| Headnote |
A B [20~5] 1 S.C.R. 550 M. v. JAYARAJAN v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA & ANR. (CRIMINAL. APPEAL No. 2099 OF 2011) JANUARY 30, 2015. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -s. 12 - Criminalcontempt - Contemptpetition before High Court-Allegingthat the C contemnor, in a publicmeeting,while criticizinga judgment passed by aDivisionBench of the HighCourtused abusive language against the judges -High Court found the contemnorguilty - On appeal,held: The contemnorhas rightlybeen held guilty- The contents of his speechshow that o it wasnot a merecriticism of the judgment,but the contemnor byusingabusivewords againstthe Judgeshad intended to lower the dignity of theCourt,to obstructand impedeits functioning- The right of freedom of speech and expression postulates a temperateand reasoned criticism and not E . vitriolic, slanderous or abusiveone -However, the sentence of six months imprisonment is reduced to four weeks imprisonment-Constitution of India,1950 -Art.19(1)(a). Disposing of the appeal, the Court FHELD: The right of freedom of speech of expression postulatesa temperateand reasonedcriticism and not a vitriolic, slanderous or abusive one; this right of free speech certainly does not extend to inciting the public directly or insidiously to disobey Court Orders. The Gremedyis providedby way of an appeal to theDivision Bench, which wastakenrecourseto. On perusal of the translations of the speech, there is no doubt that the appellant intended to lower the dignity of Court, to H 550 M.V. JAYARAJAN v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA 551 obstruct and impede its functioning and not merely to criticiseits pronouncementwhich was not to his liking. His conduct leaves him unquestionably guilty of the offence of Contempt of Courts, calling for him to be punished for his illegal act. He has shown noremorse or contrition for his conduct. Instead, he has vainly etymologisedthe Sanskrit origin of the word 'sumbhan', fully aware of the fact that in its slang, especially to the ruraland rusticpersonshe wasaddressing, it conveyed astrongabuse.Judges expect, nay invite,an informed andgenuinediscussion or criticism of judgments, but to incitea relativelyilliterate audienceagainst the Judiciary, is not to be ignored. It was, not the Petitioner's province, as exercising his freedom of speech, to advisethat "if those judgeshave any self respect,they should resign and quit theiroffices".Nevertheless,while affirmingthe impugned Judgment, the sentence of six months imprisonmentis reducedto that of simple imprisonment for a period of four weeks.[para 9 and1 OJ [561-E-H;562- A-C] P.N. Duda v. P.ShivShanker 1988 (3) SCC 167; Re. S Mulgaokar 1978 (3) SCR 162 = 1978 (3) SCC 339 and R v. MetropolitanPolice Commissioner,Ex-parte Blackburn 1968 (2) All ER 319(CA) -referredto. Caselaw reference: 1988 (3) sec 167 1978 (3) SCR 162referred to referredto 1968 (2) All ER 319(CA~ referredtopara 4 para4 para4 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Criminal Appeal No. 2099 of 2011. From theJudgmentand Order dated 08.11.2011of the High Court of Kerala at Eranakulam in ContemptCase (Criminal) No. 2 of 2010. A B c D E F G H 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A Shekhar Naphade,ShubhangiTuli, P. V. Dinesh for the B Appellant. V.Giri,RameshBabu M. R. Mukti Chowdhary,T. G. Narayanan Nair, K. N. Madhsoodhananfor theRespondents. TheJudgment of the Courtwas delivered by. VIKRAMAJITSEN, J. 1. This Appeal lays siege to the decision of theDivisionBench of theHighCourtof Keralaat Ernakulam, which found the Petitioner guilty of having c committedcriminal contemptpunishableunder Section12 of theContemptof CourtsAct, 1971,and sentencedhim to simple imprisonment for six monthsand to paya fine of Rs.2000/-. 