Bombay High Court
Vishwanath s/o Gopal Palhslkar
Versus
E.S.Venkatramlah
Decided On:

Headnote:Sections 2 (c) and 15-Interview to journalist by former Chief Justice of India-Commenting on conduct of Judges in every High Courts-Such comments whether scandalizes the courts and judges-Prior consent of Advocate General for initiation of contempt proceedings by private individual-Held, proceedings without consent of Advocate General not maintainable.

       According to the petitioner, the remarks of the former Chief Justice scandalise the entire judiciary in the country and lower its authority and prestige in the eyes of the litigants and the people at large. He has further contended that the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 having published part of that interview have also contributed in scandalising the judiciary as a whole and lowering its authority and prestige. Consequently, they are also guilty of contempt. The petitioner has invited attention to the following portion, which is the very first sentence in the interview given by the former Chief Justice.

       "The judiciary in India has deteriorated in its standards because such Judges appointed as are willing to be "influenced" by lavish parties and whisky bottles."

       The above statement shows how much sad and disturbed the former Chief Justice was on the state of affairs prevailing in the judiciary. The entire statement has to be judged and appreciated in this light. The entire interview appears to have been given with an idea to improve the judiciary.

       The framers of the Act consciously wanted to put a bar on the power of private individuals while charging any person for having committed criminal contempt of a Court with an object to curtail vexatious petitions for settling personal sores, being filed by person who are purporting to uphold the majesty and dignity of Court. It is further observed that a criminal contempt is primarily a matter between the Court and the contemner and not a matter between a citizen and the contemner. Every citizen has no unfettered right in this respect because in some cases he may set more out of personal prestige and vendetta than out of motive to uphold the dignity of Court.

       For Citation ; (1990) Born LR 270 at pp. 271, 27., 276, 275: 1990 Mah LJ 1145

       Sections 2 (c) and 15-Interview to journalist by former Chief Justice of India-Commenting on conduct of Judges in every High Courts-Such comments whether scandalizes the courts and judges-Prior consent of Advocate General for initiation of contempt proceedings by private individual-Held, proceedings without consent of Advocate General not maintainable.

       According to the petitioner, the remarks of the former Chief Justice scandalise the entire judiciary in the country and lower its authority and prestige in the eyes of the litigants and the people at large. He has further contended that the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 having published part of that interview have also contributed in scandalising the judiciary as a whole and lowering its authority and prestige. Consequently, they are also guilty of contempt. The petitioner has invited attention to the following portion, which is the very first sentence in the interview given by the former Chief Justice.

       "The judiciary in India has deteriorated in its standards because such Judges appointed as are willing to be "influenced" by lavish parties and whisky bottles."

       The above statement shows how much sad and disturbed the former Chief Justice was on the state of affairs prevailing in the judiciary. The entire statement has to be judged and appreciated in this light. The entire interview appears to have been given with an idea to improve the judiciary.

       The framers of the Act consciously wanted to put a bar on the power of private individuals while charging any person for having committed criminal contempt of a Court with an object to curtail vexatious petitions for settling personal sores, being filed by person who are purporting to uphold the majesty and dignity of Court. It is further observed that a criminal contempt is primarily a matter between the Court and the contemner and not a matter between a citizen and the contemner. Every citizen has no unfettered right in this respect because in some cases he may set more out of personal prestige and vendetta than out of motive to uphold the dignity of Court.

       For Citation : (1990) Bom LR 270 at pp. 271, 27., 276, 275: 1990 Mah LJ 1145