9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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. - Contempt Petition (Crl.) Nos. 11-12 of 1990 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2014 - R.M. Lodha, C.J.I., Anil R. Dave, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ. Shri Mohan Parasaran, SG, Ashok H. Desai, Arvind Datar, Sr. Advocates, Bharat Sangal, Ms. Madhavi Divan, Ms. Bina Gupta, Abhay A. Jena and Harsh Desai, Advocates with them for the appearing parties. JUDGMENT In the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would have vacated his seat. But this is India. Of 1990, the Commissioner Kuldip Singh having perpetrated such perversities will continue to sit in judgment on the fortunes and reputations of countless citizens. He will continue to do so from nothing less than the Supreme Court of India itself. Such is our condition. And so helpless are we that there is nothing we can do about such a Judge . Save one thing. The only way to mitigate the injuries that such persons inflict on citizens is for all of us to thoroughly examine the indictments or certificates they hand out. Only that exercise will show up these indictments and certificates for the perversities which they are and only in that way can their effect be diluted. Who has the time to read voluminous reports, to sift evidence? But if the issue is important enough for us to form an opinion on it, it is our duty to find the time to examine such reports, to examine as well the conduct of the commissioners who perpetrate them. 2. It so happened that Justice Kuldip Singh, the then sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, was appointed as Chairman, Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen the editorial in the Indian Express of August 13, 1990. We have obtained the opinion of the Attorney General of India in the matter. We consider that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the editorial tend to fall within the definition of criminal contempt in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We, therefore, direct that notice returnable on 8th October, 1990 be issued to the alleged contemners calling upon them to show cause why proceedings for contempt of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution should not be initiated against them in respect of the offending editorial published by them. The contemners shall be present in the Court in person on 8th October, 1990. A copy of the opinion given by the Attorney General in the matter should accompany the notice to be issued to the contemners. They may file their affidavits in support of their defence on or before 8th October, 1990. Issue notice to the Attorney General of India to appear and assist the Court in hearing the matter. Contempt Petition No. of 1990 : Learned Attorney General of India has also drawn our attention to an issue of the Current (August 25-31, 1990) which contains an Article by M.V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h are discharged by the Supreme Court Judge as a Commissioner are purely statutory functions independent of the jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court? (ii) Whether truth can be pleaded as defence in contempt proceedings? 11. We shall take up the second question first. Some of the common law countries provide that truth could be a defence if the comment was also for the public benefit. Long back the Privy Council in Ambard [Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago - (1936) AC 322], held that reasoned or legitimate criticism of judges or Courts is not contempt of Court. The Privy Council held : The path of criticism is a public way; the wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men. 12. In Wills [Nationwide News Pty. Ltd. v. Wills - (1992) 177 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice; (b) the Court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of Court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide. 15. The Court may now permit truth as a defence if two things are satisfied, viz., (i) it is in public interest and (ii) the request for invoking said defence is bona fide. 16. A two Judge Bench of this Court in R.K. Jain [Indirect Tax Practitioners Association v. R.K. Jain - (2010) 8 SCC 281 = 2010 (256) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.)] had an occasion to consider Section 13 of the 1971 Act, as substituted by Act 6 of 2006. In para 39 (page 311 of the report), the Court said : .The substituted Section 13 represents an important legislative recognition of one of the fundamentals of our value system i.e. truth. The amended section enables the court to permit justification by truth as a valid defence in any contempt proceeding if it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reproduce the definition of criminal contempt in the 1971 Act, which reads : 2(c) criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which - (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; 18. The three expressions, Court in clause (i), judicial proceeding in clause (ii) and administration of justice in clause (iii) of Section 2(c) are really important, to answer the first question. Sections 12 and 15 of 1971 Act are the other two sections which have some bearing. Section 12 prescribes punishment for contempt of court. Section 15 deals with cognizance of criminal contempt by the Supreme Court or the High Court on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unctions under the Act is deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC. 21. Section 10A provides for penalty for acts calculated to bring the Commission or any member thereof into disrepute. The provision clothes the High