the following order:-
“Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent (alleged contemnor) tenders a statement in writing signed by the respondent. We accept the regret tendered by the respondent in the said statement. We also accept the undertaking to Court given by the respondent in the said statement. Having regard to the aforesaid, the contempt notice is discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
We express our gratitude to Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina who has assisted the Court at our request.”
3. During the pendency of the aforementioned contempt case, the respondent had written detailed letters dated 2.6.2008, 7.7.2008, 23.7.2008, 26.7.2008, 9.8.2008 and 12.8.2008 to the Finance Minister, Government of India highlighting specific cases of irregularities, malfunctioning and corruption in the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). After the notice of contempt was discharged, the respondent wrote two more letters dated 21.10.2008 and 28.2.2009 to the Finance Minister on the same subject and also pointed out how the appointment and posting of Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member CESTAT were irregular. He drew the attention of the addressee to the fact that some of the orders pronounced by CESTAT had been changed. He wrote similar letters to the Revenue Secretary, President, CESTAT, Registrar, CESTAT and the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The particulars of these letters as contained in the reply affidavit filed by the respondent are as under:
LETTERS TO THE FINANCE MINISTER
Letter Date Subject 02-06-2008 CESTAT - Member-Advocate Nexus 07-07-2008 Gold Smuggling - Carrying of gold in soles of the shoe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
