Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
PANIGRAHI,MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Bijoyananda Patnaik
Versus
Balakrushna Kar
Original Criminal Misc. Case No.5 of 1952
Decided On : 26-03-1953
CONTEMPT OF COURT - Newspaper Articles Vilifying Petitioner During Pending Proceedings - Whether Contempt - Jurisdiction of High Court - Freedom of Speech and Expression - Reasonable Restrictions - Inherent Power of High Court to Punish for Contempt - Test for Contempt - Distinction Between Adverse Comment and Contempt - Privilege of the Press - American Law on Contempt - Summary Jurisdiction of Court - Moderation in Exercise of Power - Warning to Newspapermen.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Messrs. Eastern Mercantile Corporation, Ltd., filed a petition in the Orissa High Court alleging that a search of his business premises by the police was illegal and that the Additional District Magistrate had refused to grant him copies of the search warrant. While the petition was pending, two Oriya newspapers, Matrubhumi and Subrati, published articles vilifying the petitioner, accusing him of fraud, conspiracy, and black-market activities. The petitioner filed a contempt petition against the editors and printers of the newspapers.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned articles constituted gross contempt of Court. The articles were published while proceedings were pending in the Court and had the tendency to prejudice the public against the petitioner. The Court rejected the contention that the articles were protected by the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution, holding that the High Court's inherent power to punish for contempt was not curtailed by Article 19. The Court also rejected the argument that the articles were merely adverse comments on a party to a litigation and not contempt, holding that the articles went beyond the limits of fair comment and were calculated to interfere with the due course of justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned articles constituted contempt of Court. 2. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to punish for contempt in light of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. 3. Whether the articles were protected by the privilege of the Press. 4. Whether the articles were merely adverse comments on a party to a litigation and not contempt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned articles constituted contempt of Court because they were published while proceedings were pending in the Court and had the tendency to prejudice the public against the petitioner. The Court relied on the following principles: (a) The inherent power of the High Court to punish for contempt is not curtailed by Article 19 of the Constitution. (b) Adverse comment on a party need not refer to the subject-matter of pending proceedings. It is sufficient if it is clear that the comment tends to prejudice the trial of the action. (c) The privilege of the Press is no better and no higher than the privilege of the subject in general. (d) The test for contempt is whether the publication tends to interfere with the due course of justice.
Final Decision: The Court made the rule absolute, holding the opposite parties technically guilty of contempt, but expressing the earnest hope that the public press would not indulge in writings of this character in the future. The Court warned newspapermen that it may become the duty of the Court to act in a more severe manner than it did in the present case. The Court also directed the opposite parties to pay the costs of the petitioner.
Judgement
PANIGRAHI, C. J. :- These proceedings in contempt have been initiated at the instance of the petitioner Sri Bijoyananda Patnaik, who is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Messrs. Eastern Mercantile Corporation, Ltd. Opposite Party 1 is the Editor of an Oriya newspaper called Matrabhumi and opposite party
2 is its printer and publisher. On 14-6-1952 the business premises of the petitioner were searched by an Inspector of the Special Police Establishment, Government of India, Delhi, under a warrant issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, for the recovery of certain documents and letters exchanged between the petitioners and some overseas suppliers, in respect of a license issued by the Government of India for the import of bicycles intended for internal consumption within Orissa State. On 21-6-52 the petitioner moved this Court in Original Judicial Case No.18 of 1952 praying for the issue of a rule on the Additional District Magistrate and the Inspector, Special Police Establishment, to show cause why the search should not be declared illegal and why the order of the Additional District Magistrate refusing to grant him copies of the warrant should not be set aside. On 27-10-52 the Court granted one of the prayers of the applicant and directed that he should be granted copies of certain documents which were in the possession of the Additional District Magistrate. The other prayer of the petitioner, however, namely, for a declaration that the search was illegal was rejected on 2-12-1952 by a Bench of this Court.
2. It is alleged that the opposite parties published certain articles in the daily and weekly issues of the Matrubhumi while proceedings were pending in this Court, vilifying the petitioner. These publications, it is contended, constitute gross contempt of Court. Altogether there were four articles published in the Matrubhumi two in the daily issues dated 17-6-52 and 13-8-52 and two in the weekly issues dated 21-7-52 and 1-9-52. The present petition was presented in Court on 24-10-52 and 20-12-52; this Court issued a rule nisi to show cause why the opposite parties should not be committed for contempt. These proceedings would, therefore, appear to be an off-shoot of Original Judicial Case No.18 of 1952 which had been filed by the petitioner and the impugned articles were published when the initiation of these proceedings was either imminent or pending in this Court.
3. The first article dated 17-6-52 appeared under the caption, in bold headlines, "Extensive searches in the town of Cuttack - Dangerous fraud and Conspiracy about to be unearthed - Thiefs house does not remain dark always". Among other matters the article says:
"It is reported that the reason for the search is that company by the name of Eastern Mercantile Corporation was formed under the leadership of Sri Bijoyanand Patnaik, and permits for importing several crores rupees worth of cement, maida, sugar, steel-goods umbrella sticks, screws, cycles, and yarn, were obtained from the Central Government in the names of the members of this Company and illegal profits of lakhs of rupees were made by selling these to several persons outside Orissa. It is alleged that by such action they have cheated the Central Government, the State Government, and the people. From the papers it appears that the office of the company is located at Anand Bhawan, Tulsipur, but there does not appear to be any such office in Tulsipur..............
It is rumoured that there have been serious allegations that Sri Patnaik has taken lakhs of rupees from the Government for the development of industries, and has not done anything. It is learnt that the company in whose name import license has been obtained is not an established company, nor is the company assessed to income-tax. It is being seriously investigated as to how crores worth of permits were granted for transactions from the Central Secretariat to a Company consisting of private shareholders. The mysterious m
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