Court with power to take cognizance of an offence stated in sub-section (1) upon a complaint in writing made by a member of Commission or an officer of the Commission authorized by it in this behalf. Under sub-section (5), the High Court taking cognizance of an offence under sub-section (1) is mandated to try the case in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report before a court of a Magistrate. Section 10A reads as under : 10A. Penalty for acts calculated to bring the Commission or any member thereof into disrepute. - (1) If any person, by words either spoken or intended to be read, makes or publishes any statement or does any other act, which is calculated to bring the Commission or any member thereof into disrepute, he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. (2) Notwithstanding anything ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Commission are judicial proceedings for the purposes of Section 2(c)(ii)? Whether the functioning of such Commission is part of the administration of justice within the meaning of Section 2(c)(iii)? 23. We do not have any doubt that functions of the Commission appointed under the 1952 Act are not like a body discharging judicial functions or judicial power. The Commission appointed under the 1952 Act in our view is not a Court and making the inquiry or determination of facts by the Commission is not of judicial character. 24. Sections 19 and 20 of the Indian Penal Code define the words Court and the Court of Justice as under : 19. The word Judge denotes not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person. - who is empowered by law to give, in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive, or who is one of a body of persons, which body of persons is empowered by law to give such a judgment. 20. The words Court of Justice denote a Judge who is empowered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative body is that the former decides controversies according to law, while the latter is not bound strictly to follow the law for its decision. The investigation of facts on evidence adduced by the parties may be a common feature in both judicial and quasi-judicial Tribunals, but the difference between the two lies in the fact that in a judicial proceeding the Judge has got to apply to the facts found, the law of the land which is fixed and uniform. The quasi-judicial tribunal, on the other hand, gives its decision on the differences between the parties not in accordance with fixed rules of law but on principles of administrative policy or convenience or what appears to be just and proper in the circumstances of a particular case. In other words, the process employed by an Administrative Tribunal in coming to its decision is not what is known as judicial process . 28. In Brajnandan Sinha [Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain - (1955) 2 SCR 955], a three Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the question whether the Commissioner appointed under Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (Act 37 of 1850) is a Court. In that case, Coke on Littleton and Stroud was referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relation to the proceedings for the Industrial Tribunal, though the Industrial Tribunal was presided over by the sitting Judge of the Madras High Court. The disputes between workers and managements of Amalgamations Limited which owned the newspaper The Mail fell for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. The contempt notice was issued by the Tribunal to the counsel for the Editor Govind Swaminathan and the Editor Hayles to show cause as to why action for contempt may not be initiated for criticism of the Tribunal. The respondent challenged the show cause notice on the ground that the Tribunal, though headed by a sitting Judge, did not have power to punish for contempt. While dealing with the above challenge, the full Bench of the Madras High Court held that a Judge of the High Court when appointed as sole member of the Industrial Tribunal, did not have the powers of a Judge of that High Court to punish persons for contempt of the Tribunal even under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 31. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in P. Rajangam [P. Rajangam, Sub-Inspector of Police and Ors. v. State of Madras and Ors. - AIR 1959 Madras 294] had an occasion to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a court. That being so, it must be held that a Commission of Inquiry appointed by the appropriate government under Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act is not a court for the purposes of Section 195 of the Code. 33.1 The Court agreed with the following observations of the Nagpur High Court in M.V. Rajwade [M.V. Rajwade, I.A.S., Dist. Magistrate v. Dr. S.M. Hassan and Ors. - AIR 1954 Nagpur 71] : The Commission in question was obviously appointed by the State Government for the information of its own mind , in order that it should not act, in exercise of its executive power, otherwise than in accordance with the dictates of justice and equity in ordering a departmental enquiry against its officers. It was, therefore, a fact-finding body meant only to instruct the mind of the government without producing any document of a judicial nature. The two cases are parallel, and the decision must be as in In re Maharaja Madhava Singh (D) [LR (1905) 31 IA 239] that the Commission was not a Court. The term Court has not been defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. Its definition in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not exhaustive and is intended only for purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
