LexHARIDAS DAS versus SMT. USHA RANI BANIK & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
y HARIDAS DAS A v. SMT. USHA RANI BANIK & ORS. JULY 16, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B Contempt of Court: Applicant in IA making serious allegations against Chief Justice of c India and Judges/Judicial Officers-Allegations found to be contemptuous- Show cause notice issued-After considering the reply which contained allegations more contemptuous, proceedings for contempt of the Court initiated against applicant-Held; While fair and temperate criticism of the Court even if strong. may not be actionable, but attributing improper motives or tending to bring Judges or Courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing D directly or indirectly with the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of which notice must be and will be taken-Statements made by contemnor amount to a scurrilous attack on the integrity, honesty and judicial competence and impartiality of Judges-It is offensive and intimidating- Contemnor by making such scandalising statements and invective remarks has interfered and seriously shaken the system of administration of Justice E by bringing it down to disrespect and disrepute--Contemnor is guilty of contempt of Court-Sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months-Constitution of India-Article 129. The applicant in the I.A. filed in Civil Appeal No. 7948 of2004, made F serious allegations against the Chief Justice of India. Notice was issued to him to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against him. In reply, the contemnor made further allegations against the Judges, which the Court found to be more contemptuous. When the matter came to be heard, the contemnor appeared in-person and stated that he had also made similar allegations against certain Judges of the Guwahati High Court which G initiated C'ontempt proceedings against him but the High Court, however, '< dropped the proceedings. The contemnor also made a malicious allegation that the appeal should not have been heard by a Bench different from the one which had granted the leave. 365 H 366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R. .... A Disposing of the ·contempt Proceedings, the Court ~ HELD: I. There is no doubt that the Court like any other institution does not enjoy immunity from fair criticism. While fair and temperate criticism of the Court even if strong, may not be actionable, but attributing B improper motives or tending to bring Judges or Courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of which notice must be and will be taken. Apart from the ; fact that a particular statement is libelous, it can constitute criminal contempt if the imputation is such that the same is capable of lowering the authority of the Court. The gravity of the statement is that the same would scandalize the c court. It is to be noted that what is permissible is legitimate criticism and not illegitimate insinuation. No Court can brook with equariinity something which may have tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. (Paras 13, 22 and 261 (372-C, E; 376-C, 377-E) i RC. Cooper v. Union of India, (1971) 1SCR512=AIR (1970) SC 1318; D Re D.C. Saxena"· CJ/, (19961 3 Supp. SCR 677=AIR (1996) SC 2481; ,. Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries: ( 1980) ""' 2 SCR 1172=(1980) 3 SCC 311; Re.: S. Mulgaokar, (1978) 3 SCR 162=11978) 3 SCC 339; Brahma Prakash Sharma and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1954) SCR I 169=AIR (1954) SC 10; Perpective Publications (P) Ltd v. The E State of Maharashtra, (1969) 2 SCR 779=AIR (1971) SC 221 and C.K. Daphatary and Ors. v. O.P. Gupta and Ors., (19711 Supp. SCR 76=AIR (1971) SC 1132, relied on. Andrew Paul Terence Ambradv. The Attorney Genera/ of Trinidad and 1 Tobago AIR (1936) PC 141; Regv. Gray, 1900 (2) QB 36; Attorney General F v. Butterworth: (1963) 1 QB 696; Reg. V. Odham' Press Ltd ex.parte A.G., (1957) 1 QB 73 Morrisv. Crown Office, (19701 l All E.R. ·1079; Offutt v. US. (1954) 348 U.S. 11; Jennison v. Baker, (19721 1 All E.R. 997; Bridges v. California, (1911) 86 Law Ed. 192; Attorney General v. Times Newspapers, (1974) AC 273; Metropolitan Properties Ltd v. Lennon, (19681 3 AH E.R. G 304 and Chokolingo v. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, 11981 J l All E.R. 244, referred to. ; 2.1. In the instant case, a bare reading of the statements made by the .x ~ contemnor makes it
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.