AMRIT NAHATA versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 08-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

561 
AMRIT NAHATA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
May8, 1985 
(D.A. DESAI, V. BALAkRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.j 
Contempt of Court Act, 1971, section IS-Contempt petition-Withdrawal 
wh~n permissible. 
The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in this Court for a declaration that 
sections 3 and 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Rule 23 and 25 of the 
Cinematograph (Censorship) Rules, 1958 were unconstitutional and invalid and 
for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to certify his film 'Kissa 
Kursee Ka' for unrestricted public exhibition. This Court directed delivery 
within one week of the negatives and prints of the filn1 to the Governn1ent for 
preserving the same in proper condition until the disposal of the Writ Petition. 
The Court further directed that the film 'Kissa Kursee Ka' be screened to be 
seen by five learned Judges to this Court. The film was not made available 
for screening as directed. 
The Solicitor General of India moved Cri ruinal Misc. Petition re-
questing the Court to take action against the five persons na111ed in the petition 
under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on che ground that they 
were individually and severally guilty of wilful disobedience of the directions 
and order of this Court with regard to the preservation of the negatives and the 
prints of the film in proper condition until the disposal of the Writ Petition and 
that they have interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and that 
their conduct was intended and calculated to interfere with and obstruct the 
administration of justice by causing the loss and disapperance of the film and 
preventing this Court from effectively dealing with the Writ Petition pending 
before 1t and judicaJly determining the issues arising therein. 
Another Criminal 
~Use. Petition was also moved by the Solicitor 
General inviting this Court to hold that the aforesaid five persons also appear 
to have committed offences under section 120-B read with sections 19~ and 193 
of the Indian Penal Code and it was ,expedient in the interest of justice to file 
a criiminal complaint against them. 
In the meantin1e a substantive prosecution was launched against Shri 
Vidya Charan Shukla and late Shri Sanjay Gandhi for various offences, which 
ultin1ately ended in their acquittal. 
The hearing of the two Criminal Misc. Petitions was postponed by this 
Court; ard after the acquittal of the two aforesaid persons a petition was filed 
A 
B 
0 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
.F 
G 
JI 
562 
SUPRBM!l COURT RBPOll.TS 
(198S) SUPPL. l.C.ll, 
by the Union of India for withdrawal of both the Criminal Misc. Petitions. 
Granting permission fol' withdrawal of petitions for initiatin1 contempt 
proceedings as well as for filing the Criminal Complaint, 
HELD 1. The petitioner who has moved an action for contempt is not 
entitled as a matter of right to withdraw the petition whenever it suits his 
purpose. Once the act, which prilnafacie shows that contempt of the Court 
has been committed, is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court has to 
decide whether the contempt has been com111itted or not or whether it i:!I appro~ 
priate to take action or to drop the proceeding~. The matter is primarily 
between the Court and the contemnor. [565 E·F] 
2. While considering the request for withdrawal of the proceedin11s 
initiated for taking action for contempt of the Court, the Court would generally 
be guided by the broad facts of the case and more particularly whether respect 
for judicial process would be enhanced or dwindled by either granting or 
refusing to grant the request. There is a marked difference between a com· 
plaint made by an individual for wrong done to him and a petition moved 
before this Court inviting the Court to take notice of the fact that its contempt 
has been committed. The contempt is of the Court and not of tht individual. 
[565 A·B] 
3. The power to cornn1it for contempt of Court has to be exercised with 
the greatest caution. Neither too sensitive attitude nor an easy escape from 
performing the harsh duty would help in maintaining respect and decorum for 
the judicial process. [565 DJ 
In the instant case the reasons which have weighed with tht Court to 
permit withdrawal of the petitions are: (i) failure to obey the interim order to 
preserve the film and to make the same available for exhibition as directed is 
referable to the writ petition filed by petitioner who himself at a latter date 
backod out and withd

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.