IN RE: SANJIV DATTA AND ORS versus IN RE: SANJIV DATTA AND ORS

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 19-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
IN RE: SANJIV DATTA AND ORS. 
APRIL 19, 1995 
[P.B. SAWANT AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sec 2(c), 12-Contempt of Court-Suo 
4
moto contempt notice issued to a public servant and his advocates-Affidavit 
filed in the Supreme Court containing a/legations against the Court-Allega-
tions made with intention of casting aspersions on the Court and attributing 
c 
motives to it--Accusing the Court of making mockery of established policy of 
Government of India by pennitting a foreign agency to undertake broadcasting 
from India against national interest thereby undennining sovereignty of the 
nation--Unconditional apology of public servant not accepted-Allegations 
made by the contemner were intentional-Made with full knowledge of its 
grave implications and therefore has potentiality of mischief-If not curbed 
D finn/y, may assume proportion grave enough to sabotage the rnle of law. 
Unconditional apology of advocates-Accepted for want of knowledge of al-
legations. 
The contemner, a Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Information 
E 
and Broadcasting (MIB), filed in the Supreme Court oflndia an affidavit 
in reply, on behalf of the MIB, to a writ petition filed by the Cricket 
Association of Bengal (CAB). The said writ petition arose from a dispute 
between the CAB on one hand and the Government of India and Director 
General of Doordarshan on the other, regarding the right to broadcast a 
six- nation cricket tournament. 
-4 
F 
The CAB as par of its diamond jubilee celebrations organised. a 
six-nation tournament from 9th November to 20th November, 1993. In 
order to make arrangements for telecasting ad broadcasting the matches, 
through its agency, the Transworld International (1WI), the CAB started 
G 
to negotiate with the Director General of Doordarshan. In course of the 
said negotiations a stage reached when the CAB had to file writ petitions 
before the High Court of Calcutta and subsequently before the Supreme 
.-~
Court of India. This Court taking into consideration the then hostile 
relations between the parties and to avoid constant bickering and disputes 
between them resulting in possible interruption in telecasting, thus affect-
H Ing the interests of the viewers, permitted the 1WI to generate its own 
450 
RE: SANJN DATIA 
451 
signals for broadcasting and telecasting of the matches and stayed the A 
order of the Secretary, MIB. 
It is then that the contemner on behalf of the MIB filed in this Court, 
an affidavit in reply making allegations against the Court and casting 
aspersions on the Court. The said affidavit though filed through his 
Advocates, was done so, without. giving the Advocates any opportunity to B 
peruse the contents of the same and was done without their consultation. 
Written unconditional apologies were tendered by the contemner and his 
Advocates. 
Disposing of the contempt petition, th.is Court 
HELD : 1. Our Constitution has demarcated the functions of the 
three organs of the State. Each bas to perform its functions entrusted to 
it and respect that of the others. None is free from errors and the judiciary 
does not claim infallibility. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility 
c 
of courts and provides for both internal and external checks to correct the D 
errors. Abuses, attribution of motives, vituperative terrorism and defiance 
are no methods to correct the errors of the Court. In discharge of their 
functions the Courts must be allowed to operate freely and fearlessly but 
for which impartial adjudication will be an impossibility. [461·A, B, C, DJ 
2. The Constitution entrusts the task of interpreting and administer· 
ing the law to the judiciary, and those living and functioning under the 
Constitution have to accept and submit to this obligation of respecting the 
Constitutional authority of the Courts. [461-E) 
E 
3. Courts verdict has to be respected not necessarily by authority of F 
its reason but always by reason of its authority. Any conduct which 
challenges this crucial balance of power, devised by the Constitution Is an 
attempt to subvert the rule of law and an invitation to anarchy. [461-F) 
4. In the present case, a responsible officer of the Government like 
the contemner ought to have knoivn the' serious implications of bis state· G 
ments. Coming as they do from a public functionary representing the 
executive, the Court will fail in its duty if it does not bring home his special 
obligations to respect the authority 

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