2015 (2) TMI 23 - SC - Indian Laws

Contempt of court - Contempt petition suo motu arise from the editorial published in Indian Express - whether the contempt of a Commission or Commissioner appointed under the 1952 Act tantamounts to contempt of the High Court or Supreme Court of which the Commissioner is member needs to be authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in view of the reoccurrence of the issue. - Held that - Commission appointed under the 1952 Act is in the nature of a statutory Commission and merely because a Commission of Inquiry is headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, it does not become an extended arm of this Court. The Commission constituted under the 1952 Act is a fact finding body to enable the appropriate Government to decide as to the course of action to be followed. Such Commission is not required to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and has no adjudicatory functions. The Government is not bound to accept its recommendations or act upon its findings. The mere fact that the procedure adopted by the Commission is of a legal character and it has the power to administer oath will not clothe it with the status of Court. That being so, in our view, the Commission appointed under the 1952 Act is not a Court for the purposes of Contempt of Courts Act even though it is headed by a sitting Supreme Court Judge. Moreover, Section 10A of the 1952 Act leaves no matter of doubt that the High Court has been conferred with the power to take cognizance of the complaint in respect of the acts calculated to bring the Commission or any member thereof into disrepute. Section 10A provides the power of constructive contempt to the Commission by making a reference to the High Court with a right of appeal to this Court. - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a sitting Supreme Court Judge appointed as a Commissioner under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, carries all the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
2. Whether truth can be pleaded as a defense in contempt proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Powers and Jurisdiction of a Supreme Court Judge Appointed as Commissioner:
The primary question was whether a sitting Supreme Court Judge, when appointed as a Commissioner under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, retains the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The judgment clarified that the functions of a Commission appointed under the 1952 Act are not judicial in nature. The Commission is a fact-finding body meant to inform the government, and its findings are not binding or authoritative judgments. The Commission does not meet the essential characteristics of a "Court" as it lacks the power to deliver definitive judgments enforceable by legal sanctions. The judgment cited several precedents, including Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain and Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray v. Justice B. Lentin, to affirm that a Commission under the 1952 Act is not a Court and does not carry the powers of the Supreme Court.

2. Truth as a Defense in Contempt Proceedings:
The second issue addressed whether truth can be pleaded as a defense in contempt proceedings. The judgment noted that common law countries allow truth as a defense if the comment is for public benefit. The legal position in India was statutorily settled by the amendment to Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which now allows truth as a valid defense if it is in public interest and the request is bona fide. The judgment referenced R.K. Jain v. Indirect Tax Practitioners' Association, which upheld that truth should be allowed as a defense unless it is a camouflage to escape the consequences of a deliberate or malicious attempt to scandalize the court. The court approved this view, making the question of truth as a defense in contempt proceedings redundant due to the statutory amendment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that a Commission of Inquiry under the 1952 Act, even if headed by a sitting Supreme Court Judge, does not possess the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Commission is a fact-finding body without adjudicatory functions, and its recommendations are not binding. Furthermore, the judgment affirmed that truth can be a defense in contempt proceedings if it serves the public interest and the request is bona fide. Consequently, the contempt petitions were dismissed, and the contempt notices were discharged.