LexIN RE : SHRI SHAM LAL versus .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
j 581 IN RE : SHRI SHAM LAL A Januarv 18, 1978 [M. H. BEG, C. J., N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] Co11ten1pt of Court-News iten1 published in a newspaper criticizing judg· •11zent of Suprefne Co11rt-Conten1pt proceedings-If coufd be initiated. B Per Majority (Untwalia and Kailasan1, JJ.)_ HELD : The notice issued to the Editor of the Times of India calling upon ·him to show cause why proceedings under Art. 129 of the Constitution for ·contemJtt of the Supreme Court should not be initiated against him in respect ·of the -statements made criticizing the judgment of this Court jn A. p. M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla (A.l.R. 1976 SC 1207) should be dropped. It is not .a fit case where formal proceedings for contempt should be drawn up. C [582 A-B] Beg. C. J. (dissenting) There cannot be a -grosser or clearer case of contempt of court th::i.ti the <implications of this document. [586 CJ 1. The obvious suggestion and threat held out to Judges of the Court is that t.hey will be maligned and punished if they Could not in future so decide D -cases as to protect the interests or voice the opinions of \vha~ever political or ·other sort of group those who have signed the document mentioned in the newpaper may represent. It implies nothing more nor less than blackmail to ·demoralise upright judges. People \vho could indulge in it certainly do not represent those \vho say that law, as found in the Constitution, must ah,cays be ,declared by Judges fearlessly and honestly. [586 A-C] 2. It is a serious matter if persons in the position of those whose names are ·given in the offending news item containing a vituperative attack upon a ·parti- E cular judgment of this Court are really signatories of the document. The attack is primarily irrational and abusive, even if it is partially based on ignorance and the rest on misconception. [582 E-F] 3. It may be that some people go on making assertions about judgments. ot 'this Court without reading or under standing them. But, the way in \vhich this 'has been going on, as a part of a consistent scheme to malign . the Court and its Judges, shows that their intention is to deliberately shake the confidence of the public in this Court. In any case, this \vould be the result it F nothing is done to check such a campaign of vilification. [583 E-F] 4. To blame and abuse the Judges after shutting one's eyes to \vhat may ibe the shortcomings of his own case or the la\\', as it exists, may be forgiven :in a certain type of litigatit blinded by personal feelings.· But, if those who purport to act pro bono p11blico to protect the Constitution and the ]a\Y con- duct themselves in this fashion and, if responsible daily nc\vspapcrs publish Vt'hat could be regarded, in addition to being defamatory and abusive, as gross •contempt of this Court, such. people should be reminded of what the Jaw· says G :.about it and what their duties are to the Court, to -the public and to individuals maligned. [586 C-D] 5. Even if the case could be one in \Vhich nvo views were possible on any question, no newspaper could be allowed to describe one of the hvo views as a .'misdeed' and suggesting that Judges 0Should have held what they could not honestly believe to be correct in la\v. It was stated that the Judges \Vho gave suGh decisions would be ostracised in other countries. Those who drafted the document Seemed to be aware of the perils of their irresp0nsible language.. H They, therefore, took shelter behind some article in a foreign ne\vspaper pre- sumably based on sources interested in distortion or no better informed and \Vith no better motives than those quoted in the ne\vs item. [593 .B-C] 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1978] 2 S.C.R. A ORIGINAL JURISDICTION . B c D E F G V. M. Tarkunde, P.H. Parekh, (Mrs.) Manju Sharma and Kailash V asdev for the ~lleged contemner. (Miss) A. Subhashin; for the Sol. General. S. K. Jain for the Intervener. The following Orders of the Court were delivered : UNTWALIA & KAILASAM, JJ. Having considered every pros and cons of the matter in regard to the amended notice issued to the editor of the Times of India on the 11th January, 1978, to show cause why 'proceedings for contempt of this Hon'ble Court under Article 129 of the Constitution should not be initiated against you in respect of the· statements made in the aforesaid news item in respect of the habeas corpus case (A.D.M. Jabalpur v. S. Shukla) a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.