LexC. K. DAPHTARY & ORS. versus O. P. GUPTA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
76 B c D E F G H C. K. DAPBTARY & ORS. v. O. P. GUPTA & ORS. March 19, 1971. [S. M. Snrn, C. ]., ]. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J Contempt of Court-Existing law if violateJ freedom of speech und~r Art. 19(1)(a) of Constitution-Evidence to justify allegation• amount- ing to contempt-If can be permitted-Scope of contents of petitiou and evidence of contempt when to be adduced-Contemnor's right to ope portunity-Scope of-Delay in filing petition, what f,._Right of Attorney General and other members of Bar to move for contempt-Other contem- nors if necessary parties-Pun'ilhment. Constitution of India, 1950, Art. !OS-Publication of pamphlet pr<- pared for impeachment of Judge-Pamphlet containing scurrilous attack cm Judge-If protected by Art. 105. Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) A.ct (24 of 1956), ss. 3 and 4-Scope of-If protect publication of pamphlet constitutir.g con- tempt of court. The State of U. P. filed an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the High Court holding the dismissal of the first respondent from service invalid. The appeal was heard by two Judges of this Court and the junior Judge delivered judgment on behalf of the Court, allowina the appeal. Tia first respondent thereupon wrote, got printed and published and circulated a pamphlet containing scurrilous criticism of the senior Judge using the word dishonest judgment, open dishonesty deliberately and dishonestly a"d utter dishonesty. He also stated in the pamphlet that the senior Judge cleverly asked the junior Judge to deliver the judgment, and that the junior Judge toed his line by writing what the senior Judge told him to write. The President of the Bar Association of the Supreme Court and three other Advocates filed a petition supported by the affidavits of the advocate" about 4 months after the circulation of the pamphlet, for committing the- fin~t respondent and the printer and publisher of the pamphlet for contempt of court. The first respondent deliberately avoided service till the 1enior Judge retired and then filed a counter affidavit containing an unconditional apo~ logy and fresh abuses of the senior Judge. HELD: (I) Under Art. 129 of the Constitution this Court bas the power to punish for contempt of itself, and under Art. 143(2) it can in· vestigate any such contempt [98A-BJ The Constitution makes this Court the guardian of fundamental rigb&s and hence it would not enforce any law which imposis unreasonable ret· trictions on the precious right of freedom of speech. [920-E] Under the existing Jaw of contempt of court any publication which is calculated to interfere· with the due course of justice or proper adminis· tration of law by this Court would amount to contempt of court. A C. J:, DAPHTARY v. GUPTA (Sikri, J.) 1crurrilous attack on a Judge, in respect of a judgment- or past conduct has in our country the inevitable effect of undermining the confidence of the public in the Judiciary; and if confidence in Judiciary goes administra- tion of ju1tice definitely suffers. [97C-E] Therefore, assuming Art. 19(2) applies to the existing law of contempt the restrictions on freedom of speech. are reasonable and are in public interest [97B] Perspective Publications Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 779, 791, 792 and R. C. Cooper v. Union of India, [1970] 2 S.C.C. 298, 301, followed. Legal Remembrancer v. B. B. Das Gupta, [1953] I.L.R. 32 Pat. 1069, 1091, Lakhan Singh v. Balbir Singh, l.L.R. [1953] I All 796, and State v Vikar Ahmed, I.L.R. [1954] Hyd. 270, 278, approved. (2) The pamphlet in the present case, read as a whole, constituted gross contempt of this Court. [98F] The first respondent admitted that he assisted in drafting an in1peach- ment motion against the senior Judge. The pamphlet '\\':tli ostensibly pre- pared for that purpose. He therefore used the word dishonest in the p:un- phlet in order to bring the allegations against the senior Judge within the \\'Ord misbehaviour in Art. 1.'.!4(4), and not, with the special sense or n1ean- ing tha1 the Judge committed errors; because, even gross errors cannot amount to misbehaviour. To say that the junior Judge toed the lint! and surrendered his own judgment in deference to or to the dictation of ano- ther Judge is flagrant contempt. The first respondent's apology and avow- ed ri1<;pcct for the junior Judge were not genuinely intended. [99A; 101G;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.