Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1973 (11) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1973 (11) TMI 95 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Whether criticism of an administrative act of the High Court or any court could amount to contempt of court.
2. Whether pejorative imputations about a court or judge, even if contained in an appeal to a higher court or in a remedial representation to a correctional authority, constitute contempt.
3. Whether the statements made by the appellant in various annexures amounted to gross contempt of court.
4. The appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the High Court.
5. The relative position of the Government of Orissa and the High Court regarding disciplinary control over Subordinate Judges.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Criticism of Administrative Acts as Contempt:
The court examined whether criticism of administrative acts by the High Court could amount to contempt. It was argued that purely administrative acts, like recruitments, transfers, and postings, routine disciplinary action against subordinate staff, and executive acts in running the establishment, should not attract contempt jurisdiction. The court highlighted that the contempt power is meant to protect the public and not judicial personnel. However, it concluded that the suspension of the District Judge was integrally connected with the administration of justice and thus fell within the ambit of contempt jurisdiction.

2. Imputations in Appeals and Representations:
The court considered whether statements made in appeals to the Governor and in special leave petitions to the Supreme Court could constitute contempt. It was noted that while a large margin must be allowed for allegations in remedial representations, reckless excesses could vitiate what otherwise could have been legitimate grievances. The court emphasized that even in remedial processes, irrelevant or unvarnished imputations could amount to contempt if they were made without good faith.

3. Statements in Various Annexures:
The court analyzed the contents of Annexures 8, 13, 14, 16, and 20 to determine if they amounted to gross contempt. It found that these annexures contained statements that grossly vilified the High Court and its judges, attributing mala fides, bias, and improper motives. The court concluded that these statements scandalized the High Court and affected the administration of justice, thereby constituting criminal contempt.

4. Appropriateness of the Sentence:
The High Court had sentenced the appellant to two months of simple imprisonment, considering his previous convictions for contempt. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the appellant's defiant attitude and lack of apology, decided to modify the sentence to a fine of Rs. 1,000 or, in default, three months of simple imprisonment. The court took into account the appellant's nearing the end of his judicial career and a sort of mania against the High Court that had clouded his reason.

5. Disciplinary Control Over Subordinate Judges:
The court addressed the issue of the relative position of the Government of Orissa and the High Court concerning disciplinary control over Subordinate Judges. The High Court had struck down some rules framed by the State Government, which it found contravened Article 235 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, chose not to express any opinion on the constitutionality of the impugned rules, allowing the State's appeal to be withdrawn without prejudice to its contentions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for criminal contempt but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 1,000 or three months of simple imprisonment in default. The court emphasized the importance of balancing freedom of expression and the need to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. It also clarified that while administrative acts closely connected with judicial functions could attract contempt jurisdiction, purely administrative or personal acts of judges should not. The court refrained from making a definitive ruling on the constitutional issues regarding the disciplinary control over Subordinate Judges, allowing the State's appeal to be withdrawn.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates