9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rained to move the criminal court for offences under Sections 420, 406, 471 Indian Penal Code for falsification of your age, without prejudice to the right to file a writ of quo-warranto against you and for a direction to deposit a sum of Rs. 3 crores for usurping to the office of Chief Justice of India even after attaining the age of superannuation. 3. Within three days of despatch of the said telegram the contemnor filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras (Chennai) in which he arraigned the Chief Justice of India as an accused in the case. He produced a copy of the above quoted telegram as one of the documents appended with the complaint. He averred in the complaint, inter alia, thus: The accused (CJI) after attaining superannuation usurped the office of Chief Justice of India, travelled to foreign countries, taken part in many conferences, seminars inside and outside India making appointments to the Apex Court, the High Courts and other local bodies and caused loss to the Exchequer to the tune of not less than three crores of rupees, apart from drawing salary and enjoying other perquisites and the same is estimated at not less than Rs. 1.50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the rudest shock of his life and became agitated. It led to the strong belief that Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Anand is holding the post for the past one year even after reaching the age of superannuation and was on the verge of continuing for a further spell. He felt the whole world was reeling under his feet. The condemner also virtually had a heart attack. Immediately Prompted by the desire for bringing this constitutional crisis to an end, he had rushed and sent the telegram. The contemnor was of the opinion that this was a matter, which cannot brook even a moment's delay. As he did not find any reaction to the telegram, actuated by his limited knowledge, attempted to seek redress through the criminal court by filing a private complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Chennai. 6. The contemnor raised two preliminary objections. First was that the contempt proceedings were initiated under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (for short "the Act") and that refers only to civil contempt and hence the present proceedings must fail. However, when it was pointed out to the learned Counsel to the contemnor that Section 2(b) was got typed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s unrestricted and it can be ordered at any stage. We therefore repel the said objection. 11. On the merits, Shri Karruppan, learned Counsel for the contemnor raised mainly three lines of arguments. First is that the action initiated against the contemnor is on the telegraphic communication sent by him to the CJI and it would not amount to publication and hence no contempt action could be taken on that premise. Second is that the contemnor bona fide believed that the year of birth of Dr. Justice Anand was 1934 and hence he was actuated by good faith in resorting to the acts done by him. Third is that sending of the telegram, even if it amounts to publication, would not tend to undermine the administration of justice and hence the proceedings are liable to be dropped. 12. Dealing with the first contention we may look at the definition of "criminal contempt" in the Act. Section 2(c) contains the definition of "criminal contempt" which reads thus: 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) scandali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus: If, however, the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law by such court, it can be punished summarily as contempt. One is a wrong done to the Judge personally while the other is a wrong done to the public. It will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the Judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court's administration of justice, or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. It is well established that it is not necessary to prove affirmatively that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory statement; it is enough if it is likely, or tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of law. 16. In Halsbury's Laws of England, the learned author cited various decisions of courts in England, of which one at paragraph 28 in Volume 9 is worth extracting: It is also a contempt to write threa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to perform his duties the three Judge Bench further observed thus: It tends to lower the dignity and authority of the Court and also sows seeds for persons with similar propensity to undermine the authority of the Court or the judiciary as a whole; he crossed all boundaries of recklessness and indulged in wild accusations. 20. In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey 1991CriLJ3086 the contemnor Ajay Kumar Pandey issued a notice to two Judges of this Court on 10.8.1996 containing a warning that unless those two Judges tender unconditional apology to him and pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as compensation, besides a further handsome amount towards the mental agony inflicted on him, he would initiate criminal proceedings against the Judges. He also filed criminal complaint on 23.9.1996 before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi against the two Judges alleging offences under Sections 167, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. This Court after making a survey of a number of decisions including Dr. D.C. Saxena's case, made the following observations: We may observe that any threat of filing a complaint against the Judge in respect of the judicial proceedings conducted by him in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... message is open to be read by at least those who are engaged in the process of transmission. It must be remembered that a telegraphic message is not like a letter handwritten by the sender and enveloped in a sealed cover to be opened only by the sender for reading. 25. In this connection a reference can be made to Gatley on "Libel and Slander" under the Chapter "Publication" (Chap.6). The learned author has stated the following: 222. How publication is effected. Publication is effected by any act on the part of the defendant which conveys the defamatory meaning of the matter to the person to whom it is communicated. 223. If for example, a person reads a defamatory letter, knowing it is defamatory, to any person other than the person defamed, there is publication of the libel. Again, if the writer of a defamatory letter hands the letter to his clerk to be copied or typewritten before it is sent to the person defamed, and the clerk does copy or typewrite the letter, there is publication of the libel to the clerk. 26. That apart, it is not now open to the contemnor to contend that there was no publication of the telegraphic communication despatched by him to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to the exceptions enumerated under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (relating to the offence of defamation) this Court in Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1966CriLJ82 has stated thus: The element of honesty which is introduced by the definition prescribed by the General Clauses Act is not introduced by the definition of the Penal Code; and we are governed by the definition prescribed by Section 52 of that Code. So, in considering the question as to whether the appellant acted in good faith in publishing his impugned statement, we have to enquire whether he acted with due care and attention. There is no doubt that the mere plea that the accused believed that what he stated was true by itself, will not sustain his case of good faith under the Ninth Exception. Simple belief or actual belief by itself is not enough. The appellant must show that the belief in his impugned statement had a rational basis and was not just a blind simple belief. That is where the element of due care and attention plays an important role. If it appears that before making the statement the accused did not show due care and attention, that would defeat his plea of good faith. 32. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the conclusion that the petitions of Shri S.K. Sundaram, Advocate, Madras, in respect of the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand of the Madras High Court, be rejected and that no inquiry as stipulated under Article 217(3) of the Constitution need be undertaken. 35. Once the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand was so determined by the President of India in exercise of his constitutional authority, in whom alone is the power reposed to determine the question of the age of a Judge of the High Court, it was not open to this contemnor to raise this question over again and again. When this contemnor once again raised the question of the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, in the year 1999, the Government of India issued a press communication which, after referring to the earlier proceedings adopted by the President of India, has stated thus: "This plea was again rejected on the ground that there was no basis for reopening the matter. The decision of the President is final under Article 217 of the Constitution." 36. When the contemnor filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against the present CJI he adverted to the following as the basis for his case: The com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ign and undermine the dignity and authority of this Court. 39. It may be relevant to point out that the note of the Registrar, on the basis of which suo motu contempt was initiated against the contemnor specifically referred to and reproduced the Presidential Order dated 16.5.1991 issued under Article 217(3) of the Constitution. The defiant and mala fide attitude of the contemnor is apparent from the fact that despite knowing about the actual date of birth of the Chief Justice of India and the Presidential Order dated 16.5.1991 which was read over by the Solicitor General in the open Court on 21 st November, 2000 in presence of the contemnor, he chose to adhere to his false claim alleging the age of the Chief Justice of India to be the year 1934. 40. We have, therefore, not a speck of doubt in our mind that the impugned action of the contemnor is a case of gross criminal contempt of court. It is a serious matter for this Court because vilification of the high personage of Chief Justice of India would undermine the majesty of the court and dignity of this institution. We, therefore, hold him guilty of criminal contempt and convict him thereunder. We sentence him to undergo impriso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
