1968 (11) TMI 118 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the speech broadcast by the Chief Minister amounted to contempt of court.
2. Whether intention to commit contempt is necessary for a finding of contempt.
3. Whether the speech caused real prejudice to the petitioners or the court.
4. Whether the speech contained direct references to pending proceedings.
5. Whether the Chief Minister had a duty to address the public to remove misgivings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the speech broadcast by the Chief Minister amounted to contempt of court:
The High Court of Calcutta declared that the speech broadcast by the Chief Minister on November 25, 1965, was calculated to obstruct the course of justice and amounted to contempt of court. The speech was made while a petition challenging the West Bengal Milk Product Control Order, 1965, was pending. The Chief Minister's speech sought to justify the propriety of the Control Order and made several comments on controversial matters pending before the court. The court held that such actions were likely to prejudice the public against the petitioners and deter others from approaching the court for relief.

2. Whether intention to commit contempt is necessary for a finding of contempt:
The Supreme Court clarified that the intention of the contemner is not the decisive test in determining contempt of court. The relevant question is whether the act or speech is calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. The court referred to the principle that any act or writing calculated to bring a court or judge into contempt, lower their authority, or interfere with the due course of justice constitutes contempt. The Chief Minister's speech, despite his claimed intention to clarify the government's policy, was deemed likely to interfere with the administration of justice.

3. Whether the speech caused real prejudice to the petitioners or the court:
The High Court, while acknowledging that the judge himself was not prejudiced, emphasized that the speech was likely to influence public opinion against the petitioners. The Chief Minister's statements, given his authoritative position, were likely to be believed by the public. The court noted that such speeches could create an atmosphere of prejudice against the petitioners and deter others with similar claims from seeking judicial relief. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing the pernicious consequences of such public statements on pending proceedings.

4. Whether the speech contained direct references to pending proceedings:
Although the speech did not contain direct references to the pending proceedings, it was acknowledged that the Chief Minister was aware of the petition and the rule issued by the court. The court held that even without direct references, the speech's content and timing were calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. The Chief Minister's announcement of the government's case and labeling the preparation of food with milk as tantamount to a crime were seen as prejudicial to the petitioners' cause.

5. Whether the Chief Minister had a duty to address the public to remove misgivings:
The Chief Minister justified his speech by claiming a duty to explain the government's policy and remove public misgivings. However, the court held that presenting the government's case to the public before the court's decision and suggesting that those opposing the order were acting against public interest was improper and contumacious. The court emphasized that such actions were calculated to interfere with the administration of justice, regardless of the Chief Minister's claimed intentions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's finding that the Chief Minister's speech constituted contempt of court. The speech was calculated to interfere with the administration of justice by creating public prejudice against the petitioners and deterring others from seeking judicial relief. The court emphasized that the intention of the contemner is not the decisive factor; rather, the focus is on whether the act tends to interfere with the due course of justice. The Chief Minister's conduct was deemed improper and contumacious, warranting disapproval.