GOBIND RAM versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 21-02-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

536 
GOBINDRAM 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
f:ebruary 21, 1972 
A 
[S. M. S!KRI, C.J., A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY, D. G, PALEKAR 
B 
AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court Acf, •1952-S. 3(2).,-Scandalizing 
the Cour.t-
Principles for determining when it amounts to con_t~mpt-Transfer appli-
cation-Alfegadons against judicial 
official-Allegations -that the Magis-
trate below is on friendly relaiions with complainants-[/ amounts to 
contempt. 
An advocate, in a transfer application in respect of a crimill'31 com .. 
plaint, filed before Ille Sessions Judge made certain allegations against 
two judicial officers before whom the criminal complaint and a civil suit 
were pending. While dismissing the transfer application, the Additional 
Se&.ions 
Judge, 
who heard the application, recorded an nrder that a 
report be submitted to the High Court for considering the conduct -of~ 
the applicant as to the course adopted by him in making imputations or 
aspersions in the transfer petition against the judicial officers and to take 
action for contempt of court under s. 3(3) of the Contempt of Court's 
Act, 1952. 
· 
Paragraph 1 of the transfer application 
stated· that "the Magistrate 
below is on friendly relations with the ~mplaino:mt, the respondent No. 
I in the present petition and he e\'On enjoys ihe hospitality of the Res-
pondent No. I sometimes alone and sometimes in company of the Civil 
Judg<>-J. D. Kalyan (Shri M. B. Boadkar) who is also on friendly re-
lations with the respondent No. 1 and who also enjoys the hospitality of 
the respondent No. I". There were other allegations In the transfer 
petition. The show cause notice issued by the High Court containing the 
charge of contempt was confined only to paragraph I of the transfer appli-
cation. 
The High Court held that the appellant was guilty of contempt 
of court and he was sentenced accordingly, 
Allowing the appeal. 
HELD : (I) The show cause notice on the l'oce of it disclosed no 
such allegation which oould be regarded as falling within the rule laid 
down by this Court In which the head of contempt, i.e. scandalising the 
Court, had come up for examination. In Perspective 
Publications (P) 
LYd. v. State of Maharashtra, [1969) 2 S.C.R. 779 this Court baa laid 
down certain principles as to the law of contempt. They are : 
· 
(i) It will no/ be right to say that Committals for contempt for scan-
dalizmg the Court have become obsolete. 
(ii) 1be summary jurisdiction by way of contempt should be exercised 
with great care -and caution and only when its exercise is necessary for 
the proper administ!ration of law and justioo. 
(iii) Any one may express fair, reasonable and legitimate critidism 
of any act or conduct <if a jqdge in his judicial capacity or make a pro-
per or fair comment on any decision given by him. 
(iv) A distinction must be made between a mere libel or defamation 
of a judge and· what amounts to contempt of court. The test in each 
c 
D 
E 
1! 
G 
H 
,. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GOBIND RAM v. MAHARASHTRA (Grover, I.) 
537 
case would be whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory 
attack on the judge or whether it is calculated to interfere with 
due 
course of justice or the proper administration of law by the court it 
is only in the latter case that it will lie punishablO as contempt. [542 HJ 
(v) Alternatively, the test will be whetiher the wrong is done to the 
judge personally or it is . done to the pubilc. 
The publication of a dis-
paraging statement will be an injury to the public if it tends to create. 
an apprehensi~n in the minds of the people ;regarding the integrity, a bi.; 
lily of fairness of the judges or to deter actual and prospective litigants 
from placing complete reliance upon the courts administration of justice 
or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the judge himself 
in the discharge of his judicial duties". [,543 E] 
(2) Allegations made even in a transfelr application casting aspersions 
on a judicial officer ~an CQ.n.st_itute contempt of his court within s. 3 of 
the Act. However, cases in which applications for transfer are made. 
stand on a slightly dllfer~nt footing from those where a party makes an 
allegation, either inside cir outside the court of a 
scandalising 
nature 
imputing improper motives of the judge trying the case: but even in the 
case of a transfer application, a person cannot be allowed to commit con-
tempt of court by making allegations of a s~rious nature scandalisin

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