1913 (6) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the application by the Advocate-General.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to punish for contempt of a subordinate court.
3. Whether the articles in question constituted contempt of the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Application by the Advocate-General:
The initial application was made by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, which was not in compliance with the Court's directive that the application be made on behalf of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal in Council. This procedural irregularity led to the necessity of an amendment. The Court granted leave to amend the application, which was subsequently regularized by adding the Governor in Council as the petitioner. The Court emphasized the importance of proper procedure in applications involving the Crown, particularly in criminal proceedings, to ensure clarity on who is responsible for costs and appeals.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Punish for Contempt of a Subordinate Court:
The Court examined whether it inherited the power to punish for contempt from the abolished Supreme Court, Sudder Dewani Adawlut, and Sudder Nizamut Adawlut. It concluded that none of these courts had jurisdiction to punish for contempt of a subordinate court. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction was limited to the local limits of Calcutta, and the Sudder Nizamut Adawlut was not a Court of Record. The Court also considered whether it had inherent authority as a Court of Record to punish for contempt of a subordinate court. It concluded that while a Court of Record has the power to punish for contempt of its own authority, this does not extend to punishing for contempt of a subordinate court. The Court distinguished between its superintendence over subordinate courts and its power to punish for contempt, finding no solid foundation for the latter in the history of the constitution of the courts.

3. Whether the Articles Constituted Contempt of the High Court:
The Court analyzed whether the articles in question could be deemed a contempt of the High Court. It found that the articles primarily criticized the methods of house searches, arrests, and the treatment of suspects, and expressed distrust in the police. The articles did not attack the judicial process or the administration of justice directly. The Court emphasized that for an act to constitute contempt, it must substantially interfere with the administration of justice. The Court concluded that the articles, while possibly meriting censure, did not amount to contempt of the High Court as they did not deter witnesses or obstruct justice in a manner that would impede the Court's functions.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the motion against the printer and publisher, finding no valid ground for contempt. The application was procedurally flawed and substantively unsupported by jurisdictional authority. The articles, though critical, did not constitute a contempt of the High Court. The respondents were awarded costs, emphasizing the principle that applications for contempt must be made with caution and substantiated by clear evidence of interference with justice.