P.N. DUDA versus P. SHIV SHANKAR & OTHERS

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 15-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

)' 
P.N. DUDA 
A 
Y. 
P. SHIV SHANKAR & OTHERS 
APRIL 15, 1988 
j 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJ! AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Prayingfor initiation of proceed-
·~ 
ings for Contempt of Supreme Court under section 15( J)(a) and (bi 
of-Read with rule 3(aj, (b) and (c) of Supreme Court Contempt of Court 
Rules, 1975, in respect of a speech delivered at a meeting of Bar 
'+ 
Council, reported in newspapers. 
c 
The respondent No. 1, Shri P. Shiv Shankar, Minister of Law, 
Justke and Company Affairs at the relevant time, delivered a speech at 
a meeting of the Bar Council of Hyderabad. The petitioner alleged that 
in that speech the respondent No. 1 had made statements derogatory to 
the dignity of the Supreme Court, attributing to the Court partiality 
D 
towards affluent people and using extremely intemperate and undigni-
fled language, and that the speech contained slander cast on this Court 
both in respect of the Judges and the working of the Court. He stated 
....\ 
that he had approachell the Attorney General for India and the 
Solicitor General of India to give their consent for initiating Contempt 
proceedings. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General having 
E 
declined to deal with this prayer of the petitioner, an application for 
initiation of Contempt under section lS(l)(a) and (b) of the Act read 
with Explanation (1) and Rule 3(a), (b) and (c) of the contempt of 
, 
Supreme Court Rules, 1975, was made, wherein Shri P. Shiv Shankar, 
the Attorney General, the Solicitor General were made parties. The 
Court issued notice. In response, Shri P. Shiv Shankar filed an F 
affidavit, stating that he had delivered the speech on the subject of 
accountability of the Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary and had 
made comments on the accountability of the three organs and the 
theoretical implications thereof, and that he had intended no disrespect 
to any of the institutions or its functionaries ·much less the Supreme 
~ 
Court. It was further stated that the Contempt petition was not main-
G 
tainable without the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor 
General. In the meantime, Shri R.N. Trivedi, Advocate, filed an appli-
cation, claiming right to be impleaded as a party, stating that the 
Attorney General and the Solicitor General should not have been made 
parties to the comtempt petition and that the alleged non-exercise of 
the jurisdiction by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor General had 
H 
547 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
548 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19881 3 S.C.R. 
not constituted contempt within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act. 
Declining to initiate the contempt proceeding and dismissing the 
peiitioii and disposing of the application filed by Shri R.N. Trivedi, the 
Court, 
HELD: Per Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.: 
Before deciding the question whether this application was main-
tainable without the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor 
General, as contended by Dr. Chitale on behalf of Shri Shiv Shankar, 
and the question whether the Attorney General and the Solicitor 
General could be made parties to the Contempt application and 
whether their action or inaction was justiciable at all in any proceeding 
and, if so, in what proceedings it was necessary to decide the basic 
question whether the speech made by Shri P. Shiv Shankar had 
amounted to contempt of this Court, or in other words, whether the 
speech had the effect of bringing this Court into disrepute. [S62H; 563A-B I 
Administration of justice and Judges are open to public criticism 
and public scrutiny. Judges have their accountability to the society 
and their accountability must be judged by their conscience and oath of 
their office, that is to defend and uphold the Constitution and the laws 
without fear and favour. This the Judges must do in the light given to 
them to determine what is right. Any criticism about the judicial system 
or the Judges which hampers the administration of justice or which 
erodes the faith in the objective approach of Judges and brings 
administration of justice into ridicule must be prevented. The contempt 
of Court proceedings arise out of that attempt. Judgments can be 
criticised, motives of the Judges need not be attributed. It brings 
the administration of Justice into deep disrepute. Faith in the adminis-
!ration of justice is one of the pillars through which democratic 
institution functions and sustains. In the free market place of ideas, 
criticism a

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