Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Narasimham And Misra, JJ.
STATE - Appellant
Versus
EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER OF MATRUBHUMI - Respondent
Original Criminal Misc. Case 5 Of 1953
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 23, 1954
CONTEMPT OF COURT - PUBLICATION PREJUDICING FAIR TRIAL - IMMINENT PROCEEDINGS - REASONABLENESS OF RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH - CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION - INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(A) AND 19(2) - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1952.
Fact of the Case:
Two Oriya newspapers, the Matrubhumi and the Ganatantra of Cuttack, and Sri Muralidhar Panda, a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, were accused of contempt of court for publishing articles that allegedly prejudiced the fair trial of a criminal case involving the cutting of a reservoir bund. The publications were made between 11th September and 17th September 1953, while the criminal case was under investigation by the police and before any proceedings had been initiated in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the publications in question constituted contempt of court as they had a clear and reasonable tendency to interfere with the fair course of justice. The court rejected the argument that the law of contempt, as applied to India by the various High Courts, had undergone a serious change in light of the fundamental right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court held that the whole of the law of contempt, as it stood on the date of the coming into force of the Constitution, answered the test of reasonableness and was saved by Clause (2) of Article 19.
Issues: 1. Whether the publications in question constituted contempt of court. 2. Whether the law of contempt, as applied to India, had undergone a serious change in light of the fundamental right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the publications in question constituted contempt of court as they had a clear and reasonable tendency to interfere with the fair course of justice. The court relied on the English common law relating to contempt of court, as well as the decisions of various High Courts in India, to establish that publications made with knowledge of imminent proceedings could constitute contempt, even if the proceedings were not actually pending in court. 2. The court rejected the argument that the law of contempt, as applied to India, had undergone a serious change in light of the fundamental right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court held that the whole of the law of contempt, as it stood on the date of the coming into force of the Constitution, answered the test of reasonableness and was saved by Clause (2) of Article 19. The court reasoned that the power to punish for contempt of court is inherent in a Court of Record and is essential for the administration of justice and protection of individuals.
Final Decision: The court found the Editor, Printer, and Publisher of the Matrubhumi guilty of contempt of court and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. The court found Sri Muralidhar Panda, the Editor of the Ganatantra, and Sri Raj Ballav Misra, the Printer and Publisher of the Ganatantra, guilty of contempt of court and sentenced Sri Muralidhar Panda to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one week, and sentenced Sri Raj Ballav Misra to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-, in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for four days.
MISRA, J.
( 1 ) THE present proceeding was started on the report of the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Titlagarh, dated 7-11-53, against the Editor, Printers and Publishers of two Oriya newspapers, the Matrubhumi and the Ganatantra of Cuttack, and Sri. Muralidhar Panda, a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly.
( 2 ) IT appears that a big reservoir had been built at Government cost at dangarpara, P. S. Titlagarh, in the district of Bolangir. On 13-8-53 a F. I. R. was lodged at the police-station to the effect that on the previous night some persons had cut the Bundh of this reservoir as a result of which water had flowed out. The f. I. R. further stated that the lands of Satya Ganda, Lakpati Kumra, Jugi Kuer and seetaram Bhoi, all of Dangarpara, had been submerged by the accumulation of surplus water in the reservoir; and it was suspected that the breach had been caused by one or all of the aforesaid persons. The police investigated into the matter and submitted a charge-sheet on 20-10-53 against three persons. The charge-sheet was received by the Magistrate on 26-1053 when cognizance of the case was taken and the accused persons were summoned. It appears that between 14-8-53 and 26-10-53, certain publications were made in the two Oriya newspapers which commanded a good circulation in the district of Bolangir. There were three publications in the Matrubhumi on 11th, 12th and 17th of September, 1953, respectively and there was one publication in the Ganatantra on 16-9-53. These publications form the subject-matter of the present proceedings.
( 3 ) IT will be useful at this stage to reproduce the text of these publications. On 11th September, the following publication was made in the Matrubhumi :
"dangabpara PBOJECT in the year 1952, a reservoir had been constructed at an expense of Rs. 33,000/- at Dangarpara in the Titlagarh, Sub-Division of the District of bolangir. This year there has been a breach there due to heavy rains. 15 days prior to this breach, on seeing the condition of the reservoir, abdhul Sankh, Chintamani Subudhi of Dangarpara and Bhagaban Bag and others of Lakhana, apprehended a breach and approached the S. D. O. who did not allow the surplus water to escape. When there was excessive accumulation of water, the embankment could not withstand it and gave way".
The next article which appeared in the Matrubhumi of the 12-9-1953, runs as follows:
"who IS RESPONSIBLE? in the year 1952, a water reservoir was constructed at Dangarpara in the Titlagarh Sub-Division of Balangir on behalf of the Govt. at a cost of rs. 33,000/- This has been breached this year as a result of heavy rainfall. As a result of this a sum of Rs. 33,000/- out of the money realised from the public at large by coercive means and deposited in the treasury has been thrown into water, who is responsible for this? although the S. D. O. had been warned some days before the breach in the Bund, and although he had been requested to open a surplus escape to discharge the surplus water, did he act and did he draw the attention of the Govt. to this wrong? Let him give satisfactory explanation. If the government and the concerned authorities knew beforehand (the public)what preventive measures they took? Now who is responsible for this loss? It is absolutely necessary that the Government should take proper steps for punishing the concerned persons, and for realising proper compensation (from them ). "
The third publication in the Matrubhumi dated 17-9-53 is in the form of a letter and runs as follows :
"dangarpara IRRIGATION PROJECT, sir, i had sent a long statement to you over the situation arising out of the breach in the Dangarpara irrigation project in the Titlagarh Sub-division of the Bolangir District, in which attempts are being made to shield the government Officers whose negligence is responsible for this loss by throwing unjustified accusations on certain innocent persons. But you have not published the said statement uptil today. In your news item
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
