Back
1984 Supreme(Mad) 462
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V RATNAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G RAMANUJAM
Haji Rasheed Mohammed - Appellant
Versus
D. Ramanujam Madras and Others - Respondent
Case No : Contempt Appln. No. 71 of 1984
Decided On : 09 November 1984
A speech touching upon a pending proceeding may amount to contempt of court, even if the speaker did not actually intend to interfere with the course of justice, if the speech is likely to have that effect.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - VIDEO LEGISLATION - TAMIL NADU EXHIBITION OF FILMS ON TELEVISION SCREEN THROUGH VIDEO CASSETTE RECORDERS (REGULATIONS) ACT 1984 (TAMIL NADU ACT 7 OF 1984) - RESPONDENTS' SPEECHES ON TELEVISION INTERVIEW REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT - WHETHER CONSTITUTES CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Respondents 1 and 2, in a television interview, discussed the validity of the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders (Regulations) Act 1984 (Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 1984), which was under challenge in writ proceedings before the Court. They made specific references to the pending writ proceedings and the orders passed by the Court, commenting on the merits of the cases and criticizing the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondents' speeches constituted criminal contempt of court under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, as they were likely to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings and the administration of justice. The Court found that the respondents were aware of the pendency of the writ proceedings and that their speeches were intended to justify the legislation and influence public opinion in its favor.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents' speeches in the television interview amounted to criminal contempt of court under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971? 2. Whether the apologies tendered by the respondents were bona fide and should be accepted?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court applied the test laid down in In re: P. C. Sen, holding that a speech touching upon a pending proceeding may amount to contempt, even if the speaker did not actually intend to interfere with the course of justice, if the speech is likely to have that effect. 2. The Court considered the surrounding circumstances, including the fact that the respondents were aware of the pendency of the writ proceedings and that their speeches were intended to justify the legislation and influence public opinion in its favor, and found that the speeches created a real risk of interference with the course of justice.
Final Decision: The Court accepted the apologies tendered by the respondents and closed the contempt proceedings without any order as to costs, considering that the respondents did not actually intend to interfere with the course of justice and that their apologies were bona fide.
RAMANUJAM, J.
This is a petition for punishing the respondents herein for criminal contempt under S. 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
2. The petitioner herein who is running a video library along with 30 others filed writ petition No. 753 of 1984, questioning the validity of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 2 of 1984, which was later replaced by Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders (Regulations) Act 1984 (Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 1984). The said writ petition was admitted on 26-1-1984, by Sathiadev J. and interim orders were passed staying the operation of Ss. 17 and 18 of the Ordinance till 15-3-1984. Similar writ petitions had also been filed by several other video libraries and similar interim order have been passed therein. The writ petitioners later sought extension of stay beyond 15-3-1984 and Ratnavel Pandian J. by an order dt. 15-3-1984, extended the said stay till 15-4-1984.
3. In the meanwhile on 21-3-1984, a programme was broadcast from the T.V. Center of Madras. It was a television interview in which respondents 1 and 2 herein participated. The subject of the interview was the recent video legislation. In the course of the interview reference has been made to the necessity for bringing the legislation and the pendency of the writ proceedings before the Court. The petitioner is said to have recorded the said programme. According to the petitioner, the respondents, in so far as they made a direct reference to the pending writ proceedings and the nature of the orders passed by the Court and gave their comments on the merits of the cases before the Court, they are guilty of gross contempt of Court, and, therefore, this Court should punish them for the said contempt. It is the specific case of the petitioner that both the first and second respondents made specific reference to the pending writ proceedings and the orders passed by the Court with a view to prejudice the mind of the public, that the picture given by them in their speeches is with a view to mislead the public and that as the speeches made by respondents 1 and 2 at the interview amounted to criticism of a pending litigation and as they roused public interest against the petitioners, they had effectively interfered with the course of justice. So far as the third respondent, the Director of Doordarshan Kendra, is concerned, it is said that in so far as he had enabled contempt of court being committed by inviting the first and second respondents to participate in a discussion in respect of a matter which is sub judice, he is also guilty of contempt.
4. This Contempt Application has been resisted by all the three respondent. The first respondents has filed a counter-affidavit to the effect that as the Chairman of the All India Firm Federation he was requested by Doordarshan to participate in a discussion with the second respondent as regards the video legislation, that the programme was recorded on 16-3-1984, and broadcast on 21-3-1984, that the discussion was between the moderator and the first and second respondents, that though he was aware that certain writ petitions had been filed in this Court concerning the validity of the video legislation, he is not a party to any of the proceedings and as such, he was not aware of the details of the interim orders passed in the writ petitions, that the discussion which was broadcast on 21-3-1984 was general in nature and related to the circumstances under which the State Government brought in the video legislation, that the discussion highlighted the mischief which was sought to be remedied by the Act, that his contribution to the discussion was to explain in simple language, the provisions of the Act and that his contribution to the discussion cannot amount to an expression of opinion on the pending writ proceedings and as such it cannot be the subject matter of contempt proceedings. The first respondent has further state that he has not said anything which would
