M.R. PARASHAR AND ORS. versus DR. FAROOQ ABDULLAH AND ORS.

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 760 · Decided: 31-01-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
760 
M.R. PARASHAR AND ORS. 
v. 
DR. FAROOQ ABDULLAH AND ORS. 
January 31, 1984 
(Y.V. CaANDRACHUD, C.J. AND A.P. SEN, J.J 
Contempt of Courts Act. 1971-Publicarion in a newspaper of a/leqation 
of Contempt of Court by Chief Minister-Requisite Proof not furnished-No 
record of speech produced- Whether could be committed for contempt. 
A news item appeared in the newspaper of which 
respondent No. 2 
was its editor, that while addressing a rally of Judicial Employees' Welfare 
Association, the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir denounced and 
D 
ridiculed the judiciary stating that "Justice is being bought in judlci<ll 
Courts" and that he would never honour the Coures stay a·rders because 
justice could be bought with money. 
The news item also stated that the 
Chief Minister expressed bis regret to the Chief Justice and other Judges 
who were present at the meeting, explaining that the strong words used by 
him were the voice of his conscience and that he had the greatest regard for 
E 
F 
the judiciary. 
The petitioner filed the contempt petition against the Chief Minister. 
Although a show cause notice was issued under the Contempt of 
Courts Act 1971 to the Chief Minister (respondent) on March 18, 1983 no 
counter 0 affl.davit was filed till September 26, 1983. 
When the contempt 
petition was called out on that day his ndvocate accepted the notice on 
behalf of the respondent. 
Eventually on November 21, 1983 the affidavit 
of the Chief Minister dated November 9, 1983 was taken on record. 
While the Chief Minister 
denied having 
made 
the 
statements 
attributed to him, the Editor asserted that the version published in the 
newspaper was true. 
G 
On the question whether the statements published in the newspaper 
amounted to contempt of court. 
Dismissing the petition, 
HELD : What is involved in this case is criminal contempt and there~ 
fore it is necessary to apply the particul:ir ·standard of proof required to be 
established in a criminal case. Respondent, No. 1, on the material placed on 
H 
record; cannot be held t.o be guilty of the charge. (764F] 
( 
. 
.i 
.. --.. 
1 
.. 
M.R. PARASliAR v. FAROoQ ABDULLAH 
761 
Jo matters invOlving allegations Of criminal contempt., the Court has 
to act both as a prosecutor and as a Judge. 
It does so to uphold the 
authority of law and not in defence of a particular Judge. 
Secondly, the 
right _of free speech is an important right of the citizen 
an~ bona fide 
criticism of any system or institution is aimed at inducing thC administrators 
of that system or institution to look inwards and in1prove its public image. 
Courts do not like to assume the posture that they are above criticism. At 
the same time though Jaw does not restrain the expression of disapproba· 
tion against what is done in or by Courts of law, the liberty of free 
expression is not to be confounded with a licence to make unfounded allega-
tions of corruption against the judiciary. 
The abuse of the liberty of free 
speech and expression carries the case nearer the law of contempt. 
Those 
who criticise the judiciary must remember that they are attacking an 
institution which is indispensable for the survival Of the rule of law but 
which bas no means of defending itself. 
Therefore, Judges must receive 
the protection of law from unfounded attacks on their character. 
(765H; 766A, B-E; F-G] 
If the Chief Minister said what was alleged in the news item he was 
in contempt; if he had not, the Editor had committed a contempt by 
publishing a false feport of a scurillous speech that was never made~ In the 
face of denial by one and an assertion by the other without more, it is 
difficult to deci<!e who is right. 
On the one hand is the tendency to ridicule 
the system of justice and malign those: who administer it, on the ·othef is 
the propensity of the fourth estate fo~ some little sensatioll and its political 
involvment. 
When political considerations 
pollute the stream of life, 
sifting truth from falsehood becomes a formidable .and .forbidding task. In 
thfsc circumstances it is difficult to record a positive finding that the allega-
tation that the Chief Minister made the particular stat :men{ is proved 
beyond a reasonable doubt. [764D-F] 
Although the petition\!rS had asserted that the Judges of the High 
Court were present at One of the functions and that they walked out of the 
meeting on hearing the abusive language used by the Chief Miaister 00 
attempt was made to establish the 

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