Criticism of the judiciary that exceeds the bounds of legitimate criticism and tends to undermine the prestige and dignity of the judiciary is considered contempt of Court.

Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - [SECTION 3 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT] - The respondent, editor of a widely circulated weekly, published an article criticizing the lower judiciary and calling for an enquiry into the circumstances of a particular case. The Court held that the article was calculated to undermine the prestige of the lower judiciary and amounted to contempt of Court. The respondent's apology was not accepted as sufficient amends, and he was sentenced to 15 days' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, editor of a widely circulated weekly, published an article criticizing the lower judiciary and calling for an enquiry into the circumstances of a particular case. The petitioner, a complainant in the case that was the subject of the article, filed a petition for contempt of Court against the respondent.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the article was calculated to undermine the prestige of the lower judiciary and amounted to contempt of Court. The respondent's apology was not accepted as sufficient amends, and he was sentenced to 15 days' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-.
Issues: Whether the article published by the respondent amounted to contempt of Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the article was calculated to undermine the prestige of the lower judiciary and amounted to contempt of Court. The respondent's apology was not accepted as sufficient amends, and he was sentenced to 15 days' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-.
Final Decision: The respondent was convicted under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he will suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 days.

JUDGMENT - Deshmukh, J.

1. The petitioner is requesting this Court to take action against the respondent under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The present litigation is an off-shoot of a prior litigation. The facts of that case are not relevant for deciding the present petition, but the background against which the present petition comes to be filed may be noted in brief.

2. The subject-matter of the present petition is an article written by the respondent R.K. Karanjia in his Weekly named "Blitz" in the issue, dated April 20, 1968. The complainant had filed a complaint against the respondent in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. On the last page 01 the cover page of the issue of Blitz, dated 5th of March 1966, a picture of one Pamela Tiffin appeared which was being styled as obscene by the complainant in his complaint. The respondent defended himself but the case ended in conviction on 28th September 1967. The respondent filed an appeal in the Court of Session and, by his judgment dated February 13, 1968, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondent. It also appears that some move was made in the Parliament for amending the provisions of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code and to have that offence tried by a Tribunal higher than the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Those discussions were held in the Parliament in February and March of 1968.

3. Against this background and after the acquittal by the Sessions Judge, the respondent wrote the present article which is now being impugned. After the article was published in the issue, dated April 20, 1968, the complainant petitioner filed a criminal application on April 22, 1968 for permission to file an appeal under the provisions of Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also moved this Court on April 25, 1968 by the present application. According to the petitioner, the article as a whole and more particularly some of the passages, which are quoted in the petition, are calculated to undermine the dignity and prestige of the judiciary. They are in the nature of an unjustified criticism against the trial Judge personally, as also against the entire lower judiciary. The petitioner, therefore, brings to the notice of this Court that a contempt has been committed by the respondent by publishing the said article and that appropriate action may be taken by this Court.

4. When this petition was admitted and a show cause notice was sent to the respondent, he appeared in the Court on July 30, 1968 and produced what is styled by the respondent as his unqualified apology "for any word, sentence or para which may be construed as contempt of Court". It may be mentioned that the petitioner in his petition had specifically quoted two paragraphs from the article which, in the opinion of the petitioner, clearly amounted to contempt. On July 30, 1968 the matter was called out before another Bench of this Court. It was then brought to the notice of the respondent and his Advocate, who was present, that there was another paragraph relating to the probe being made into the circumstances of the Nagpur case, which means the trial for obscenity. There were certain observations regarding the probe being made by the Chief Minister of the State and the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and it was particularly pointed out that if such probe was undertaken it would be as astounding as it would be rewarding. The respondent was told by the learned Judges of that Bench that here was a passage which prima facie demanded an enquiry into the Judges conduct or the judgment of the Court, and if such course was permitted, that would be the end of the judiciary. What explanation the respondent had to offer in respect of that paragraph? When such an enquiry was made, an adjournment was sought by the learned Counsel for the respondent as he wanted to take instructions and file the reply. The matter w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document