Back
High Court Of Delhi
E.T.SEN - Appellant
Versus
EDATATA NARAYANAN - Respondent
Decided On : 12/12/1968
CONTEMPT OF COURT - PUBLICATION OF MATERIAL PREJUDICIAL TO PARTIES OR WITNESSES - TENDENCY TO INTERFERE WITH DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE - LAW OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IS PRECISE AND WELL-SETTLED - IGNORANCE OF LAW OR INABILITY OF LEGAL ADVISERS TO PROPERLY ADVISE CLIENTS NOT A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE - PUBLICATION OF MATERIAL WHICH IS NOT LEGAL EVIDENCE OR HAS NOT BEEN PROVED IN COURT CONSTITUTES CONTEMPT - PUBLICATION OF HEADLINES IN BOLD TYPE TENDING TO CONVEY A PREJUDICIAL IMPRESSION AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT - PUBLICATION OF PHOTOSTAT OF A LETTER AND ENVELOPE ADDRESSED TO A PERSON WHOSE GENUINENESS IS YET TO BE ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTES CONTEMPT - PUBLICATION OF MATERIAL WHICH IS NOT A FAIR AND FAITHFUL REPRODUCTION OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT - PUBLICATION OF MATERIAL WHICH TENDS TO PREJUDICE PUBLIC OPINION BY MISSTATEMENT OF FACTS OR BY SUPPRESSING MATERIAL FACTS AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT - PUBLICATION OF MATERIAL WHICH HAS A TENDENCY TO POISON THE MIND OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND HAMPER THE FAIR TRIAL OF A CASE AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT - PUBLICATION OF MATERIAL WHICH SCANDALISES THE COURT BY DEPRIVING IT OF THE POWER TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE DULY AND IMPARTIALLY AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT - PUBLICATION OF MATERIAL WHICH ASSERTED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FACTS AS CORRECT WHEN THEY WERE DISPUTED IN A PENDING CASE AND HAD YET TO BE PROVED AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT - PUBLICATION OF MATERIAL WHICH IS ONE-SIDED, AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ACCUSED, AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT - PUBLICATION OF MATERIAL WHICH HAS SERIOUSLY PREJUDICED THE PETITIONER'S CAUSE AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT.
Fact of the Case:
Brig. E. T. Sen (Retd.) filed two criminal original applications under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution, raising common questions, against the Editor and Publisher of the "patriot" and the Editor of the "new Age" for publishing material prejudicial to him in a criminal complaint filed by him against D. P. Sinha.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondents were guilty of contempt of Court, but as their plea was that they were ignorant of the precise implication of law of contempt and their legal advisers were also unable to guide them properly, a severe warning would on this occasion serve the ends of justice.
Issues: Whether the respondents were guilty of contempt of Court by publishing material prejudicial to the petitioner in a criminal complaint filed by him against D. P. Sinha.
Ratio Decidendi: The law of contempt of Court is precise and well-settled. Ignorance of law or inability of legal advisers to properly advise clients is not a mitigating circumstance. Publication of material which is not legal evidence or has not been proved in Court constitutes contempt. Publication of headlines in bold type tending to convey a prejudicial impression amounts to contempt. Publication of photostat of a letter and envelope addressed to a person whose genuineness is yet to be established constitutes contempt. Publication of material which is not a fair and faithful reproduction of Court proceedings amounts to contempt. Publication of material which tends to prejudice public opinion by misstatement of facts or by suppressing material facts amounts to contempt. Publication of material which has a tendency to poison the mind of the general public and hamper the fair trial of a case amounts to contempt. Publication of material which scandalises the Court by depriving it of the power to administer justice duly and impartially amounts to contempt. Publication of material which asserted the establishment of facts as correct when they were disputed in a pending case and had yet to be proved amounts to contempt. Publication of material which is one-sided, against the petitioner and in favour of the accused, amounts to contempt. Publication of material which has seriously prejudiced the petitioner's cause amounts to contempt.
Final Decision: The Court held that the respondents were guilty of contempt of Court, but as their plea was that they were ignorant of the precise implication of law of contempt and their legal advisers were also unable to guide them properly, a severe warning would on this occasion serve the ends of justice. The petitioner was entitled to his costs which were fixed at Rs. 250.00 each case.
( 1 ) THESE two criminal original applications (Criminal Original Nos. 39 and 40 of 1968) by Brig. E. T. Sen (Retd.) under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution, raising as they do common questions, are being disposed of by one order.
( 2 ) BRIG. E. T. Sen is a retired Brigadier of the Indian Army, having retired in May, 1967 and is at present the Reser and Publisher and Shri Vidya Rattan, respondent No. 3, is the Correspondent of the "patriot", which is a local English Daily Newspaper published from New Delhi. According to the Petitioner, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are siding with D. P. Sinha and doing their best to poison the public opinion against the petitioner. He has referred to the contents of the iues of the "patriot" dated 13. 7. 1968, 14. 7. 1968, 19. 5. 1968, 8. 6. 1968, 2. 7. 1968, 21. 7. 1968, 4. 8. 1968 and 13. 8. 1968 in support of the submission and it is averred that from the circumstances narrated in the application, as also from the manner of reporting, it is apparent that there is a persistent one-sided press campaign by the "patriot" against the cause of the petitioner with a view to poisoning the mind of the general public and thereby hampering the course of justice. The grounds on which this application has been moved read as under :-
1. Because the respondents carried on a parallel enquiry in a matter which is sub-judice and published the result of the said enquiry when those very facts had to be proved by the accused. By doing so, the Court and public at large were prejudiced.
2. Because of the publication of the letter alleged to have emanated from one John D. Smith without the same having been proved in the trial Court either in respect of its authorship or its contents.
3. Because the proceedings were inaccurate and misleading and there was a display of head-lines of scaring and sensational character.
4. Because the publications were calculated to prejudice the public mind and interfere with the due course of justice.
5. Because misrepresentation of the proceedings of the Court scandalised it.
6. Because the respondents asserted the establishment of facts as correct when they were disputed in a pending case and had yet to be proved.
7. Because the reporting in newspaper is onesided, against the petitioner and in favour of the accused, and
8. Because these publications have seriously prejudiced the petitioner s cause.
( 3 ) TURNING now to Crl. O. 40 of 1968 in which Shri D. P. Sinha, respondent No. 1, is the Printer and Publisher of the "new Age" and Shri Bhupesh Gupta, respondent No. 2, the Editor of the said newspaper, it is averred that these respondents, while reporting the Court s proceeding of the criminal complaint under sections 500, 501, 502, Indian Penal Code, against Shri D. P. Sinha, have been carrying on a calculated and persisted press campaign through the columns of the aforesaid newspaper against the prosecution with a view to poison the mind of the general public so as to hamper a fair trial of the complaint. The composition of the headlines and the nature of display of the reports about the criminal case in question are maliciously designed to impress upon the mind of the public that the prosecution case was a weak one and that the prosecution was not likely to succeed in proving guilt of the accused. The respondents have published material which is not legal evidence in the case and have given such scaring, mischievious and suggestive headlines in block letters that the same is bound to poision the mind of the public, the witnesses for the prosecution and thus to hamper the conduct of a fair and impartial trial. The respondents it is pleaded have gone a step further by publishing the result of an alleged parallel enquiry conducted by the English local daily the "patriot". The tendency of the reporting has been described :-
(A) To prejudice the mind of the general public against the petitioner by giving an impression that he is
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