2. Thefactsleadingto theseevents is that anotherDivision DBench of theHighCourt of Keralahad, by Orders dated 23.6.2010, bannedthe holding of meetings on publicroads and roadmargins in the State with the objectof ensuringaccident freeand uninterruptedtraffic along such publicroads.Although not relevantfor thepresentpurposes,these Orders were E confirmedsubsequently;a ReviewPetitionwas dismissedand the Special LeavePetitionwas alsorejectedby this Court. Meanwhile, on 26.6.2010, the Appellant delivereda speech in apublicmeetingat Kannur,Kerala allegedly convenedin connectionwith a hartal organisedto protestagainstthe hike F in petroleumprices, which was widelyreportedby themedia .. G HA translation of thespeechas appearing in local CityNews reads as follows:- "When theCourtverdictsgo againstthe countryand the people,those verdictshave only the value of grass.From now on, whatworthdo thejudgeswho pronouncedthe verdicthave? Today disregardingthe verdict of those Judgesand floutingtheir judgments,people throughoutthe length and breadth of Kerala are organizing public meetings and rallies. Why shouldthose Judgessit in glass M.V. JAYARAJAN v. HIGH COURTOF KERALA553 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN , J.] housesand passverdictsany more? If theyhaveany self A respectthey should resign and step downfrom their office. Thejudiciarycan attaingreatness only when judgments acceptableto thecountry and obeyedby the people are passed.Today even the judiciaryis ashamed. If the Executiveexceeds its limits the judiciaryis there to save.B Judgesare to interpretthe laws and interpretthe intention oftheLegislaturewhich had madethe laws and pass ordersaccordingly. Unfortunately, what someidiots (fools) occupyingour seat of justicesay is nothing else.Actually speakingthey themselvesmake laws and theythemselvesC issueorders.This is not conducive to a democraticcountry. ThisJs what they should correct. Today is the day on which theverdictof twosenior Judgesof Kerala High Courthas beengiven only the value of grass." AsiaNetnews reportedthe speechas follows:- "Today disregardingthe verdict of thoseJudgesand floutingtheir judgments, people throughoutthe length and breadthof Kerala are organizing public meetingsand rallies. Why should those Judgessit in glass .housesand passverdicts anymore?If they haveany self ~espect they should resign and step down from their'office. The judiciary canattaingreatness only when judgmentsacceptableto thecountryand obeyedby the people arepassed.Today judiciaryis therefuge. If the Legislatureexceeds its limits thereis thejudiciarywhich comes to the rescue.But if the judiciaryexceedsits limits who will tether the judiciary. In D E F ademocracy people arethe supreme.Judges are to interpretthe laws and interpretthe intention of the Legislaturewhich had madethe laws and passorders accordingly. Unfortunately, whatsome idiots(fools) G occupyingour seatof justicesay is nothing else." lndiaVision News also carried this speech, which translatedreads thus:- H A B c 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS(2015] 1 S.C.R. "When theCourtverdictsgo againstthe countryand thepeople,those verdictshave only the value of grass. Now on,whatworthdo thejudgeswho pronouncedthe verdict have? Today disregardingthe verdict of those Judges and floutingtheir judgments,people throughoutthe length and breadth of Kerala are organizing public meetings and rallies. Why shouldthose Judgessit in glass housesand passverdictsany more? If they haveany self respectthey shouldresign and stepdownfrom their office. Unfortunately,what someidiots (fools)occupying our seat of justice say is nothingelse. Actually speaking they themselves make laws and they themselves issueorders. Thisis notconduciveto a democraticcountry. This is what theyshould correct". 3. In his reply affidavit filed in the High Court in the D Contemptproceedingsthe Appellanthas asseverated, inter a/ia, as follows:- E F G H "4. It is true that I havemadea speechreferringto Annexure V judgment passedby thisHonourableCourt, prohibiting holdingof meetings on public roadsand roadmargins. It was not a preparedspeech, but one delivered extempore. Theallegationsthat by makingthe saidspeech, I have committedcontempt of this Honourable Court, by using, duringthe course of the speech,certain words for which distorted meanings havebeengivenin thepetition,is absolutely incorrect and without any basis. In this connection I may submitthat I am a personwho believes in the Rule of Lawand the supremacy of theConstitution. I have firm faith and unquestionable loyalty to the Constitutionand the institutionscreated under it. I have great respect and adoration for the judiciary and the Honourable Judges. I havealwaysobeyedthe verdicts of Courts andhave