IN RE : P. C. SEN versus IN RE : P. C. SEN

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 649 · Decided: 08-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

- I 
A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
IN RE: P. C. SEN 
[J. C. SHAH, V. R.AMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
November 8, 1968 
649 
Contenzpt of ('ourt-C'hief i\1inister bruadca.5ting speech 
justifying 
Oi·der of which validity wus chaUenged in pt'Jl't.!Cdiugs pending 
before 
Court-If contempt-Whether intention to commit conrempt relevant-If 
dijfe:ent consideration~· upp/y wi1en trial not by jury. 
The West Bengal Gvvenunent issued an Order under Rule 125 cf 
the ·JRfence of India Rul1:s, placing certain restrictioil~ upon the right. l1f 
perSons carrying on business in milk products. 
The vaJj<lity of this Order 
\.1iaS challenged by a \Vrit petition, 
After Rule had been bsued on the 
potition and served on the State Government, the State Chief Minister 
broadcast a speech seekhlg to 1ust1fy the propnety of the Order. 
The 
High Court issued a Rule requiring the Chief Minister to show cause why 
he should not be committed tor contempt of Court. 
.>. 
It was contended on behalf of the Chief Minister that he had come 
to . learn of oertain persons propagating the view that the Order would 
not only have the effect of reducing the supply of milk, but also 
of 
displacing numerous person-. from work and causing unemployment; that 
attempts were made to con1mence 
a 
political 
agitation 
against the 
Order; and that with a view to agitation it was considered that the Chief 
M.inister was 
under a duty to explain to the people the policy under-
lying, and the reasons for promulgating the Order. 
, The High Court held that the 
speech 
amounted 
to 
contempt of 
Court; that it was contumacious in that it was likely to have a barieful 
effect upon the petitioners who had challenged the validity of the Order, 
and their cause and upon other persons having a similar cause; and that 
it Was likely to in~rferc with the administration of justice. 
The High 
Court therefore expressed disapproval of the Chief Minister's conduct. 
In appeal to this Court it w>' contended. inter a/ia, on behalf of 
the Chief Minister that the High Court erred in holding that the Chief 
!vfinister committed C'Untcmpt of court becaus·e there was no finding that 
the contempt was intentionally committed; no real prejudice was caused 
either in the mind of the Judge or to the cause of the petitioners; tbat 
the speech contained no direct reference to any pending proceedings and 
that the Chief Minister was under a duty to make the speech to instruct 
the public about the true state of affairs. 
G 
HELD :The speech was ex facie calculated to interfere with the ad-
ministration of justice. The High Court's orders observing that the Chief 
Minister had acted improperly and expressing disapproval of his action 
\Vas correct and did not 
call for any interference. by this Court. 
R. v. Gray. [1900] 2 Q.B.D. 36 at p. 40 and Legal Remembrancer v. 
Matila/ Chose and Others, I.LR. 41 ·Cal 173; referred to. 
H 
Th~ question in all case-; of comment on pending proceedings is not 
• 
~ 
whether the publication does interfere, but whether it tends to interfere, 
with the due course of justice. The question is not so much of the in-· 
tention of the contemner as whether it is calculated to interfere with the 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 2 S.C.R. 
administration of justice. If, therefore, the speech broadcast by the Chief 
A 
Minister was calculated to interfere with the course of justice, it was 
liable to be declared a contempt of the Court even assuming that he 
had not intended thereby to interfere with the due course of justice. 
[654 BJ 
Debi Prasad Sharma and Ors. v. The King-Emperor, L.R. 70 I.A. 
216 at p. 224; Saibal Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. B.K. Sen and Ant'., 
[1961] 3 S.C.R. 460; and Arthur Reginald Perera v. 
The King, 
[1951] 
B. 
A.C. 482; referred to. 
1·hc Chief Minister in his speech characterised the preparation of 
food with milk in West Bengal as tantamount to a crime. 
He also an-
nounced his version about the validity of the order, the reasons why it 
was promulgated, and asserted that it was an order made bona fide and 
in the interest of the public so that those who resisted it \\'ere acting 
contrary to the public interest. These were the very questions 
that had 
C 
to be determined by the Court. The, statements in the Chief Minister's 
broadcast v.'ere therefore prima facie calculated to obstruct the adminis-
tration of justice, since they were likely to create an atmosphere of pre-
judice against the petitioners and also to deter other persons
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.