M.V. JAYARAJAN versus HIGH COURT OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 550 · Decided: 30-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[20~5] 1 S.C.R. 550 
M. v. JAYARAJAN 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF KERALA & ANR. 
(CRIMINAL. APPEAL No. 2099 OF 2011) 
JANUARY 30, 2015. 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 12 - Criminal contempt 
- Contempt petition before High Court - Alleging that the 
C contemnor, in a public meeting, while criticizing a judgment 
passed by a Division Bench of the High Court used abusive 
language against the judges -
High Court found the 
contemnor guilty - On appeal, held: The contemnor has 
rightly been held guilty- The contents of his speech show that 
o it was not a mere criticism of the judgment, but the contemnor 
by using abusive words against the Judges had intended to 
lower the dignity of the Court, to obstruct and impede its 
functioning - The right of freedom of speech and expression 
postulates a temperate and reasoned criticism and not 
E . vitriolic, slanderous or abusive one - However, the sentence 
of six months imprisonment is reduced to four weeks 
imprisonment - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 19(1)(a). 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: The right of freedom of speech of expression 
postulates a temperate and reasoned criticism and not a 
vitriolic, slanderous or abusive one; this right of free 
speech certainly does not extend to inciting the public 
directly or insidiously to disobey Court Orders. The 
G remedy is provided by way of an appeal to the Division 
Bench, which was taken recourse to. 
On perusal of the 
translations of the speech, there is no doubt that the 
appellant intended to lower the dignity of Court, to 
H 
550 
M.V. JAYARAJAN v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA 
551 
obstruct and impede its functioning and not merely to 
criticise its pronouncement which was not to his liking. 
His conduct leaves him unquestionably guilty of the 
offence of Contempt of Courts, calling for him to be 
punished for his illegal act. 
He has shown no remorse 
or contrition for his conduct. Instead, he has vainly 
etymologised the Sanskrit origin of the word 'sumbhan', 
fully aware of the fact that in its slang, especially to the 
rural and rustic persons he was addressing, it conveyed 
a strong abuse. Judges expect, nay invite, an informed 
and genuine discussion or criticism of judgments, but to 
incite a relatively illiterate audience against the Judiciary, 
is not to be ignored. It was, not the Petitioner's province, 
as exercising his freedom of speech, to advise that "if 
those judges have any self respect, they should resign 
and quit their offices". Nevertheless, while affirming the 
impugned Judgment, the sentence of six months 
imprisonment is reduced to that of simple imprisonment 
for a period of four weeks. [para 9 and1 OJ [561-E-H; 562-
A-C] 
P.N. Duda v. P.Shiv Shanker 1988 (3) SCC 167; Re. S 
Mulgaokar 1978 (3) SCR 162 = 1978 (3) SCC 339 and R v. 
Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex-parte Blackburn 1968 
(2) All ER 319(CA) - referred to. 
Case law reference: 
1988 (3) sec 167 
1978 (3) SCR 162 
referred to 
referred to 
1968 (2) All ER 319(CA~ referred to 
para 4 
para 4 
para 4 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 2099 of 2011. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2011 of the 
High Court of Kerala at Eranakulam in Contempt Case 
(Criminal) No. 2 of 2010. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Shekhar Naphade, Shubhangi Tuli, P. V. Dinesh for the 
B 
Appellant. 
V. Giri, Ramesh Babu M. R. Mukti Chowdhary, T. G. 
Narayanan Nair, K. N. Madhsoodhanan for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. This Appeal lays siege to the 
decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at 
Ernakulam, which found the Petitioner guilty of having 
c committed criminal contempt punishable under Section 12 of 
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and sentenced him to 
simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of 
Rs.2000/-. 
2. The facts leading to these events is that another Division 
D Bench of the High Court of Kerala had, by Orders dated 
23.6.2010, banned the holding of meetings on public roads and 
road margins in the State with the object of ensuring accident-
free and uninterrupted traffic along such public roads. Although 
not relevant for the present purposes, these Orders were 
E confirmed subsequently; a Review Petition was dismissed and 
the Special Leave Petition was also rejected by this Court. 
Meanwhile, on 26.6.2010, the Appellant delivered a spe

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