neveronce defiedits authority,or will ever I do it. The mediahas reporteddistortedversions of the speech I made referringto Annexure V judgmentand give M.V. JAYARAJAN v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA555 [VIKRAMAJITSEN , J.] wide publicity to ittakingcertainwords used by me in theA speechout of contextand providingtheir own interpretation andmeaningto thosewith ulterior motivesand designs. I havecriticizedthe judgmentas to its impracticabilityand difficulty of implementation.It was in a Public Interest Litigation filed by a TransportOperator, seeking to prevent conductof public meetings in the PWD road in front of Alwaye Railway Station that this Honourable courthas renderedthe judgmentprohibitingthe holding of meeting on public roads and roadmarginsthroughoutthe State.As B a Social and Political Worker, I felt thatthe above c judgmenthas beenpassedwithout consideringthe vital factual and legal aspects involved and that it may adversely affect the legal rights of the Public including their Fundamental Rightof freedomof speechand expression and to assemblepeacefully, guaranteed to them under 0 Article 19 of theConstitution. In my speech I haveused the wordscommonlyused by the villagers of North Malabar to conveymy message to theaudience and theyhave also understoodthe same in the sensethose words usually carry with them.There is no meaning to those wordsas givenand interpretedby thepersonswho havepreferred the contempt petitionsbefore this Honourable court seeking to initiateaction againstthis deponentunder the Contemptof CourtsAct. E 5. Annexure V judgmentof this Honourable CourtwasF rendered without considering the Public Interest or the contentions of theparties,affectedthereby,includingthe Government.The Courthas gonebeyondthe issuesbeforeit which it was called upon to decide.The general declaration issued,prohibitingthe conductof meetings on the road marginsG wasfar exceedingthe reliefsoughtfor in the writpetition. It has beenthe practice followed in thiscountryand in this Stateeven fromthe pre-independenceperiod to hold meetings on the road margins. If theconduct of suchmeetings is likely to createany lawandordersituation,or hindrance to thetraffic,the policeH 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A andotherstatutoryauthoritiesare clothed with powerto control such meetings by resortingto theprovisionsunder the Police Act andother similarlaws. The ExecutiveMagistratehas power to cpntrol, restrict and prohibitthe conductof suchmeetings by invokingthe provisionsof Sec.144 of the Criminal Procedure BCode.Thus, under law withoutinfringingthe freedom of movement of the publicat large,meetings could be convened on the roadmargins. 6. The criticismmade by me against the judgmentwas withhonestintentionand bonafidepurpose and by way of C expressingof myopinion in respect of thesameto thepublic. Asa public worker, I thoughtit wasmy boundenduty to make suchcriticismwhen the judiciaryhas failed to consider properly the issueinvolvedwhile renderingthe abovejudgment. In so doing, I have neverintended to demeanany of theJudgesof DthisHonourableCourt or theauthority of thisHonourableCourt. The Fundamental Freedom of speech and expression guarantied (sic) by theConstitutionis no less importantthan thefreedom of judgmentto movefreely throughoutthe Territory of India.In the judgment the HonourableCourt has only Econsideredthe freedom of personsto movefreely,without bestowingsuch anxiousconsideration to the freedomof speech andexpressionas also of the freedomto assemblepeacefully guarantied(sic) to thecitizens by theConstitutionwith equal force. For thatreason,accordingto me, the Judgmentwas not F in consonancewith the constitutionalscheme. I thought, I should bringthis infirmityto thenotice of theGeneralPublic. My speech was only to highlightthe above. 