An Election Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court, and the publication of a pamphlet prejudicial to a pending election petition constitutes contempt of the Election Tribunal.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was a candidate for a seat of Lok-Sabha, the Parliament of India. He was, however, defeated and his rivals (it was a double constituency) Shri radha Charan Sharma and Shri Surya Prasad were elected to the seat. On being unsuccessful, the petitioner filed an election petition-before the Election commissioner of India, who appointed the District Judge, Gwalior, as an Election tribunal and the case is now pending before the said Election Tribunal. The petitioner has alleged that non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, are related to Shri Surya prasad, that they had had a pamphlet printed by non-petitioner No. 3, who is both the printer and proprietor of Maharashtra Press, Janakganj, Lashkar. It is stated that this pamphlet has been published to prejudice the case of the petitioner in the eyes of the Election Tribunal. It is contended that Non-petitioner nos. 1 and 2 as the author of the pamphlet, and, Non-petitioner No. 3 as its printer have committed contempt of the Election Tribunal and must therefore be punished.

( 2 ) A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. P. L. Dubey, learned counsel for Non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 (Non-petitioner No. 3 though served with notice has not cared to put in appearance), that though the High Court is competent to punish for its contempt as well as the contempt of Courts subordinate to it, yet, an Election tribunal is not a Court and is not subordinate to it, and, therefore the High Court cannot punish for contempt of the Election Tribunal. We must therefore first of all decide whether the Election Tribunal is a Court subordinate to High Court or not.

( 3 ) THE word 'tribunal' has not been defined anywhere. But in its origin, the word is latin and it is derived from 'tribunus' which means pertaining to 'tribe'. The name 'tribunus' was assigned to Officers of different description in ancient Rome and the word 'tribunal' came to mean the seat of a Judge or the Bench on which the 'tribunus' or a Judge and his associates sat for the administration of justice. Thus the word 'tribunal' means a Court or forum of Justice. In Webster's Dictionary, it has been defined as

"a person or body of persons having authority to hear and decide disputes so as to bind the disputants, such as the Supreme Court (of america) which is the highest Tribunal of United States. "

The use of the word "tribunal' has been the subject of some comment in England. In Royal Aquarium v. Parkinson, 1892-1 QB 431, it is said "that the word 'tribunal' is ambiguous, because it has not, like Court, any ascertainable meaning in English law. " whatever the ambiguity about the word 'tribunal' may have been in the past, to me it seems that having been borrowed by Latin, it is a sort of a grandiloquent term for a forum of justice and for all practical purposes, it is synonimous with a court, where disputes between parties are heard and decided. In Wharton's Law lexicon a 'tribunal' has been defined as a seat of a 'judge' or a Court of Justice. The present trend seems to be to use the term 'tribunal' in order to distinguish it from regular civil and criminal Courts. But the functions which a 'tribunal' performs are similar to that of a Court, in that it has the authority to hear and decide disputes so as to bind the disputants. It has all the trappings of a Court of law.

( 4 ) I feel fortified in taking this view by some observations of their Lordships of the supreme Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1954, Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti narain (S) AIR 1956 SC 66, if is observed that in order to constitute a Court in the strict sense of the term, an essential condition is that the Court should have, apart from having some of the trappings of a judicial Tribunal, power to give a decision or a definitive judgment which has finality and authoritativeness. Judged from this standard there is hardly any doubt that an Election Tribunal is a Court.

( 5 ) IN another case Virendar Kumar v. State of Punjab, (S) AIR 1956 SC 153, their lo