This is an application under sections 3 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act XXXII of 1952 praying that this Court might be pleased to take such action against the respondent as it thinks fit and necessary and pass suitable orders for contempt of the Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli.

On 21st October, 1957, the District Magistrate of Tiruchirappalli committed the petitioner for taking his trial at the Court of Session, Tiruchirapalli, on a charge containing three counts under section 117, Indian Penal Code, read with other sections of the Penal Code. That case was registered as Sessions Case No. 93 of 1957 by the Sessions Judge of Tiruchirappalli. The charges related to three speeches made by the petitioner on the 5th, 13th and 20th October, 1957, at Kulitalai, Pasupathipalayam and Tiruchirapalli Town respectively, wherein the petitioner was alleged to have incited the public to kick, stab and kill Brahmins and set fire to their houses. The case was taken up for trial by the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, on 12th December, 1957, and it ultimately ended in conviction. In the meantime, the respondent paid a visit to Tiruchirapalli on 9th December, 1957, and, during the course of his engagements, he addressed a public meeting. In his speech he is reported to have referred to and condemned certain disruptive forces in the country. The affidavit in support of this petition states that the speech tended to interfere with the course of justice and prejudiced the petitioner in the Sessions Case which was then sub judice. The petitioner has filed as Annexure-A to his affidavit a copy of the dak edition of the Madras daily "The Hindu", dated 10th December, 1957, and in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, he has set out the following extracts of the speech which he claims as objectionable:

"But one of the most remarkable and one of the most foolish agitations that I have experienced in India has recently started in your own State of Madras. This I believe is known as Dravida Kazhagam agitation and the leader of this movement had said something which cannot be forgiven and which cannot be tolerated. Apart from actually talking in an unabashed manner about murder, inviting people to murder others — a thing unheard of in any civilised society — he had dared to insult the National Flag and the National Constitution. These are unforgivable offences’ (cheers). But,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------- (1958) 2 M.L.J. 425 at page 426 ----------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Nehru said, ‘I wondered recently, if the Dravida Kazhagam in Madras is not more primitive than any primitive tribe in India (loud cheers). Because it talks a language, which is a language unheard of in civilised society. It is a language of murder. It is a language which should either lead one to the prison or to the lunatic asylum, because society cannot tolerate that language and no civilised State will put up with a deliberate insult to its Constitution ‘".

In the original affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of this petition, there was no averment or even suggestion imputing any knowledge of the sessions case or of its pendency to the respondent. The office of the Registrar therefore felt a difficulty in taking the application on file and returned the same to the petitioner’s advocate to make the matter clear. The advocate for the petitioner re-presented the application with the endorsement that

"the source which apprised the respondent with the alleged offensive speeches of the petitioner would have also in the normal course disclosed the pendency of the criminal case."

As it was felt that this was not sufficient compliance of the return, the matter was posted before us for orders as to the maintainability of the application. This defect was pointed out at the hearing. The advocate for the petitioner wanted liberty to obtain and file a supplemental aff