7. Thewords in questionused by me in thespeech, Gspecificallyreferred to in the ContemptPetition drawingit out of contest,are thoseprevalent in the areaand characteristic oftheassemblage to which I spoke.The speechwas one made in protest against the hiking of prices of Essential Commoditiesand the audiencewas largelyconstitutedof the poorsectionsof thesociety,the commonman of the area.The H M.V. JAYARAJAN v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA557 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN , J.] words particularly referredto in the contemptpetition have no A specificor definitemeaningand the senseit carriesis according to itsordinaryusage. That being so, thosewords takenout of context and givena meaningthat suits the intention ofthepetitioner in the contemptof courtpetition,may not be madethe basisfor initiatingcontemptproceedingsagainst me. Since the above judgment was practicallyimpossible of implementation, there were public meetings held on the road side on thedaysubsequent to the judgment also in several places in theStateand that wasthe reasonfor meto saythat B the abovejudgmentwas rejected by the public. In doing so, I C havenever challenged the authorityof this Honourable courtor made any disparaging remarks demeaning any of the Honourable Judges of this Honourable Court.Therefore, consideringthat the speechmade by me was in a particular contextand the language used wasone apposite to the issue andthe nature of theaudience,there is no justification in picking up one or twowordsused in the speechout of context andraisingthe allegation of contemptof courtagainstme based on theincorrect and fanciful meaningsattributed to those words,withoutconsideringthe entirespeech as a whole and D E the context in whichsuch a speechwas made. In this connectionit is pertinent to note that the petitionerhas not producedthe entiretext of thespeechmade by me along with theContemptPetition and it is a well establishedprinciple of law that in order to decidewhetherthere is contemptor not reading of thespeech as a whole is necessary.Since words torn out of contextfrom it may be liable to be misunderstood. F 13. Sumbhan is a word used in Malayalam withoutany specificor defii:iite meaning.As distinctfrom a "word" with aG definitemeaning in a language, there are "usuages" in every language whichhave differentshades of meaningwith varying connotationsdepending on the occasions in whichit is used as also the regions,sectionsof people, circumstances,etc in H 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A relation to whichit is used. The word "Sumbhan'', is sucha usuages which is understood in different senses and connotations in differentparts of the State and depending on the class of people whousesthe same.Even inspite of such variations,it is submitted that the word "Sumbhan" can never 8be understoodas havingthe meaningattributed to it in the contemptpetition namely "idiot" or "fool". 14. I hail fromCannanoreDistrict, in the Northernpart of the Kerala State. The impugnedspeech I was makingto a village populationat Kannur,a considerablesection of which C cannot claim even to be moderately educated. "Sumbhan", is a word widely used by the people in thearea to refer to a person who had saidor expressedsomething or acted in any particular waywithout properly consideringthe various aspects of a matterintensively, in all its aspects, cir evaluatingor takinginto D coosideratioh, the likely consequencesthat mayensurethereby, in a hastyand casual manner,even if he be a person highly reputed and accepted by all asan intelligent and knowledgeable person. In sucha situationby referring to the Honourable Judges whohaveissuedthe judgments in Equestion, to the people whowere at a loss to understandthe logic and reason of the disapprovalof a rightwhichfor them was an integralpart of their legal rightwhichthey have _been enjoying all throughthe past,and as old as thememoryof the existinggenerationsgoes as ''Sumbhan", I was only conveying F to themand carryinghome to them the ideathat thoseJudges, while passingthe judgmenthave not properlyconsideredthe issue involved in all itsaspectsnor havethey comprehended theattendantcircumstancesor the resultant consequences thereof. G H 21 Havingregard to the above,it is humbly submittedthat, thisHonourableCourt may be pleased to see thatthe charges levelled againstme in the aboveContempt of M.V. JAYARAJAN v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA559 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN , J.] CourtsCase are not sustainable in law and accordingly it A is prayedthat acceptingthis reply affidavit, the Contempt ofcourtproceedingsinitiated against me may kindly be dropped." The Appellant has