9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (11) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asonable piece of delegated legislation made in arbitrary exercise of power under Rule 125 without any justification in law and regardless of the purpose for which such order may be made", and issued an injunction against the State of West Bengal from enforcing that order. 3. The State of West Bengal thereafter issued another order with immediate effect on November 18, 1965, called the "West Bengal Milk Product Control Order, 1965". On November 22, 1965, Messrs. Ramlal Ghosh and Grandsons challenged by Petition No. 369 of 1965 the validity of the Order issued on November 18, 1965, and prayed for a writ declaring the Order "null and void" and for an injunction restraining the State of West Bengal and the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services from giving effect to the said Order. Rule was issued on the Petition by Banerjee, J., and was duly served on the State of West Bengal, on November 23, 1965. On the night of November 25, 1965, the Chief Minister of West Bengal broadcast a speech on the All India Radio, Calcutta Station, seeking to justify the propriety of the Control Order. In the course of that broadcast speech the Chief Min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating the Order, that the propaganda had misled certain sections of the people about the object, purpose and nature of the Order and the consequences thereof, particularly with regard to the position of supply of milk and the question of continued employment of the persons working in the sweetmeat shops in the area, that taking advantage of the situation, attempts were made to commence a political agitation against the State Government for having promulgated the Order, and in the circumstances and particularly with a view to preventing widespread agitation in connection with the Order, it was thought that it was the duty of the Chief Minister of the State to explain to the people the policy underlying and the reasons for promulgating the Order, that in making the speech his sole and only intention and purpose was to "remove the confusion and allay the fears, if any, from the minds of the people with regard to the purpose nature, object and effect of the promulgation of the Order", that he had no intention: whatsoever of either showing any disrespect to the Court or interfering in any manner with the due course of the administration of justice, nor did he anticipate that h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties to actions, or by prejudicing mankind in favour of or against a party before the cause is heard. It is incumbent upon Courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, for prejudicing the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finally heard has pernicious consequences. Speeches or writings misrepresenting the proceedings of the Court or prejudicing the public for or against a party or involving reflections on parties to a proceeding amount to contempt. To make a speech tending to influence the result of a pending trial, whether civil or criminal is a grave contempt. Comments on pending proceedings, if emanating from the parties or their lawyers, are generally a more serious contempt than those coming from independent sources. The question in all cases of comment on pending proceedings is not whether the publication does interfere, but whether it tends to interfere, with the due course of justice. The question is not so much of the intention of the contemner as whether it is calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. As observed by the Judicial Committee in Debi Prasad Sharma and Ors. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tempt of Court because the words made no direct reference to the Court or to any of its Judges, or to the course of justice or to the process of the Courts. His criticism was honest criticism on a matter of public importance and there was nothing in his conduct which came within the definition of contempt of Court. 10. The Chief Minister in the speech broadcast by him in the first instance announced what in his view is the legal effect of the Order promulgated, and then proceeded to state the reasons which persuaded the Government of West Bengal to issue the Order banning the preparation of sweetmeats with milk products Channa and Khir and expressed the hope that the residents of Calcutta will be in a position to secure larger quantities of milk. He stated that if producers of Milk cooperate with the Government, not only will they be benefited, but they will do real good to a large number of people of the State. He estimated the number of establishments which were in his view likely to be affected, and stated that many of the employees in their establishments who it was expected were likely to be thrown out of employment, may be employed in depots for collection of milk. He wound ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration)," that "Those workers who had until recently been bringing milk and Channa to Calcutta will be able to supply from now on milk to the Milk Collection centers of the Government", and that "The quantity of milk collected by the Government is indeed daily on the increase. And yesterday nearly 92 thousand 800 (sic) litres of milk were collected. New Milk Depots will have to be, opened soon in Calcutta and outside. 25 depots will shortly be opened in Calcutta and its neighbouring areas. If the quantity of milk collected increases according to expectations, at least 1,000 additional depots will have to be opened in different places. If in spite of an increase in the demand for other sweets a number of workers become unemployed, the Government is prepared to employ them in those depots. This new Order will only be beneficial to the buyers and sellers of milk alone, it will (also) be of help in solving the milk problem of the whole of West Bengal in the near future", 12. In their Petition No, 369 of 1965 M/s. Ramlal Ghosh and Grandsons had pleaded that the State of West Bengal and the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services had ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iced by the speech against the petitioners before him, since he was only "concerned with the constitutional and legal validity of the Control Order, and incidentally only with its socio-economic justification", but it could not be said that the speech did not or could not or was not likely to prejudice the public against the cause of the petitioners. He also observed that for the Chief Minister to have made a public appeal in support of the Order, with the knowledge of the issue of the Rule Nisi calling upon the State Government and the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services to show cause why the Control Order should not be declared void was "improper and ill-timed" and also "contumacious", for the Chief Minister had published in advance the defence to be taken against the Rule. 14. The criticism made by the learned Judge is not unwarranted. The statements in a broadcast speech by an important dignitary of the State that persons who prepare sweets out of milk in the course of their business are on the version set up by him criminals, and the suggestion that the Order was issued in the interests of the public, whereas it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry, but the pernicious consequences which result from the conduct of the contemner, who by vilification, or abuse of a party seeks to hold up a party to public ridicule, obloquy, censure or contempt or by comment on his case seeks to prejudge the issue pending. We are unable to agree that where a trial of a case is held in the Court of First Instance, without a jury, or before a Court of Appeal persons so inclined are free to make comments on pending proceedings or to abuse parties thereto without any protection from the Court. It is difficult to accept the contention that comments which are likely to interfere with the due administration of justice by holding up a party to a proceeding to ridicule or to create an atmosphere against him in the public mind against his cause when the trial is held without the aid of a jury do not amount to contempt. If a party to the proceeding is likely to be deterred from prosecuting his proceeding or people who have similar cause are likely to be dissuaded from initiating proceedings, contempt of court would be committed. It matters little whether the trial is with the aid of the jury or without the aid of jury. 17. In The William Thomas Shipping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng his proceeding or compel him to compromise it on terms unfavourable to himself. That is a real danger which must be guarded against : the Court is not in initiating proceedings for contempt for abusing a party to a litigation, merely concerned with the impression on the Judge's mind or even on the minds of witnesses for a litigant, it is also concerned with the probable effect on the conduct of the litigant and persons having similar claims. 19. In Regina v. Duffey and Ors. Ex Parte Nash, [1960] 2 Q.B.D. 188 the Court of Appeal in England had to consider the question whether comments made upon a person after his conviction and before his appeal was heard may be regarded as contempt of Court. Lord Parker, C.J., observed : "Even if a Judge who eventually sat on the appeal had seen the article in question and had remembered its contents, it is inconceivable that he would be influenced consciously or unconsciously by it. A Judge is in a very different position to a juryman. Though in no sense superhuman, he has by his training no difficulty in putting out of his mind matters which are not evidence in the case. This, indeed, happens daily to Judges on Assize. This is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
