An article published in a newspaper that does not refer to a pending case, the parties to the litigation, or the question referred to in the case, and does not cause a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the hearing of the case, does not amount to contempt of court.

GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, C. J.

( 1 ) WE have an application before us requesting to punish the respondents for contempt. It arises in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition No. 823 of 1973 on 6-2-1973, contending inter alia that during the recent agitation for a separate Andhra State, curfew was imposed in the Town of Vijayawada from 6-1-1973 to 10-1-1973 and later on from 21-1-1973 to 24-1-1973 at specified hours. He therefore alleged that the imposition of curfew was without the authority of law and that the District Magistrate, Krishna very arbitrarily, capriciously and without following the procedure of law ordered the imposition of curfew which has disastrous consequences. It was therefore prayed that a declaration be made that the orders of curfew on the above dates issued by the District Magistrate. Krishna are without the authority of law, illegal and unconstitutional.

( 3 ) PENDING the writ petition, W. P. M. P. No. 1012 of 1973 for restraining the District Magistrate from imposing curfew was sought. This Court, however although admitted the writ petition for hearing, directed notice to be given, No interim direction, however, was issued.

( 4 ) WHILE the writ petition was pending, the 2nd respondent, Sri F. Seethapathi, Secretary, Board of Revenue, Commercial Taxes, appears to have contributed an article to a Daily "deccan Chronicle", the 1st respondent being its editor. This article was entitled "the law of curfew". It was published in the Dec-can Chronicle of 28-2-1973. In that article the 2nd respondent discussed what is meant by curfew and what is the legal authority behind imposing an order of curfew. He then refers to the origin of the word curfew and makes references to its historical background. Considering Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the author then makes reference to various provisions of law.

( 5 ) IN this petition, it is alleged that the said article amounts to contempt of Court and therefore the respondents should be punished.

( 6 ) NOW, the law on contempt is well settled. When litigation is pending before a Court, no one shall comment on it in such a way there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the action, as for instance by influence on the Judge, the witnesses or by prejudicing mankind in general against a party to the cause. Even if the person making the comment honestly believes it to be true, still it is a contempt of Court if he prejudices the truth before it is ascertained in the proceedings. To this general rule of fair trial one may add a further rule and that is that none shall, by misrepresentation or otherwise, bring unfair pressure to bear on one of the parties to a cause so as to force him to drop his complaint or defence. It is always regarded as of the first importance that the law which we have just stated should be maintained in its full integrity. But in so stating the law we must bear in mind that there must appear to be a real and substantial danger of prejudice.

( 7 ) IT must also be remembered that our law of contempt does not prevent comment before the litigation is started nor after it has ended. So long as the commentators get their facts right and keep their comments fair, they are without reproach. They do not offend against the law as to contempt of Court unless there is real and substantial prejudice to pending litigation before the Court Matters of public interest, particularly academic questions which have no reference to a pending litigation but are of a general educative character, no person can stop such comment by serving a writ See Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. , (1973) 2 WLR 452 at p. 460.

( 8 ) IN re P. C. Sen, AIR 1970 SC 1821 at p. 1824, Shah, J. , who spoke for the Court, if we may say so, succinctly put the law. He observed:"the law relating to contempt of the Court is well settled. Any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a Court or a Judge into con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document