alsorelied on Article 19(1) (b}, 19(1) (a) and 19(1 )(d) and 19(3)of the Constitution. He has deposed that he considered his duty "to speak to the peopleevaluating the same and expressing my viewsregardingthe impactand B the adverseconsequencesit will make on the social and political life of this countryand its people, as also the C interferenceand the intrusionsit will make on the rights, including the fundamental rightsguaranteed to the citizensof thiscountry by the Constitution.... I may submit in my speech I havenot made consciously or otherwiseany disparagingor disrespectful statements or remarksagainst any of the Hon'ble Judgesof this Court." As regards the use ofthe word 'sumbhan' or ·sumbhanmar', the Appellant has takenthe standthat the word implied that "those Judges, while passingthe judgment havenot properly consideredthe issues involved in all its aspects nor have they comprehended the attendant circumstancesor the resultant consequencesthereof." 4. In the said affidavit, the Appellant has quoteddecisions ofthisCourt in P.N. Duda v. P.ShivShanker1988 (3) SCC 167; Re- S Mulgaokar 1978 (3) SCC 339 and R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner,Ex-parte Blackburn 1968 (2) All ER 319(CA). We are in respectful agreement with all the observationsmade in these judgments. 5. On 15.11.2011, the Appeal was taken on Boardand admitted.A directionwas passedthat the Appellant be released on bail but thatthe fine should be depositedwithin oneweek. By that time, as per thesubmissionsmade by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant had sufferedincarcerationfor oneweek. 6. Learned SeniorCounsel for the Appellant has drawnour 0 E F G H 560 SUPREMECOURT REPORTS[2015] 1 S.C.R. A attention to certain expressions used in theimpugned Judgment,which we unhesitatingly and unequivocallyfind to be inappropriate when used by theJudge in an Order or judgment. Sincewe haveexpressedour opinionwe shall adjure from even mentioningthe explanation offered on behalf of theBench as s elucidation in the backdropof thesyntax.The sentencepassed comprehensively does all the speaking.The endeavourof the learned Senior Counsel is to persuade us thatthesewordshad been employed by theJudgesbecausethey wereprejudiced againstthe Appellant, and thatprejudicehas resulted in c imposing the impugnedsentence in its total and complete severity. The saidobservationsdo not impact uponthe character'ofthe wordsused by the Appellant in his public speech,since they occurafter the event. 7. Learned Senior Counsel has not addressedany Dargumentsor givenany extenuating explanation withregard to his utterancethat if the Judges have any self respectthey should step downfrom their office.We are alsounable to acceptthe meaning sought to be given to the word 'sumbhan'/ 'sumbhanmar'since our inquiries reveal thattheyare pejorative Eor insulting epithets/abusesakin to calling a persona fool or idiot.The Appellantindubitably has exercisedhis freedomof speechinsofar as he has dissectedthe Judgment and argued thatit wascontrary to law. He may also be excused in saying thatJudges live in glass houses, and that the judgment'sworth F is less than grass, sincethis is his perception.But it is not open to the Appellant or anyperson to employ abusive and pejorative language to the authors of a judgmentand call upon them to resign and stepdownfrom their officeif theyhaveany self respect.The Appellantshould have kept in mind the wordsof GLordDenning, in the Judgmentupon which he has relied, that thosethat criticisea judgmentmust rememberthat fromthe natureof theJudge'soffice, he cannot reply to theircriticism. In the case in hand,the Appellant had his remedy in theform of a Special Leave Petition to thisCourt,which he has Hexercised albeit withoutsuccess.The speechwas madewithin M.V. JAYARAJAN v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA 561 [VIKRAMAJITSEN , J.] acoupleof days of thepassingof the ad interiminjunction; no A empiricalevidence was referred to by the Appellant, norhas anybeenpresentedthereafter, to support his utterancethat the Judgment/Orderwas beingopposedby thepublicat large. Hencewe seetheseparts of the speechas intendingto scandalizeand lowerthe dignity of the Court,and as an B intentionaland calculatedobstruction in the administrationof justice.This requires to be roundlyrepulsedand combated. 