LexIN RE : SHRI S. MULGAOKAR versus --
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
162 A IN RE : SHRI S. MULGAOKAR February 21, 1978 (M. H. BEG, C.J., V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J • B Conte111p1 of Court-Newspaper article criticising the judges of Supreme Court-If contempt-Tests for determining contempt of Court. c D E F G H Io its issue dated December 13, 1977, Indian Express published a news item that the High Courts had reacted very strongly to the suggestion of introducing a cede of judicial ethics and propriety and that "so adverse has been the crili .. cism that the Supreme Court Judges, some of whom had prepared the. draft code, have disowned it." In its issue dated December 21, 1977 an article entitled "Behaving like a Judge." was published which inter alia stated that the Supreme Court of India was "packed" by Mrs. Gandhi "with pliant and submissive judges except for a few". It was further stated that the suggestion that a code of ethics should be formulated by Judges themselves was "so utterly inimical to the inde~ pendence of the judiciary, violative of the Constitutional safeguards in that respect, and offensive to the self-respect of the Judges as to make one wonder how it was conceived in the first place." A show cause notice had .been issued to the Editor-in~Chief of the Newspaper why proceedings for contempt under Art. 129 of the Constitution should not be initiated against him in respect of the above two news items. Dropping the contempt proceedings H.ELD : Per Beg, C.J., Proceedings before the Court should be dropped without any finding against any individual. [171 HJ . 1. National interest requires that all criticisms of the judiciary must be strictly rational and sober and proceed from the highest motives without being coloured by any partisan spirit or tactics. This should be a part of nationa! ethics. [169. G-H] • 2. The comments abQUt Judges of the Supreme Court suggesting that they lack moral courage to the extent of having "disowned'' what they had done or in other words, to the extent of uttering what was untrue, at least verge on con· tempt. None could say that such suggestions would not make Judges of' this Court look ridiculous or even unworthy, in the estimation of the public, of the very high office they hold if they could so easily "diso"Wn'' what they had done after having really done it. [166 A-Bl 3. Editors of responsible newspapers should be aware that it is courts of la'v and not newspaper readers who have to try certain issues which Courts alone 3.re empowered to determine. The character and the legal consequences of any publication about conduct of Judges are certainly matters for Courts to deter- mine. Editors of newspapers are expected to know also something of the special place of this Court in the Republic's Constitution which amply protects its Judges so that they may not be exposed to opprobrious attacks by either mali- cious or ignorant persons. [166 B·D] 4. The judiciary cannot be immune from criticism. But, when that criti· cism is based on obvious distortion or grossmis-statement and made in a manner which seems designed to lower respect for the judiciary and destroy public confidence in it, it cannot be ignored. Thou.gh action for contempt of Court, which is discretionary, should not be frequently or lightly taken the Court should· not abstain from using this weapon even when its use is needed to correct - f IN RE : S. MULGAOKAR (Beg, C.J.) 163 standards of behaviour in a grossly and repeatedly erring quarter. It n1a~ be better in n1any cases for the judiciary to adopt a magnanimously chantable attitude even when utterly uncharitable and unfair criticism of its operatlons is made uut of bona-fide concern for improvement. But, when there appears. son1e scheme and a <lesion to bring about results which must damage confidence in the judicial systen1 and demoralize Judges of the highest Court by making malicious attacks, anyone interested in n1aintaining high standards of fearless, impartial, and unbending justice will feel perturbed. [170 A-Cl 5. Although, the question whether an attack is malicious or ill intentioned, may be often difficult to detern1ine, yet, the language in v.·hich it is made, the fairness, the factual accuracy, the logical soundness of it, the care taken in justly and properly analysing the materials before the maker of it, are important considerations. ~loreover, in judging whether it constitutes a contempt of Court or not the Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.