1985 Supreme(Ker) 332

Judges : SUKUMARAN,THOMAS
RAJU BOSE - Appellant
Versus
PRITISH NANDY - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 6947, 7602, 7697 of 1985
Decided On : 11/27/1985
Advocates Appeared :
Qorge Poonthottam; For Petitioner Santhi Bhushan; K.S. Rajomony; T.C.N. Menon; T.D. Rajalakshmi; For Respondents

Headnote:

CONTEMPT OF COURT - Publication of interview of Minister during pendency of Quo-warranto proceedings - Whether constitutes criminal contempt - Ingredients of S.13 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Whether satisfied.

Fact of the Case:

The Minister for Electricity made a speech which was controversial. Activists rushed to the Court. A writ petition was filed seeking a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto against the Minister. Another writ petition was filed implicating the Minister and other Ministers who attended and addressed the convention. The second writ petition was dismissed in limine. The judgment was appealed against. The writ appeal was disposed of earlier by a Division Bench. The other writ petition had a more chequered career. The order of the learned Single Judge directing notice to the respondents contained some observations. That order also generated discussion in the political plane and legal field. A petition by the Minister for the expunction of remarks, a reference of the case for decision by the Division Bench, and a further reference of the case for consideration by a Full Bench, a petition by the writ petitioner for permission to adduce evidence to prove the allegations, were some of the important intervening events. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of by judgment. The period between the initiation of the litigation and its culmination, had also its marked and momentous events and sensations. As noted earlier, the order of the learned Single Judge who admitted the writ petition, was the subject-matter of debate and discussion, academic and otherwise. The Minister was interviewed by a correspondent of the Illustrated Weekly of India. The interview was published in the issue dated 7-7-1985 of the Illustrated Weekly of India. It was preceded by an article captioned "Troubled Times" written by the correspondent of the Weekly. The article and the interview cover pages 14 to 17 of that issue, with their journalistic embroidery. The photographs of the prominent political figures covered by the article were also displayed; and with arresting titles. In the very first page of the article were exhibited the photographs of the Chief Minister and the Finance Minister. The caption below the former was: "Chief Minister Karunakaran: on a path of collision." The one above that of the Finance Minister was: "Finance Minister K. M. Mani: daggers drawn." Balakrishna Pillai had two of his photographs; one at page 15 and the other at page 16; the former having the title below it: "Pillai: inciting public to revolt?" and the latter: "Balakrishna Pillai: caught in a storm of controversy." A photograph of a learned judge of this Court was also given in page 17 but without any particular comment or caption. The article contained some remarks and comments constituting clear contempt. This Court took suo mote action in relation to matters which directly and pointedly projected an attack against the image of the Court itself. And the court found that the statements in the article as extracted in the judgment, "clearly show that reckless and scurrilous attack has been made against a learned judge of this Court, imputing oblique motives in the discharge of bis judicial functions and suggesting unholy acquaintance and constant contacts with the Chief Minister, for the purpose of moulding reliefs in the pending writ proceeding". The Editor and reporter pleaded guilty and tendered apology. The apology of the Editor was accepted as bona fide and he was discharged accepting the apology. The contempt proceedings culminated in a conviction and sentence as against the reporter. That, however, was not the end of it. It was felt by some, that besides the passages which led to the contempt proceedings in 1985 KLT. 732, supra there were other passages in the article and in the interview which would constitute contempt of court. Raju Bose, a student, the Law Society of India, Cochin, and M. O. Thomas of Muvatupuzha sought for and obtained sanction from the Advocate General under S.15(1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the initiation of the contempt proceedings before this Court. They are respectively the petitioners in O.P. Nos. 6947, 7602 and 7697 of 1985. Pritish Nandy, Venu Menon and Balakrishna Pillai are respondents 1 to 3 in the first two writ petitions Balakrishna Pillai and Venu Menon are the only respondents in OP. No. 7697 of 1985.

Finding of the Court:

The interview given, report made and publication effected all constitute 'criminal contempt' under S 2 (c) of the Act, the respondents cannot be punished under S.12, in view of the operation of S.13 of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the publication of the interview of the Minister during the pendency of Quo-warranto proceedings constitutes criminal contempt? 2. Whether the ingredients of S.13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are satisfied?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The publication of the interview of the Minister during the pendency of Quo-warranto proceedings constitutes criminal contempt as it prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding. 2. The ingredients of S.13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are not satisfied as the charge and the supporting statement of allegations in the petitions do not contain the ingredients of S.13 with supporting allegations therefor.

Final Decision: The Court held that the action of the Minister in giving the interview, the action of the reporter in reporting it and the action of the Editor in publishing the same constitute 'Criminal Contempt', coming under S.2(c) of the Act. However, the Court declared that no sentence is imposable on the respondents in as much as no charge under S.13 had been laid against them. The Court disposed of the matter by expressing its displeasure at the respondents making the interview, reporting it and publishing the same.