8. LearnedSenior Counselappearingfor theRespondent Statehas in his briefsubmissionhighlighted the factthatat no stagehas the Appellant tendered an apology.We havegiven an opportunity to learnedSenior Counselfor the Appellant to elucidatethis positionbut he has categoricallystated that he has instructionsthat the Appellant doesnot intend to apologise forany of hisstatements. 9. The Appellant is an advocateand also an ex-member of theLegislative Assembly. He is fully aware that our Constitution is premised on theseparationof powerswhich enjointhe Executive,the Legislatureand the Judiciary to performtheir dutieswithin the Constitutionalframework. He is fully aware that while he has the -right of freedomof speechof expression,this postulatesa temperateand reasonedcriticism andnot a vitriolic,slanderousor abusiveone; this rightof free speechcertainlydoes not extend to incitingthe publicdirectly orinsidiously to disobeyCourt Orders.The remedyis provided bywayof an appeal to the DivisionBench, which was taken recourse to. Havingperusedthe translationsof hisspeech, we c D E F are left in no mannerof doubtthat he intended to lower the dignity of Court, to obstructand impedeits functioningand not merely to criticise its pronouncementwhich was not to his liking.G Hisconductleaves him unquestionablyguilty of the offenceof Contemptof Courts, calling for him to be punishedfor his illegal act. He has shown no remorseor contritionfor hisconduct. Instead, he hasvainlyetymologisedthe Sanskritorigin of 'sumbhan', fully aware of thefactthat in its slang,especially to H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A the ruraland rusticpersons he was addressing, it conveyeda strongabuse.Judgesexpect,nay invite, an informedand genuinediscussionor criticism of judgments,but to incite a relativelyilliterate audienceagainst the Judiciary, is not to be ignored. It was,not the Petitioner's province, as exercisinghis Bfreedom of speech, to advisethat "if those judgeshave any self respect,they should resign and quit theiroffices". 10. The impugnedJudgment has correctly and condignly committedthe Appellant for committingcontempt of Courtand C orderedhis incarceration. Nevertheless,while affirming the impugnedJudgment, we reduce the sentenceof sixmonths imprisonment to thatof simp.le imprisonmentfor a periodof four weeks. 11. The Appeal is disposedof in the aboveterms.We Ddesistfrom imposingcosts. Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal disposed of. I ~:p.s.c. 4 1 201 s (2) ' 500 :;Annual Subscription for 2015 :;(For 12 Volumes, each Volume consisting of '.4 Partsand an Index) 1n Indian Rupees 4,920/- . In UK£ 130 · In us$ 200 J:ach Additional Volume: tn Indian Rupees: 410/- ln UK£ 11 In US$ 17 (IndividualVolumes or Parts not available for Sale) To Subscribe please Contact : Assistant Controller of Publications (Periodicals) Department of Publication, Govt. of India, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 Tel.: 011-23817823, 23813761-62, 64, 65 Fax: 91-011-23817846 ,~Regd. No.D-(D)155. ~-: :1 ;ilSSN0537-0590 ~ IALL RIGHTSRESERVED ~ ! Printed by : J.R. Computers, 477/7,MoongaNagar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi. r hl· Supreme C~ourt Rcp(>rts I > ' f J It I II ' ( r 1£ (I 1011' 20151 I .C.R. (Part-JI ) t :!'''·~-::. - 1· ?.~·.~ '<'• - ~ "'" ~ • ~ ~/(t'o.,~,,· ' ' - - ~ 1U.nduifsympathy by . means ,of inadequate sentence harms f' :< ••• /{<.:~ ! <· ,.·.·:{ ": ·.r.thejusticesystem. ·.· ... ~~u." 1 .. ,' ~..:1.~~','}-'~ .. : ¥ "'"''"i· ., . ,;" . State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh .. .709 ,' •• '' > -E~tit}s of Sched~le VI of kamataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is .. · . . ·· . ·constitutionally valid. ·· " " ""~- ' State of Karnataka v. Mis Pro Lab & Ors. Etc ... 808 'f-t" "W.--,M:- A";;1 •'";~ 1~ .' ,~ .. ~ "''i ~ .i , ~ t .. ':· ·. ·~. ~ ~ Jurisdiction u!Art .!226 of the Constitution not .to l:ie exercised ' . ' '' ,, : ~~:~ '.· ·.: / ~ .J ori mere technicalities. '' . ;,~:t .,.,,.,_: i ~/~~~-~ , {<~ ir.~~ !:~;,;If ~· ~ ~ ,I, I '• ' I ~<' I_ ~' 7' ,;, :~~ ' Charulata Behera v Pravati Parida & Ors .. 844 PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, GOVT. OF INDIA, DELHI |
