| Headnote |
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections 2(c), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14 and 15.Contempt-Law of Contempt-Enactment-Held, the purpose is to secure public respect and confidence in judicial processes and to instil confidence of the common man in the institution of Judiciary.Contempt-Fair criticism-Distinction between Conduct of the Court-Commenting of-Subject to good faith and in public interest which could be checked from surrounding circumstances including the knowledge and intention of the person.Contempt-Suo-motu proceedings-Held, Contemptuous part of the affidavit demonstrates the wrong done to public-It weakens the faith of public in general-It scandalizes the authority of the Court-Thus contempt proceedings could be initiated against the contemnor-On facts, contemnor held guilty of contempt and sentenced.Contempt-Suo-moto proceedings-Motive-Held, when action is taken at the instance of the Court, there is no motive and prejudice on the part of the Judge in initiating the proceedings. Criminal Contempt-Defamatory statements made in pleading/Petition/Affidavit-Amounts to contempt unless it is shown that such statements are made in good faith by the contemnor while discharging his public duties/functions-Penal Code, 1860-Section 499.Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(1), 19(2), 129 & 215; Right of free expression-Limitation-Held, if a person tries to undermine the dignity of the Court, Court can invoke its power under Article 129 or 215 to initiate Contempt proceeding, if it is found that there is a direct attack on the Institution itself.An Organisation called Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a Writ Petition in this Court. The main issue in the petition was about the construction of Sardar Sarovar Reservoir Dam in Gujarat and its adverse impact on environment and displacement of people from their ancestral homes. Respondent, a writer, who is not a party to the said writ proceedings, published an article on the plight of the residents of the area where proposal for construction of Dam had been initiated, in an English Magazine as well as in a book written by her. Expressing its displeasure on the distorted writing, this Court observed that Judicial process and Judicial institution cannot be permitted to be scandalised or subjected to contumacious violation of rights in such a blatant manner as had been done by the respondent. However, the Court did not initiate Contempt proceedings against the respondent in the larger interest of the issues in the petition pending in the Court, viz., Oustee's rehabilitation and resettlement. Subsequently, the Court pronounced its judgment. Thereafter, Contempt Petition was filed by some of the Advocates alleging that respondent led a huge crowd and held a 'Dharna' in front of this Court and shouted slogans ascribing lack of integrity and dishonesty to this Court and when the petitioners protested they were attacked and assaulted by the respondents. In the Contempt proceedings, notices were issued. Respondents filed affidavits admitting the holding of 'Dharna' outside the Supreme Court by the activists of 'Narmada Bachao Andolan' and oustees aggrieved by the Judgment of this Court relating to building of the Dam on the Narmada River, but Respondent No. 3 in her affidavit made specific contemptuous remarks against this Court. However, in view of denial of the alleged involvement in shouting abusive slogans against the Court, the Contempt proceeding was dropped. But in view of the contemptuous remarks made in the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3, suo-motu contempt proceeding had been initiated against respondent No. 3. The Court found Respondent No. 3, had prima facie committed contempt of this Court. A Notice was issued to her to show cause as to why Contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her for the offending statements made in her affidavit. Respondent-Contemnor raised preliminary objection that the Bench/Judge which ordered to issue notice in Contempt Petition should not be a party to the present proceeding; and that respondent-contemnor apprehended bias on the part of Judge/Bench to whom respondent claims to have allegedly attributed motives; and that on the ground of a reference made to the Constitution Bench in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Remakrishan Hegde case which stated that truth can be pleaded as defence in Contempt Proceeding and on the same issue decision of the Court in the matter of Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra has been referred to be reconsidered, therefore, the present proceedings required to await the Judgment of the Constitution Bench; and that no proceeding for Contempt can be initiated against any person on the ground of his/her scandalising the Court. |
