The main legal point established in the judgment is that the act of taking photographs of court proceedings without the permission of the High Court is improper and amounts to contempt of Court, even if it may not strictly fall under the definition of civil contempt as defined in the Contempt of Courts Act.

SANKARASUBBAN, J.

Petitioner in this contempt case, R. Balakrishna Pillai, is a former Minister and is a member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. He is an accused in C.C. No. 2/1989 on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, Thiruvananthapuram. First respondent was the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Second respondent is the Printer and Publisher of Desabhimani Newspaper. Third respondent is the General Secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist), Kerala State Committee and the General Manager of P. Krishna Pillai Memorial Printing and Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. Fourth respondent is V. S. Achuthanandan, Chief Editor, Desabhimani Newspaper, Thiruvananthapuram and the fifth respondent C. Rajendran is the Photographer attached to the Desabhimani Newspaper.

2. In addition to the petitioner, there are two other accused in C.C. No. 2/1989. On 20-3-2000, the case was posted for framing charges against the accused persons. Petitioner was present. The charges were read over to all the three accused persons including the petitioner. The newspapers, especially the local papers reported the proceedings of the first respondent's Court with respect to the framing of charges. But the Thiruvananthapuram edition of the Desabhimani Daily carried a photo of the proceedings in the Court. This photo showed the first respondent reading the charges and the three accused persons including the petitioner standing in front of the Judge and hearing the charges. The photograph along with the paper is produced as Annexure-A. By the side of the photograph, there is also a report that the charges in the graphite case have been given to the accused. According to the petitioner, this photograph was taken from inside the Court hall, while the charges were being read over to the petitioner and other accused persons in open Court. The photograph was taken by the fifth respondent, as it is clear from the publication in the paper (the name of the Photographer is given as C. Rajendran).

3. Petitioner relies on Circular dated 28th June, 1962 issued by this Court. According to this Circular, the Presiding Officers of the Subordinate Courts are prohibited from giving sanction to take photographs of trial scenes or other proceedings in Court, except with prior permission of the High Court. Petitioner contends that the photograph was taken with the full knowledge and consent of the first respondent, who was the Presiding Officer. It is further contended that respondents 2, 3 and 4 are also liable to be proceeded against for contempt, as they have colluded together for political purposes to have the photograph taken. The fifth respondent has committed contempt as he has taken photograph of the proceedings without the permission of the Court. Hence, the contempt has been filed against the respondents.

4. In the draft charged filed alongwith the contempt case, it is submitted that the actions of the respondents are against the directions contained in the Circular dated 28th June, 1962. So far as respondents 2 to 5 are concerned, it is stated that respondents 2 to 5 deliberately colluded with each other in taking the photograph of the proceedings in open Court disobeying the Circular issued by this Court. It is further stated that the above action amounts to contempt, as it interferes with the due course of justice.

5. On 3-4-2000, this Court ordered to issue notice to respondents 2 to 5. A report was called for from the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance, Thiruvananthapuram whether any photograph was taken when the charges were read over to the accused persons and whether any permission in terms of the Circular was obtained from the Court. The Enquiry Commissioner was also to report whether any Circular subsequently has been issued regarding the requirements. Further, as per the order of this Court, respondents 2 to 5 appeared before this Court.

6. Respondents 2 to