LexALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM versus L.K. TRIPATHI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 583
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM
A
v.
L.K. TRIPATHI AND OTHERS
(Contempt Petition (C) No. 262 of 2007)
IN
SLP (C) No. 18879 of 2007
APRIL 1, 2009
[B.N. AGRAWAL AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
s. 2(b) - Civil contempt - Order of Supreme Court
restraining political parties from proceeding with the call for
bandh in State - Allegation of willful disobedience of
B
c
·.-.
directions by Chief Secretary of State and other officers -
0
Held: Cannot per se be held guilty of contempt - Language
of restraint order unambiguous - Prohibitive injunction was
explicitly directed against political parties and not against
government officials - No directions issued to them to take
specific steps with regard to calf for bandh - No evidence
E
produced to show that transport services did not operate at
all due to action of government officials - More so, they took
.. all necessary steps for preventing any disruption of public
services and inconvenience to general public - Constitution
'-
of India, 1950 - Article 129.
s. 2(b) - Civil contempt- Call for bandh in State - Order
of Supreme Court restraining political parties from calling for
bandh - Pursuant thereto, withdrawal of bandh by Chief
Minister -
Allegation that CM guilty of contempt as
F
Government did not issue written instructions to officers for
G
maintaining essential services and normal public life and his
party workers coerced people to close commercial and
business establishments - Held: Not sustainable - Except
newspaper reports no material to show that CM directly or
583
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{2009] 6 S.C.R.
A indirectly encouraged party members to enforce call for
bandh.
s. 2(c) - Criminal contempt - A/legation that Union
Minister made unwarranted remarks to scandalize judiciary
8 in general and order of Supreme Court restraining bandh in
general - Held: Charges cannot be framed against him - No
legally admissible evidence produced to prove the contents
of speech allegedly made by the Minister - Material
produced was only in form of zerox copies of newspapers and
C tape edited version of speech telecasted on T. V.
Evidence - Tape reordered version - Admissibility of.
The question which arose for consideration in these
contempt petitions are whether respondent no. 1 to 5
o willfully disobeyed order dated 30.09.2007 passed by this
Court in SLP and thereby made themselves liable to be
proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India and
whether respondent no. 6 is guilty of criminal contempt
E within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act.
Dismissing the contempt petitions, the Court
;
HELD: 1.1. The language of the order by this Court
_,,
restraining the political parties from proceeding with the
F call for bandh in the State of Tamil Na du on 1.10.2007
pursuant to resolution dated 24.9.2007 or any other day,
is unambiguous. The prohibitive injunction contained
therein was explicitly directed against the political parties
and not against respondent nos. 1 to 3. The Court did not
G direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to act in any particular
manner or take certain specific steps to meet the
challenge likely to be posed by implementation of the call
given by Democratic Progressive Alliance. This was so
because the Court could not have presumed that the
H restraint order passed by it would be disregarded or
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 585
v. L.K. TRIPATHI AND ORS .
..
...
flouted by the political parties. Therefore, respondent A
nos.1 to 3 cannot, per se, be held guilty of disobeying
or violating the Court's order dated 30.09.2007 and
punished for committing contempt of court as defined in
s. 2(b) of the 1971 Act. [Para 27] [617-A-C]
1.2. The petitioners did not place on record any B
evidence to show that despite restraint order passed by
~
the Court on 30.9.2007, the political parties constituting
t·
Democratic Progressive Alliance resorted to strike or
bandh. They have not even disputed that after coming c
to know about the Court's order, respondent no.4 made
a statement at 1.30 p.m. withdrawing resolution dated
24.9.2007 which contained a call for cessation of work
on 1.10.2007. If, despite statement of respondent no.4,
which was made known to the public, the shops and
·t
business establishments remained closed and the D
private transport operators did nExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.