LexDR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY versus ARUN SHOURIE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 581 DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY V. ARUN SHOURIE (Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 11 of 1990) JULY 23, 2014 [R.. M. LODHA, CJI, ANIL R. DAVE, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, DIPAK MISRA B AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] C Contempt of Court Act, 1971: ss. 1 OA and 15 r/w. Art. 129 of Constitution of India - Contempt proceedings - Maintainability of- For the act of criticizing the report of a Commission constituted under o Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 headed by the sitting Judge of Supreme Court - Held: A Commission appointed under 1952 Act is in the nature of statutory Commission - It is in fact a fact-finding body- It is not required to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and has no adjudicatory functions - E Its findings have no binding effect - Therefore, such Commission is not a Court for the purpose of 1971 Act - Merely because such Commission is headed by a Sitting Judge of Supreme Court, it does not become an extended arm of Supreme Court- The present contempt proceedings · F could not have been initiated- s. 1 OA provides for the power of constructive contempt to the Commission by making a reference to the High Court- Contempt proceeding initiated suo motu and u/s. 15 dismissed - Constitution of India, 1950 G -Art. 129. s. 13 (as substituted by Act 6 of 2006) - Truth as a defence in contempt proceedings - Held: Courts should permit truth as a defence, if it is satisfied that it is in public 581 H 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. A interest and the request for invoking said defence is bona fide. Words and Phrases - 'Court' - Meaning of, in the context of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - In every Court 8 there must be at least three constituent parts-the 'actor', 'reus' and 'judex' i.e. complainant, defendant and judicial power- A Commission constituted under Commissions of Inquiry Act does not meet the pre-eminent tests of a Court. · C The respondent had published an editorial, whereby he had criticized the report given by Justice Kuldip Singh (a sitting Judge of Supreme Court) as a Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry constituted under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. D In view of the editorial, this Court initiated suo motu contempt petition ulArt.129 of the Constitution. Appellant also filed contempt petition u/s. 15 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondent. E The Chief Justice of India obtained opinion of the Attorney General, who opined that the editorial had prima facie overstepped the limits of permissible criticism; and that the law of contempt, as was existing in the country, did not provide for truth as defence and hence notice F could be issued calling for explanation. Both the contempt matters were referred to the Constitution Bench to decide the two principal questions viz. (i) Whether truth can be pleaded as defence in G contempt proceedings? and (ii) When a sitting Supreme Court Judge is appointed as a Commissioner by the Central Government under the 1952 Act, does he carry with him all the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? H DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYv.ARUN SHOURIE 583 Dismissing the Contempt Petitions, the Court A HELD: 1. The legal position with regard to truth as a defence in contempt proceedings is statutorily settled by Section 13 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (as substituted by Act 6 of 2006). Clause 13(b), expressly B provides that truth can be valid defence in contempt proceedings. The Court may permit truth as a defence, if two things are satisfied, viz., (i) it is in public interest and (ii) the request for invoking said defence is bona fide. [Paras 13 to 15][594-B; 595-B; F] c Indirect Tax practitioners' Association v. R.K. Jain (2010) 8 sec 281 - relied on. Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago (1936) AC 322; Nationwide News Pty. Ltd. D v. Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1 - referred to. 2.1. Functions of the Commission appointed under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 are not like a body discharging judicial functions 'or judicial power. The E Commission appointed under the. 1952 Act is not a Court and making the inquiry or determination of facts by the Commission is not of judicial character. [Para 23] 2.2. Though the Contempt of Courts Act does not F define the term 'Court' but the 'Court' under that Act means the authority which has the legal power to give a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.