SYNOPSIS

On 23-6-2010 a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair and Justice P.S. Gopinathan while disposing of a Writ Petition filed in public interest, banned the holding of meetings and rallies on public roads and road margins thereby ensuring accident-free and uninterrupted traffic along such roads. On 26-6-2010 in a meeting organized in Kannur town in protest against the hike of fuel prices, the respondent M.V. Jayarajan, a non practicing Advocate ill-informed in law and a politician belonging to the C.P.I. (Marxist) Party, made a public speech. The speech was widely covered by the print and visual media. During the course of the speech he reacted vigorously against the High Court verdict and declared that the people throughout Kerala were openly disobeying the verdict by holding meetings and rallies on the roads and road margins. He asked that when such court verdicts have only the value of grass what worth do the Judges who pronounced the verdict have and why should those Judges sit in glass houses and pass verdicts any more. He remarked that if those Judges have any self respect they should resign and step down from their office. He spoke that the role of the Judges is to interpret the laws passed by the legislature but unfortunately some “shumbhans” (idiots, fools) occupying the seats of justice were themselves making laws and issuing orders which is not conducive the democratic country.

After the suo motu contempt proceedings were taken against him he not only stuck to his stand firmly both in Court and outside Court but also declared that his mission is to correct the judiciary. Even after the Division Bench dismissed the review petitions assailing the judgment dated 23-6-2010, the contemnor field his reply adamantly justifying his speech and raising the very same grounds of attack which were put forward in the review petitions. He also made frequent public statements in the media reiterating his views. During the trial of the case also he again went to the Press and attributed political prejudice in this Court against him. The offending speech, in our view, amounts to belittling the Judges as incompetent and ignorant of law. The respondent was thereby sowing the seeds of hatred towards the Judges of the High Court as also the High Court in the minds of the public. After trial, for the discreditable and denigrating remarks made by him scandalizing the Judges of the High court, and thereby lowering the authority of the High Court he is found guilty of “criminal contempt”. Since the contempt tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice, the contemnor is sentenced to the maximum punishment of imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2000/-.

JUDGMENT

V. Ramkumar, J.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

1. In this case initiated suo motu under Rule 7 of the Contempt of Court (High Court of Kerala) Rules 1988, (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for short) the respondent,

M.V. Jayarajan, Ex-M.L.A. and a member of the State Committee of the Communist Part of India (Marxist), is called upon to answer a charge that on 26-06-2010 he made a public speech at Kannur making discreditable and denigrating remarks against the Judges of the High Court who rendered Ext.C5 final judgment dated 23-06-2010 and the said speech was reported in the print and visual media and that the respondent thereby committed “criminal contempt” within the meaning of Sec. 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) and punishable under Sec. 12 thereof.

POST INSTITUTIONAL IMBROGLIO

2. This case was originally instituted as a petition for contempt filed under Rule 3 (c) of the Rules by one Advocate P. Rehim but without the consent in writing of the Advocate General as enjoined by Sec. 15 (1) (b) of the Act. Since the contempt petition was not one filed with the written consent of the Advocate General, it could only be treated as an “inform