1971 (3) TMI 112 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged contempt of court by respondent No. 1 through the publication and distribution of a pamphlet.
2. Avoidance of service of court notices by respondent No. 1.
3. The validity of the existing law on contempt of court in light of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
4. The applicability of Article 105(2) of the Constitution and the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956.
5. Procedural objections raised by respondent No. 1 regarding the maintainability of the petition and the fairness of the proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Contempt of Court by Respondent No. 1:
The petitioners alleged that respondent No. 1, O.P. Gupta, committed contempt of court by writing, printing, and distributing a pamphlet that disparaged and scandalized the Supreme Court and its judges, particularly Mr. Justice Shah and Mr. Justice Hegde. The pamphlet contained statements accusing the judges of dishonesty and bias, which were intended to undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The court found that the language used in the pamphlet constituted a gross contempt of court. The pamphlet's statements, such as "delivered a demonstrably dishonest judgment" and "utter dishonesty," were found to be scurrilous and contemptuous.

2. Avoidance of Service of Court Notices by Respondent No. 1:
Respondent No. 1 deliberately avoided service of court notices, as evidenced by the multiple reports from authorities stating that he was evading service. The court noted that respondent No. 1's actions were intended to delay the proceedings until after the retirement of Chief Justice Shah, thereby avoiding the consequences of his contemptuous actions. The court expressed regret over the executive's inability to trace and serve the respondent, emphasizing the constitutional duty of all authorities to aid the Supreme Court under Article 144.

3. Validity of the Existing Law on Contempt of Court:
Respondent No. 1 challenged the existing law on contempt of court, arguing that it imposed unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court, however, held that the existing law imposes reasonable restrictions within the meaning of Article 19(2). The court cited previous judgments, including Perspective Publications Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, to affirm that fair and temperate criticism of the judiciary is permissible, but scurrilous attacks that undermine public confidence in the judiciary are not.

4. Applicability of Article 105(2) and the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956:
Respondent No. 1 argued that his actions were protected under Article 105(2) of the Constitution and the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956. The court rejected this argument, stating that Article 105(2) did not apply as there was no express or implied authority from the Parliament for the publication of the pamphlet. Furthermore, the protections under Sections 3 and 4 of the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act were limited to newspapers and broadcasting agencies and did not extend to private individuals like respondent No. 1.

5. Procedural Objections Raised by Respondent No. 1:
Respondent No. 1 raised several procedural objections, including the alleged delay in filing the petition, defects in the affidavits, and the lack of specific charges. The court found no merit in these objections. It held that the petition was clear in its charges, and the affidavits were properly verified. The court also noted that the delay in filing the petition was justified given the need to ascertain facts regarding the publication and distribution of the pamphlet. The court emphasized that the procedure adopted was fair and in accordance with the usual practice.

Conclusion:
The court found respondent No. 1 guilty of gross contempt of court and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two months. The court noted that while it had decided to be lenient in this case, future instances of such gross contempt would be dealt with more severely. Respondent No. 2, Mela Ram, who was involved in the printing of the pamphlet, tendered an unconditional apology, and no further action was taken against him. Respondent No. 3 was not traced, and no judgment was passed against him.