LexIN RE THE EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER OF THE TIMES OF INDIA AND IN RE ASWINI KUMAR GHOSE AND ANOTHER versus ARABINDA BOSE AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
" - - / S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 215 1952 another de ten u was released by another Bench of this Court in circumstances which, according to her, are very similar. We are unable to allow this as her ::::~~:: petition has already been rejected on the merits. -She v. / was only allowed to appear on constitutional points. State of Bombay We understand that in the other petition this fact and Others. was not brought to the notice of the Court. 'rhe application is dismissed. Application dismissed. Agent for the respondents: G. H. Raiadhyaksha. ,. In re 'rHE EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER OF " 'rHE TIMES OF INDIA " and In re ASWINI KUMAR GROSE AND ANOTHER v. ARABINDA BOSE AND ANOTHER. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHEHJEA. DAs, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR and BHAGWATI JJ.] Contempt of Court-Article imputing ?notives to jwlges-Gross ran.tempt-Apology-Practice of Supreme Coitrt. It is not the practice of the Supreme Court to issue a rule for contempt of Court except in very grave and serious cases and it is never over-sensitive to public criticism; but when there is danger of grave mischief being done in the matter of administration of justice, the animadversion will not be ignored and viewed with placid equanimity. A leading article in the " Times of India" on .the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aswini K1tmar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose and Another ( [1953] S.C.R. 1) contained the following statements: "the fact of the· matter is that in the higher legal latitudes in Delhi the dual system was regarded as obsolete and anomalous ......... There is a tell-tale note at the top of the rules framed by the Supreme Court for enrolment of advocates and agents to the effect that the ::tulm1 were subject to revision and the Judges had under considera- tion a proposal for abolishing the dual system ......... To achieve a dubious or even a laudable purpose by straining the law is hardly Bos1 J. 195!3 2i6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] 1952 edifying. Politics and policies have no place in the pure region of the law and Courts of law would servo the country and the Consti- In re The Editor, tution better by discarding all extraneous considerations and un- Printer and comwomisingly observing divine detachment ......... ". In proceed- Publisher of ings for contempt of Court: Held, that if the articles had merely ''The Ti1nes of preached to Courts of law a sermon of divine detachment no objec_- India ". tion could be taken, but in attributing improper motives to the · judges, the article not only transgressed the limits of fair and bona fide criticism but had a clear tendency to affect the dignity and prestige of the Court and it was therefore a gross contempt of court. If an impression is created in the minds of the public that the judges of the highest court in the land act on extraneous considera- tions in deciding cases the confidence of the whole community in the administration of justice is bound to be undermined and no greater mischief than that can possibly be.imagined. [In view· of the unconditional apology tendered by the Editor, Printer and Publisher and the undertaking given by them to give wide publicity to their regret, the proceedings were dropped.] · Andrew Paul v. Attorney-General of Trinidad (A.LR. 1936 P.O. 141) referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 160 of 1952. Contempt of Court proceedings against the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the "Times of India" (Daily), Bombay and Delhi, for publishing a leading article in their paper of October 30, 1952, entitled " A Disturbing Decision". M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (P. A. Mehta, with him) (amicus curiae). N. C. Chatterjee (Nur-ud-Din Ahmad and A. K, Dutt, with him) for the contemners. 1952. December 12. 'fhe Order of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J.-In its issue of the 30th October, 1952, the "'.I. 1imes of India", a daily newspaper pub- lisb'ed in Bombay and New Delhi, a leading article was published under the beading "A disturbing deci- sion". The burden of it was that in a singularly oblique and infelicitous manner the Supreme Court bad by a majority decision tolled the knell of the much maligned dual system prevailing in the Cal- cutta and Bombay High Courts by holding that the -+ S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 217 right to practise in any High Court conferred on 1902 advocates of the Supreme Court, made the rules in r - f · h H' h C · t · · d n re The Ed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.