Back
Judges : M.HIDAYATULLA,MITTER,RAY
E.M.SANKARAN NAMBOORIPAD - Appellant
Versus
T.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR - Respondent
Case No : Crl. A. No. 56 of 1968
Decided On : 07/31/1970
Advocates Appeared :
V. K. Krishna Menon; For Appellant
Contempt of Court - Mr. E. M. S. Namboodiripad - The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Article 129, Article 215 - The judgment discusses the appellant's conviction and sentence for contempt of court based on his utterances at a press conference, and the court's analysis of the law of contempt, the appellant's defense based on freedom of speech and expression, and the teachings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The court examines the appellant's misinterpretation of the teachings and concludes that his statements had the effect of lowering the prestige of judges and courts in the eyes of the people, upholding the conviction and reducing the sentence to a nominal fine.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Mr. E. M. S. Namboodiripad, former Chief Minister of Kerala, appealed against his conviction and sentence for contempt of court based on his utterances at a press conference. The appellant's statements criticized the judiciary and expressed Marxist philosophy, leading to the proceedings in the High Court and subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's statements had the effect of lowering the prestige of judges and courts in the eyes of the people, constituting contempt of court. The court upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence to a nominal fine of Rs. 50/- or one week of simple imprisonment.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the appellant's freedom of speech and expression, the teachings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, the misinterpretation of their teachings, and the effect of the appellant's statements on the prestige of judges and courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the appellant's misinterpretation of the teachings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and the effect of his statements on the prestige of judges and courts. The court upheld the conviction for contempt of court and reduced the sentence to a nominal fine.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction for contempt of court and reduced the sentence to a nominal fine of Rs. 50/- or one week of simple imprisonment.
1. Mr. E. M. S. Namboodiripad (former Chief Minister of Kerala) has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence of Rs. 1000/-fine or simple imprisonment for one month by the High Court of Kerala for contempt of court. The judgment, February 9,1968, was by majority-Mr. Justice Raman Nayar (now Chief Justice) and Mr. Justice Krishnamoorthy Iyer formed the majority. Mr. Justice Mathew dissented. The case has been certified by them as fit for appeal to this Court under Art.134 (1) (c) of the Constitution.
2. The conviction is based on certain utterances of the appellant, when he was Chief Minister, at a Press Conference held by him at Trivandrum, on November 9,1967. The report of the Press Conference was published the following day in some Indian newspapers. The proceedings were commenced in the High Court on the sworn information of an Advocate of the High Court, based mainly on the report in the Indian Express. The appellant showed cause against the notice sent to him and in an elaborate affidavit stated that the report'was substantially correct, though it was incomplete in some respects.'.
3. The offending parts of the Press Conference will be referred to in this judgment, but we may begin by reading it as a whole. This is what was reportedc
"Marx and Engels considered the judiciary as an instrument of oppression and even today when the State set up his (sic) not undergone any change it continues to be so, Mr. Namboodiripad told a news conference this morning. He further said that judges are guided and dominated by class hatred, class interests and class prejudices and where the evidence is balanced between a well dressed pot-bellied rich man and a poor ill-dressed and illiterate person the judge instinctively favours the former, the Chief Minister alleged.
The Chief Minister said that election of judges would be a better arrangement, but unless the basic state set up is changed, it could not solve the problem.
Referring to the Constitution the Chief Minister said the oath he had taken was limited only to see that the constitutional provisions are practised. I have not taken any oath' the Chief Minister said "that every word and every clause in the Constitution is sacred".
Before that he had also taken an oath, Mr. Nambudiripad said, holding aloft a copy of the Marxit party's programme and read out extracts from it to say that the oath had always held that nothing much could be done under the limitations of the Constitution. Raising this subject of Constitution and judiciary suo motu at the fag end of his news conference the Chief Minister said so many reports have appeared in the press that Marxists like himself, Mr. A. K. Gopalan, and Mr. Imbichi Baba (Transport Minister) were making statements critical of the judiciary "presumably with the idea that anything spoken about the court is contempt of court."
His party had always taken the view, the Chief Minister said that judiciary is part of the class rule of the ruling classes. And there are limits to the sanctity of the judiciary. The judiciary is weighted against workers, peasants and other sections of the working classes and the law and the system of judiciary essentially serve the exploiting classes. Even where the judiciary is separated from the executive it is still subject to the influence and pressure of the executive. To say this is not wrong. The judiciary he argued was only an institution like the President or Parliament or the Public Service Commission. Even the President is subject to impeachment. After all, sovereignty rested not with any one of them but with the people. Even with regard to judges confidential records are being kept-why? The judge is subject to his own idiocyncracies and prejudices. We hold the view that they are guided by individual idiosyncracies. guided and dominated by class interests, class hatred and class prejudices. In these conditions we have not pledged ourselves not to criticise the judiciary or even individual judgments
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
