IN RE: S.K. SUNDARAM versus -

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 15-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

IN RE: S.K. SUNDARAM 
A 
DECEMBER 15, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 197 I/Penal Code, 1860/Rules to Regulate 
Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court of India, 197 5-Section 2 
(c)/Sections 52, 406, 420, 468 and 47 I Rule JO-Telegram sent by the 
contemnor to the CJ/ calling upon him to step down from his office for having 
falsified his age-In case of non-compliance, threatened to file criminal C 
complaint and a writ of Quo Warranto-Three days thereafter, a criminal 
complaint under Section 406, 420, 468 and 471 !PC filed against the CJ/ 
before Magistrate-Copy of telegram appended to the said complaint- -
Contempt of court (criminal) notices issued by Supreme Court to the 
contemnor on its own motion--Solicitor General of India appointed as Amicus D 
to assist the Court-In reply, contemnor objected to the said notice on the 
ground that sending of telegraphic message did not amount to publication 
and consequently no contempt constituted-Held, Criminal contempt of court 
jurisdiction is not to protect an individual Judge but to protect the 
administration of justice from being maligned-Scandalising or tendency of 
scandalising the authority of any Court etc. constitutes criminal contempt-
E 
This scandalising can be either by publication of such a matter or by 
committing of such an act-Even if an act does not amount to publication 
still it can fall under the category of commission-The contents of the telegram 
certainly scandalised and lowered the authority of the courts as a whole and 
particularly that of the Supreme Court of India. 
A telegraphic message constitutes publication--The telegraph office is 
manned by its staff-The destination office of the message is also manned by 
staff-At all such levels the message is open to be read by those engaged in 
the transmission process-Appending of a copy of the telegram with the 
criminal complaint also amounts to publication. 
Expression good faith connotes doing of an act with due care and 
attention-Due care denotes degree of reasonableness in the care sought to 
be exercised-The question of age of CJ/ when he was a Judge of High Court 
F 
G 
had already been raked up by the contemnor himself in 199/.-·The said 
question had already been resolved by the President of India-Thus. the H 
677 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A telegram and the criminal contempt lacked bonafide. 
B 
Power of the Court to appoint an Amicus for its assistance is plenary 
and beyond the objection by others-Rules Regulating Proceedings for 
Contempt of the Supreme Court nowhere f txes a stage for such appointments-
These can be made at any point of time. 
The Contemnor herein sent a telegraphic communication to Chief 
Justice oflndia, on 03-11-2000, calling upon him to step down from the office 
of Chief Justice of India forthwith, failing which he intimated that he would 
file a criminal complaint against him for offences under Sections 420, 406, 
C 468 and 471 IPC for falsification of his age and writ of Quo Warranto and 
for a direction to deposit a sum of Rs. 3 crores for usurping the office of 
Chief Justice of India even after attaining the age of superannuation. Three 
days thereafter, the Contemnor filed a criminal complaint before the Chief 
Metropolitan Magistrate, M11dras in which he arraigned the CJI as an 11ccused 
in the case. He produced a copy of the above telegram as one of the documents 
D appended with the complaint. In the complaint he recited the allegations as 
mentioned in the telegram and charges under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 
471 IPC praying for issuance of notice to the CJI. On the said telegram a 
notice was issued to the Contemnor on 07-11-2000 on being prima facie 
satisfied that contents of the said telegram amounted to gross contempt of 
E Court. By the said order, the Solicitor General of India was also directed to 
assist the Court in these proceedings. 
In his reply to the notice issued, the Contemnor 11dmitted to sending 
the said telegram and filing the criminal complaint. He tried to justify his 
actions on the pretext of doing what he believed to be right and fair within the 
F bounds of his knowledge of law and language. In the reply he also mentioned 
that he had filed a writ petition earlier in this regard which was dismissed. 
The contemnor objected to the maintainability of the contempt proceedings 
on the ground of these not being initiated by a report of the witness to the 
conte

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