PERSPECTIVE PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 19-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' • 
.. 
A 
PERSPECTIVE PUBLICATIONS (P) L11>. & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
Nuvember 19, 1968 
B 
[J.C. SHAH, V. R.AMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court-Difference between 
defamation 
of iudge and 
contempt of court-Judge's brother having financial interest in a firm-
-i 
If sufficient to establish legal bias. 
c 
D 
,, 
E 
' 
F 
G 
... 
• 
H 
... 
One T filed a suit claiming Rs. 3 lacs damages for libel against a 
newspaper. The suit was decreed by a Judge of the Bombay High Court. 
Thereafter, an article was published in a publication brought out by tbe 
first appellant and of which the second appellant was tbe editor, printer 
ano publisher. 
The article contained insinuations tbat there was a con-
nection between a Joan of Rs. 10 lacs, 
granted to a firm in which tbe 
Judge's brother was a partner, and the judgment in the defamation case; 
and tbat the Judge knew about the loan having been granted to the firm. 
The appellants were found guilty of contempt df. court. 
In appeal to tbis Court, it was contended tbat: (!) In the article no 
aspersion was cast on the integrity of tbe Judge nor was any imputation 
of dishonesty made; (2) Proceedings for contempt for scandalizing a 
Judge have become obsolete, tbe proper remedy being for the Judge to 
take action for libel; (3) The allegations were made in tile bona fide belief 
that tbey were trutliful and there was no evidence that the Judge did not 
know about tbe transaction; and ( 4) The statements, if at all, amounted 
to a charge of bias against tbe Judge and could not be regarded as 
contempt. 
HELD : ( I) The obvious implications and insinuations made in the 
various paragraphs of tbe article, read as. a whole, 
create a strong pro-
judicial impact on the mind of the reader about tbe lack of honesty, in-
tegrity and impartiality on the pa.rt of tbe Judge in deciding tbe defama-
lion suit. [785 C--D] 
It is open to anyone to express fair, reasonable and legitimate criticism 
of any act or conduct df a Judge in his judicial capacity or even to make 
a proper and fair comment on any decision given by him. But, if an 
article attributes improper motives to the Judge, it not only transgresses 
the limits of fair and bona fide criticism but has a clear tendency to affect 
tbe dignity and prestige of the court and would amount to contempt of 
court. [785 A, 791 F] 
(2) It will not be right to say tbat committals for contempt of court 
for scandalizing the court have become obsolete. [791 DJ 
(a) But such summary jurisdiction by way of .contem~t 
~ust be 
exercised with great care and caution and onl~ w~en its exercise is neces-
sary for tbe proper administration of law and Justice. [79'1 EJ 
(b) There is a distinction between a mere .libel or defamatioJ:? of a 
Jud e and what amounts to contempt of court. The tests are: (1) Is. th!' 
· 
g 
d publication a mere defamatory attack on the Judge or is 1t 
rmtTt'!.J 10 interfere with the due course of justice or the proper admi-
c~ ~ : 
of law by his court? and (ii)~ Is the wrong done to the Judge 
ms ra ion 
. 
b · 
· 
f 
d" 
·n 
personally or is it done to the pubhc? The pu hcat1on o a 
1sparag1 g 
780 .''" • 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
statement will be an injury to the pubiic if it tends to create an apprehen-
sion in the minds of the people regarding the .integrity, ability or fairness 
of the Judge or to deter actual and prospective liiigants from placing com-
plete reliance upon the court's administration of justice, or if it is likely 
to cause embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge 
of his judicial duties, [791 G-H; 792 A-CJ 
' 
.. B. R. Reddy v . . State. of Madrqs, [1952]. S.C.R. 425, Re : The Editor, 
fjint~r and Publisher i!I the 'Times of .I~dia' a~<Un re : As\Vini Kumar 
Ghiise v. Arabinda Bose, [1953] S.C.R. 215, Brahm Prakash Sharma v. 
State of U.P., [1953] S.C.R. 1169; Re: Hira Lal Dixit & Ors. [1955] 1 
S.C.R. 
677 
ancL State. of , M.P. v. Revashankar [1959] S.C.R. 
1367, 
followed. .. . 
" 
. . ··." -' 
' 
. 
" 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
' 
· .•.. Re : Read and Huggonson, 2 Atlc. 471, In the matter of a Special Re" 
ference from the Bahama Islands [1893] A.C. 138, McLeod "· St. Auoyn, 
[1899] A.C. 549, Reg. v. Gray, [1900] 2 Q.B.D. 36; Rex v.. Editor of 
the New Statesman (1928). 44 T,L.R. 301; Ambard v.. Attorney-General 
for Trinidad and Tobago, ( 1936) 
A.C. 322, Debi Prasad Sarma v. The 
King Emperor, 70 LA. 216 and Reg. v. Commissioner of Police · o

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