P.V. JAGANNATH RAO & ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 789 · Decided: 16-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
789 
. v.. 
. 
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. 
April 16/30, 1968* 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, V. BHARGAVA, G. K. MITTER 
AND C. A: VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Commission of Inquiries ict (60 of 1952), s. 3--Setting up of Com-· 
nJission for collection of facts for future action-:-Partly due ta ·political' 
rivlllry but dominant purpose bona fide--Va!idity~ome items in Notifica-
tion appoinang Commission_ ~ubject to appeal in civil court-Setting. up· 
of Comn1ission, if-constitutes contemp~ of court. 
The appellants were Chief Ministers and Ministers of the respondent-
State. Jn Parliament, the State Legislature and from public platforms, 
it was alleged that during their tenure of office the appellants were guilty 
of acts of serious misconduct. corrti:ption, abuse of power. misfeasance-
and malfeasance. Therefore. the State Government, in exerci!e of its 
powers under s. 3 of the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952, issued a 
notification appointing a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into and report 
on the matters,· 'so that facts may be found which alone will facilitate 
rectification and prevention of recurrence of such lapses and securing the 
ends of justice and establishing a moral public order in futur~ .. The appel-
lants filed writ petitions for setting aside the Notification, but the High 
Court dismissed them. 
· 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that : ( 1) An inquiry for 
mere collection of facts unrelated to any future course of Government 
action or legislative policy does not fall within the purview of s. 3 df the 
Act and it is not a valid exercise of statutory power to appoint such a 
Commission; (2) the Commission was set up for a purpose alien to the 
statute, in that it was set up by the State Government not in the publicr-
interest but for the collateral purpose of getting rid of political rivals by 
character assassination; and 
(3) the 
appointment 
of the Commission· 
constituted contempt of court in that some of the items referred to in tbe-
impugned notification were the subject matter of' a first appeal pending 
in the High O>urt. 
HELD : ( 1) The preamble to the notification shows that the object of 
setting up the Commission in the present case was to take approprlate-
1egislative or administrative measures 'for maintaining. high standards of-
public conduct and purity of political administration in the State in future. 
Therefore, the notification falls within the ambit of s. 3 
of the Act. 
[801 A-C .. 803 D-EI 
Shri Ram Krishna Da/m;a v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar 
(1959] 
S.C.R. 279, explained. 
· 
. 
' 
(2) It may be that the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry in 
the present case was partly on account of political rivalry between the· 
party in power and those against _whom the inquiry was ordered but the· 
dominant purpose of setting up the Commission was to promote ~easures 
for maintaining p_urity and integrity of the administration in the po!iticar 
hfe of the State tn future and not the character assassination of rivals. 
Therefore, the impugned notification was issued bona fide and is le"ally 
valid. (805 A-B; 807 R-E] · 
0 
The King v. Minister of Health, [1929] 1 K.B. 619, referred to. 
*The order dismissing the appeals was pronounced on April 16, 1968 and the 
Judgment was delivered On April 30, 1968. 
790 
SUPRE11E COURT REPORTS 
[1968] 3 S.C.R. 
Rex v. Brighton Corporation ex-parte Shoosmith, 
96 -L.T. 762, Earl 
Ei:za•illiani's TVentworth Estate Co. Ltd. v. Minister of To1vn and Country 
. Planning, [1951] 2 K.B. 284; applied. 
(3) To constitute contempt of court 
there must 
be involved some 
.. act done or writing pllblished calculated to bring a court or a judge of 
the court into contempt or to. lower his authority' or something 'calculat-
ed to obstruct or interfere 
with the due course of justice or the la\vful 
-process. of the courts.' [808 HJ 
In the ·prfient-c:ise,- the suits 'Were filed 'for damages for defamation -in 
relation to allegations of corruption. 
There was no factual inquiry into 
the allegations and the suits were decided on the basis of burden of proof: 
A 
B 
Therefore, it could not be.Said-that the_inquiry ordered was in relation to 
the very matters which were the subject matter of the first appeal filed in 
the High Court again.st the' decision· in the suits. [808 ~El . · 
C 
Further, the scope of the trial by courts of law and the scope o'f an 
inquiry by the Com~ission are altogether different, and _therefore, the i

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