RAJENPRA SAIL versus MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 816 · Decided: 21-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAJENPRA SAIL 
V. 
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT 
BAR ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
APRIL 21, 2005 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 2(c) : 
C 
Criminal contempt-Speech by contemnor published in a newspaper 
D 
calling a decision of High Court as rubbish and commenting that the Judge 
was prejudiced and was bribed and that the Judge about to retire is available 
for sale-Such criticism of judiciary not faif- and reasonable and has tendency 
to affect its dignity and prestige-Its publication amounts to gross contempt 
of court. 
Criminal contempt-Report published in a newspaper terming the 
decision of High Court as rubbish, commenting that the Judges delivering the 
said decision were prejudiced and bribed-Contempt proceedings against 
Editor, printer and publisher of newspaper-They tendered apology pleading 
E that news report was published on account of oversight and their unconditional 
apology was published even before initiation of contempt proceedings-Held: 
Apologies accepted with a caution to be more careful and responsible in 
exercise of their duty towards the public, in providing fair, accurate and 
impartial information. 
p 
Fair and reasonable criticism-What is-Held: Criticism which is likely 
to interfere with administration of justice or would undermine the confidence 
which public reposes in court of law is not fair and reasonable-Administration 
of justice. 
Scurrilous aspersions-Casting oj on an individual Judge-Power of 
G Court to punish for contempt of court-Exercise of-Held: Court to exercise 
such power not to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual Judge 
who is personally attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of the 
law and of the administration of justice. 
H 
816 
RAJENDRA SAIL ''·MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BAR ASSON. 
817 
Criminal contempt-Apology tendered by contemnor who made scurrilous A 
aspersions on a Judge-Acceptance of-Held: Contemnor, law graduate having 
been in public life for considerab,'e time cannot plead sympathy-Acceptance 
of apology not called for-But having regard to the background and 
organization to which he belongs, which brought many Pllsfor general public 
good, sentence of six month reduced to sentence of one week simple B 
imprisonment. 
Judgment and judiciary-Criticism of-Held: Judgment of court is a 
public document and open to criticism but in a dignified manner without 
attributing motives. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 19(/)(a)-Freedom of press-Exercise of-Held: Has to be in 
the interest of public good and with utmost responsibility-Any attempt to 
make news out of nothing just for sake of sensitization has to be deprecated 
c 
Appellant 'R' was the prosecution witness in the murder trial in D 
which accused were found guilty. On appeal, High Court acquitted the 
accused, whereupon appellant delivered a speech in a rally and interview 
to the correspondent of the newspaper 'Hitavada'. Based on the speech 
and interviews, news item was published. The news report termed the 
said decision of High Court as rubbish and commented that a Judge who E 
was on the verge of retirement should not have been entrusted with the 
responsibility of dealing with such a crucial case; that the Judges were 
already prejudiced and were bribed and that a Judge who is to retire is 
for sale and that the Judiciary has no guts, no honesty and is not powerful 
enough to punish wealthy people. 
F 
This news item led to contempt proceedings against the appellants · 
who are Editor, printer, publisher, chief sub-editor, Desk incharge of 
newspaper. They all tendered unconditional and unqualified apologies. 
The High Court summoned the audio and video recording of the speech 
delivered by 'R' as well as the transcript of the speech as contained in G 
those recordings and held that the comments made by 'R' did not amount 
to fair and reasonable criticism of the judgment and that the contents of 
the news report scandalized the court. The appellants were held guilty of 
contempt of court and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six 
months. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I. The editor, printer and publisher and the Chief sub-
editor have very candidly not made any attempt to justify the actions of 
the newspaper in publishing the news report and have prayed only for 
acceptance of the apology. They had tendered apol

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