LexHARI SINGH NAGRA & ORS. versus KAPIL SIBAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 879 HARi SINGH NAGRA & ORS. v. KAPIL SIBAL & ORS. (T.C. (Crl.) No. 2 of 1997) JULY 15, 2010 [J.M. PANCHAL AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] A B Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 215 - Criminal contempt of court - A message by Senior Advocate- contemnor - Expressing concern about falling standard of C legal fraternity - Published in Souvenir of a Literary Association of Advocates - The message not released to press - Souvenir not made available for sale - Excerpts from the message published in Daily News Paper suggesting that the contemnor-Advocate made frontal attack on judiciary - D Criminal contempt petition filed before High Court - Transfer of the petition to Supreme Court - Held: The message contributed by the advocate-contemnor to the Souvenir does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute or impair, within the meaning of 'criminal contempt' u/s. 2 (c ) of E Contempt of Courts Act - No case of criminal contempt is made out either against the advocate-contemnor or other contemnors - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 2 ( c ). In a Souvenir published by a literary group/ Association of lawyers practicing in Supreme Court, F various messages, articles, poems etc. were contributed by members of the Bar and the Hon'ble Judges. Respondent No. 1, a Senior Advocate also sent a message to be published in the Souvenir, which expressed concern about the plight of junior members of G the Bar and about the falling standards of legal fraternity. The message was neither released to the press, nor was the Souvenir made available for sale. It was circulated only to its members and other members of the Bar. 879 H 880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A Thereafter, when respondent No. 1 filed his nomination for contesting the post of President of Supreme Court Bar Association, a news item was published in the Sunday, Times of India daily wherein certain excerpts of the message were reported, which B suggested that respondent No. 1 made frontal attack on the judiciary. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5, the practicing lawyers of Punjab and Haryana High Court filed criminal contempt C of court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the three respondents alleging that respondent No. 1 entered into a conspiracy with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to bring administration of justice into disrespect which amounted to deliberate interference in the D administration of justice. Single Judge of the High Court, after preliminary hearing held that allegations against the three respondents was criminal contempt. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the editors of the Souvenir of the Literary E Association were also impleaded as parties at the behest of the petitioners. The Secretaries of the Literary Association filed Transfer Petition in the Supreme Court. The petition was F allowed and the Contempt Petition was transferred from the High Court to the Supreme Court. In the instant petition, the question for consideration was whether sufficient cause was made out by the petitioners to initiate contempt proceedings against the G respondents. H Dismissing the Contempt Petition and dropping the contempt proceedings, the Court HELD: 1. A fair reading of the message sent by HARi SINGH NAGRA & ORS. v. KAPIL SIBAL & ORS. 881 respondent No. 1 makes it explicit that the sending and/ A or publication of the message in the Souvenir of the Mehfil (Litrary Association) did not scandalize or tend to scandalize, or lower or tend to lower the authority of any court nor prejudiced, or interfered or tended to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings; or B interfered or tended to interfere with or obstructed or tended to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner, within the meaning of 'criminal contempt' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The message contributed by respondent No. 1 read c in its proper prospective, did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute or impair. Therefore, it must be held that no criminal contempt was committed or attempted to be committed by respondent No.1. [Paras 7 and 11] [892-B-D; 898-C) o P.N. Duda vs. P. Shiv .Shanker and Ors. (1988) 3 SCC 167, relied on. E. M. Shankaran Namboodiripad vs. T. Narayanan Nambiar (1970) 2SCC 325, referred to. E Ambard vs. Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago 1936 AC 322, referred to. 2. There is no manner of dou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.