E. M. SANKARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD versus T. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 31-07-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
691 
t. M. SANKARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD 
v. 
T. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR 
July 31, 1970 
' 
[M. H!DAYATULLAH, C.J., G. K. M1TTER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court-What is-Chief Minister of State making re111ark.1 
in public derogatory of the Judiciary and courts--Sought to justify making 
them in terms of his political ideology based on the teachings of Marx am/ 
Engels--Jf guilty of contempt-Constitution of India, Art. 
19(1) and 
(2)-Scope of in relation to contempt of court. 
The appellant, who was the Chief Minister of Kerala at the time. at 
a press conference held by him on November 9, 1967, made various criti· 
cal remarks relating to the judiciary referring to it inter alia as "an instru-
ment of oppression" and the Judges as "dominated by class hatred, class 
prejudices'', "instinctively" favouring the rich against the poor. 
He also. 
stated that as part of the 
rulii\g classes the judiciary "works ·against 
workers, peasants and other secttons of the working classes" 
and 
"the 
law and the system of judiciary essentially served the exploiting classes''. 
These remarks were reported in tHe newspapers and the.reafter in proceed, 
ings commenced in the High Cour~ the apJ>Zllant was called upon to show 
cause why he should not be comnli'ted for contempt. 
Jn an affidavit in 
reply the appellant stated that the reports were "substantially correct", 
though incomp1ete in some respect5. 
He supplied some omissions and 
pleaded want of intention to show disrespect to the judiciary and justifica· 
tion on the ground that the offence charged could not bo held to be com-
1 
milted, in view of the guarantees of freedom of speech and expression 
under the Constitution. 
He. claimed that his observations did no more 
than give expression to the Marxist philosophy and what was contained 
in the programme of the Communist Party of India. 
By a majority judae-
ment the appellant was convicted for contempt of court and fined Rs. 
IOOU/- or simple imprisonment for one month. 
Jn appeal to this Court it was contended on beh"lf of the appellant 
that the law of contemp!· must be read without encroaching upon 
the 
guarantee of freedom of spezch and expression in Article 19(l)(a) : 
and that the intention of the appellant in making his remarks at the press 
conference should be examined in the light of his political views which 
he was at liberty to put before the people; he sought to justify the remarks 
as an exposition of his ideology which he claimed was 
based on the 
teachings of Marx and Engels and on this ground claimed protection of 
the first clause of Art. 19(1). 
HELD : Upholding the appellant's conviction : 
The law punishes not only act which do not fact inlertere with the 
courts and administration of justice but also those which have that ten· 
dency, that is to say, are likely to produce a particular result. Judged 
from the angle of courts and administratil)n of justice, there was no doubt 
that the appellant was guilty of contempt of court. Whether he misunder-
stood the teachings of Marx and Engels or delibera'-.ly distorted :he!T. 
was OGt to much purpose. The likely effect of his words must be seen 
and they clearly had the effect of lowering the prestige of judges and courts 
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] 1 s.c.R. 
in the ey~, of the people. That he did not intend any such result may 
be a matter for consideration in the sentence to he imposed on him but 
could ·not serve as a _justification. 
It was obvious that the appellant had misguided himself about the true 
teachings of Marx, Er.gles and Lenin. 
He had misunderstood the attack 
by them on state and the laws as involving an attack on the judiciary, 
No doupt the courts, while upholding the Jaws and enforcing them, 
do 
give support to the state but they do not do 
so out of any 
impure 
motives. 
They do not range themselves on the side of the 
exploiting 
classes and indeed resist' them when the law doe3 not warrant an encroach-
ment. 
To charge the judiciary as an instrument of oppression, the judges 
as guided and dominated by class hatred, class interests ·and class preji.Jdices. 
instinctively favouring the rich against the poor is to draw a very distorted 
and poor picture of the judiciary. 
It was clear that the appellant bore 
an attack upon judges which was calcula'ed to raise in the minds of the 
people a general di'isatisfaction with~ and distrust of all judicial decisions. 
It· weakened the authority of law and law 

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