NATIONAL TEXTILE WORKERS' UNION versus P. R. RAMAKRISHNAN & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 05-05-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I~ 
NATIONAL TEXTILE WORKERS' UNION 
v. 
P. R. RAMAKRISHNAN & OTHERS 
May 5, 1983 
(Y. V. CHANDP,ACHUD, C. J., V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND 
A. VARADA!WAN JJ.] 
.... 
Conten1pt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 12-Contemner made serious al/1-
gations of corruption against Judges of High Court-Agreed to apologies-But 
resiled and pubjished scurrilous writings- Whether should be punished. 
The contemner, a jotirnalist, was ch3.rged with committing conten1pt ·of 
court for publishing in his journals articles that certain judgments given by 
four Judges of the High Court proceeded from corrµpt motives. At the end of 
the hearing of the contempt petition in this Court he was given a choice to 
subll1it apologies to this Court as well as to each of the four Judges.of the 
High Court and if he chose to do so he should publish them on the fron·t page 
of his papers. He submitted an apology to this Court; but within 10 days 
thereafter he published an article purporting to give a gist of the proceedings 
of this Court in the contempt petition stating that this Court told him that 
''if you tender apoJogy we will consider. Under the circumstances I agreed 
for tendering apology". Later he came out with a front •page article that his 
"conscience did not permit him to tender apologies to each of the four Judges 
and that he had decided to go to jail rather than tendifr apology to them'\ 
HELD : The conduct and writings of the contemner constitute serious 
·interference with the administration of justice, since his sole object in givina 
publicity to the defamatory allegatiOns against the Judges Was to deter them 
from deciding cases against him or against those in whom he is apparently 
interested. The apoltigy tendered by him was an eye wash, a make-belief, and 
cannot be accepted. In fact, there was no 3.pology to accept be~ause he had 
resiled from it. Indeed he w·as Penitent for having apologised to the High Court 
Judges Whose character he had assailed without the semblance-of sincerity of 
purpose or purity of means. He was not penitent for his conduct. [17 E-G] 
The apology tendered by the contemnet to this Court was a mere device; 
to escape punishment for his culpable conduct. He had committed a breach 
of the undertaking given by h,im to this Court that he would not make similat 
charges against Judges and that he would publish his apology in the two jour .. 
nals. Far from carrying out that undertaking he had ventured into another bout 
of scurrilous writings against the Hi&:h Court Judges. 
[16 D"'E] 
.. 
r 
... 
l 
-
TEXTILE w.u. v. P.R. RAMAKRJSHNAN (Cha11drachud, C.J.) 
13 
From the tenor of his articles and his conduct it w3s apparent that he 
was 4nspircd by some others working from behind the cur'tain. But the fact 
A 
that the contemner was writing at the behest of undisclosed principals is not 
an extenuating circumstance, 
Very often, contemners are so contemptible that it is useless to take 
serious notice of their conduct but it is necCssary to take action in this case 
because nothing else would stop a systematic campaign of vilification against 
the defenceless Judges of the High Court. 
[18 B] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Civil Misc. Petition No. 24899 of 
1982. 
, 
. (For Contempt of Court) 
In 
' 
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9661 of 1981. 
From the Judgment and Order· dated the 30 September, 1981 
of the Madras High Court at Madras in O.S.A. No. 148 of 1981 
arising in Company Petition No. 30 of 1981. 
G. Vasant Pai, 0. C Mathur, S. Sukumaran and D. N. Mishra 
with him for the petitioner. 
S. K. Jain and S. Ramaswamy for the Contemner. 
P. M. Kumaraswamy@ Kai/aimannan was pre~ent in person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. While special leave petition No. 9661 of 
198'1 (Nationa/Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrislman) was 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
being argued before a five Judge Bench on September 8, 1982, Shri 
• G 
G. Vasantha Pai, who was appearing on behalf of the respondents, 
drew the aitention of the Court to certain statements which had 
appeared in the Press under the name of one P. M. Kumaraswamy 
alias Kailaimannan. On a petition presented by Shn Pai on behalf 
of one R. Baba Chandresekhar under the Contempt of Courts Act, 
H 
197 J, the Court issued a notice to P. Kumaraswamy asking liim to 
show cause why he.sh9ul\\ not be committed for committin~ contempt 
of Court, 
B 
c 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19S3] ~ s.c.R .. 
Thereafter, the Contempt Petition

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