Back
High Court Of Orissa
ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. C. NAIK
LOKANATH MISHRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
ORIGINAL CRI. MISC. CASE 285 Of 1995
Decided On : 08/10/1999
CONTEMPT OF COURT - ACT AND SECTION REFERRED - S. 2(C) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - SUMMARY - The court held that the statements made and published by the contemnors were contemptuous and amounted to scandalizing the court. The court imposed a sentence of one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- on each of the contemnors, with the opportunity to purge the contempt by publishing an unconditional apology in the concerned newspapers.
Fact of the Case:
The contemnors, members/office bearers of certain organizations, held a press conference and made contemptuous statements against a Judge of the Orissa High Court. The statements were published in a local newspaper. The petitioners, advocates and an association of advocates, filed applications alleging contempt of court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the statements made by the contemnors were scurrilous, offensive, and malicious, and were intended to scandalize the court and lower its authority. The court held that the statements were not protected by the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, as they were not fair and bona fide criticism but were personal attacks on the Judge and the court.
Issues: Whether the statements made by the contemnors amounted to contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statements made by the contemnors were contemptuous and amounted to scandalizing the court. The court relied on various precedents and principles of law to arrive at this conclusion. The court held that the statements were not protected by the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, as they were not fair and bona fide criticism but were personal attacks on the Judge and the court.
Final Decision: The court imposed a sentence of one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- on each of the contemnors, with the opportunity to purge the contempt by publishing an unconditional apology in the concerned newspapers.
A. PASAYAT, C. J.
( 1 ) THESE four petitions have been filed alleging contempt on the part of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 in Original Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 273 of 1995, and 278 of 1995, 1 to 13 in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 279 of 1995 and 4, 5 and 6 in Original Criminals Misc. Case No. 285 of 1995 in maliciously criticising an Honourable Judge of this Court in respect of a judicial order passed. As the controversy involved in these applications is similar, this judgment shall govern each one of them.
( 2 ) IN Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 273 of 1995 petitioner is an Advocate and has alleged that the contemners - opposite party Nos. 2, 3, 4 , 5, 6 and 7 have committed contempt in the manner described hereinafter. According to petitioners the said opposite parties are members/office bearers of certain organisations who held a Press Conference at Cuttack and made contemptuous statements against the Hon'ble Judge. The said statements were published in the Oriya daily 'the Samaj' in its first edition on 7-7-1995. Opposite party Nos. 10 and 11 were the Editor and the Publisher of the said news paper, who have since left this world and in any event before their death they expressed unconditional apology. Opposite party Nos. 8 and 9 had not participated in the deliberations made in the Press Conference and therefore, no notice was issued to them. Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 278 of 1995 has been filed by a registered association of advocates, who are members of the Orissa High Court Bar Association, and are the petitioners. They have made similar allegations in respect of opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 and 10 and 11. Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 279 of 1995 has been filed by an Advocate of the Orissa High Court Bar. Opposite party Nos. 10 and 11 in other applications are opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in this application. Opposite party Nos. 5 to 10 in this application are opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 in the aforementioned two applications. Additionally opposite party No. 13 has been impleaded for allegedly making certain contemptuous statements. But no steps for getting notice served on her has been taken by petitioner. Opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are Editor and Publsiher of Oriya Daily 'the Samaj' for allegedly having published some statements which per se affected the dignity and honour of the Court. Petitioner in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 278 of 1995 also filed Original Crl. Misc. Case No. 285 of 1995 wherein the Editor and the Publisher of the Oriya Daily 'the Samaj' and author of allegedly offending article have been impleaded as opposite party Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
( 3 ) ALLEGATIONS in all these application are that the contemners have attempted to abuse and undermine dignity of a judicial order of this Court. It is highlighted that the statements/publication show an Honourable Judge and this Court in poor light. Allegations of corruption and succumbing to pressure have been made which per se amounts to contempt. According to them, show cause replies filed by the concerned contemnors try to justify their action. The persons who organised the Press Conference have taken the plea of reaching to an improper grant of bail. According to them, bail should not have been granted to the in laws of the alleged dowry tortured victim. They have raised question of dignity and honour of women. The Editor, the Publisher and the Author of the article published in the 'sambad' have more or less tried to justify their action giving the colour of social requirement and freedom of press. Though they have tendered some sort of apology that has been done after justifying the publication and authorship. The matter was heard on several dates and on 6-1-1999 there was no appearance on behalf of the contemnors. When the matter was listed under the heading 'to be mentioned', Mr. Ashok Mohanty learned counsel appearing for the persons who organised the press conference reiterated the stand taken in the show cause reply. There was no appe
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
