SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 578

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
Hari Singh Nagra & Others
Versus
Kapil Sibal & Others
TRANSFERRED CASE (CRL.) NO. 2 OF 1997
Decided on : 15-07-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Respondents:Harish N. Salve, Ranjit Kumar, Shambhu Prasad Singh, Senior Advocates, Ms. Ankur Saigal, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Binu Tamta, Sunil Kumar Jain, K.V. Mohan, Advocates.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 215 and Article 19(1)(a) r/w section 15, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Any criticism about the judicial system or the judges which hampers the administration of justice or brings administration of justice into ridicule would attract contempt – All criticisms of the judiciary must be strictly rational and sober and proceed from the highest motives – To criticize a judgment fairly albeit fiercely is no crime but a necessary right – Instantly, the Message while examining evils prevailing in judicial system had an object to achieve maintenance of purity in the administration of justice –The article nowhere targets a particular judge – The article by itself does not affect the administration of justice. (Para 8)

       (1988) 3 SCC 167; 1936 AC 322; (1970) 2 SCC 325; AIR 1978 SC 489; AIR 1954 SC 10 – Relied upon

       1990 Cri.L.J. 2179 (Bom) – Cited with approval

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 215 and Article 19(1)(a) r/w section 15, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Times of India publishing excerpts of the Article by Mr. Kapil Sibal prompting petitioners to file contempt petition – Had the full text been published this might not have happened – In view of unconditional apology, contempt proceeding dropped. (Para 12, 13)

       Facts of the case:

       This contempt petition has been filed against Mr. Kapil Sibal Sr. Advocate contending that in his writing in the souvenir of the Mehfil-e-Wukala Mr. Sibal had made a frontal attack on the judiciary.

       Finding of the Court:

       The article by Mr. Kapil Sibal does not attract contempt.

       Result:

       Petition dismissed.

Judgment :-

J.M. Panchal, J.

1. The relevant facts, from which the present contempt petition arises, are as under :

2. Mehfil-e-Wukala (`Mehfil' for short) is a cultural and literally group / association of lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court. The main object as claimed by the said organization has been to promote art, culture and literature amongst the members of the Bar. The said group of lawyers also claims that Mehfil provides the members of legal fraternity a chance to break away from the busy schedule to pursue their talents in the fields of art, culture and literature. The Mehfil was started in the year 1986 as a small group of poets-advocates who used to sit periodically at each other's place and recite poems etc. In the year 1992-93, the members of the Mehfil decided to hold an annual function and to invite more members of the Bar and also the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi to participate in the activities of the Mehfil. It was also decided to release a souvenir on the said occasion, which was to contain brief account of the activities of the Mehfil, messages, articles etc. to be contributed by the Hon'ble Judges and senior members of the Bar. Accordingly, Annual Function was held on February 6, 1993 at India International Centre, New Delhi and a souvenir was published. Again on February 5, 1994, Annual Function was held which was attended by the members of the Bar and the Hon'ble Judges. On this occasion also a souvenir was published which contained various messages, articles, poems etc. contributed by the members of the Bar and the Hon'ble Judges. For the year 1994-95, it was decided to hold the Annual Function on March 25, 1995. As was done in the previous years, it was decided to release a souvenir on the said occasion. The function was held on the scheduled date and the souvenir was published. It is claimed by Mr. Suresh C. Gupta, learned counsel practicing in this Court in his affidavit in reply that articles and messages were sent by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy, hon'ble Justice Dr. A.S. Anand, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate and the then President of Supreme Court Bar Association, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.L. Hansaria etc. Mr. Kapil Sibal who is Senior Advocate also sent a message to be published in the souvenir. In his message Mr. Sibal expressed concern about the plight of junior members of the Bar and also about falling standards of the legal fraternity. The message was not released to the press nor the souvenir was made available for sale but was circulated to its members and other members of the Bar. Initially, the message sent by Mr. Sibal did not invite any controversy whatsoever for about a month. However, Mr. Sibal, the learned Senior Advocate, decided to contest for the post of President of Supreme Court Bar Association and filed his nomination. Thereafter, a news item was published in the Sunday Times of India daily dated April 16, 1995 wherein certain excerpts from the message which was published in the souvenir of the Mehfil, were reported which suggested that Mr. Sibal had made a frontal attack on the judiciary.

3. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are practicing advocates at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Their claim was that Mr. Sibal who is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and was contender for the Presidentship of Supreme Court Bar Association, had by sending a message which was published in the souvenir of the Mehfil committed a criminal contempt of the court. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 were of the view that a real prejudice, which can be regarded as substantial interference in the administration of justice was caused because of the calculated and keenly studied attempt by Mr. Sibal to denigrate the institution of judiciary. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 claimed that the remarks made by Mr. Sibal against Hon'ble Judges amounted






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top