RELIANCE PETROCHEMICALS LTD. versus PROPRIETORS OF INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, BOMBAY PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 23-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RELIANCE PETROCHEMICALS LTD. 
v. 
PROPRIETORS OF INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, 
BOMBAY PVT. LTD. & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 23, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUK.HARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN JJ.) 
Co_nstitution of India, 1950: Article 19(1)( a)-Public Limited 
Compan}i-Issue of debentures--Ril(ht of newspaper to publish and 
prim article on the debenture issue-Court litigatililf· m regard to 
C debenture issue-Risk caused by publication of article and obligation of 
Press to keep people informed-Appraisal of by Court before grant/ 
continuance of injunction to publication of article. 
Contempt of Court Act, 1971: Public Limited Company-Issue 
of debentures-Litigation in respect of-Press publishing article in 
D respect of debenture issue-Whether prejudging of issue and inter-
ference with administration of justice-Whether Court entitled to injunct 
press from publication of article-Newspapers right of freedom of 
speech. 
-
The petitioner company had offered for public subscription 
E secured convertible debentures after obtaining the consent of the Con-
troller of Capital Issues. Before the p11blic issue was due to open, cer-
tain writ petitions etc. were filed in ~me fligh Courts challenging the 
grant of consent or sanction for the public issue. The petitioner there-
upon filed an application under Article 139A of the Constitution seeking 
transfer of those cases to this Court and prayed inter alia for vacation of 
F 
any injunction or stay granted by the High Courts. On August 19, 1988 
this Court, while issuing notice on the transfer applications, directed 
that the public issue be proceeded with "without let or hindrance", and 
vacated \all orders of injunction in respect of the said issue. 
On August 25, 1988 an article appeared in the Indian Express to 
G tlie effect that the Controller of Capital Issues had not acted properly 
and legally in granting the sanction to the issue, and that the issue was 
not a prudent or a reliable venture. The petitioner moved the Court for 
initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents for alleged 
interference with the due administration of justice by publication of an 
article commenting on a matter which was sub-judice. The petitioner 
fl also sought injunction against the th;eate~eo or expected: publication 
212 
"" 
h::}-
RELIANCE PETROCHEMICALS v. EXPRESS NEWSPAPER 
213 
of similar comments. The Court, while declining to take cognizance of A 
contempt in the absence of the consent of the Attorney General, issued 
an order of injunction restraining publication of articles, etc. question-
ing the legality or validity of any of the consents, approvals or permis-
sions for the public issue. 
The matter came up before the Court again to consider the ques-
B 
tion whether there was any necessity for the continuance of the order of 
injunction. It was contended that pre-stoppage of newspaper article or 
publication on maiters of public importance was uncalled for and con-
trary to freedom of press enshrined in the Constitution and the laws; 
that public had a right to know about this issue of debentures which was 
a matter of public concern, and the newspapers had an obligation to c 
inform; and that there was no jury trial involved her11 and no likelihood 
of the trial being prejudiced because triatwas by professionally traiDed 
Judges. On the other hand, it was contended that there was an Inherent 
.> 
jurisdiction to restrain by injunction any publication that Interfered 
with a fair trial of a pending case or with the administration of justice in 
general, that publication was permissible provided It did not amount to 
D 
prejudgment or prejudice of a matter in Court; that liberty or freedom 
of Press must subserve the due administration of justice, and that there 
was need to continue the Injunction because contribution to the 
debentures could be withdrawn as the final allotment had not yet been 
made. 
E 
.While disposing of the application for the continuance of· the 
Injunction, it was, 
HELD: Per Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 
(1) The Constitution of India Is not !Jhsolute with respect to free-
F 
dom of speech and expression, as enshrined by the First Amendment to 
the American Constitut1on. l223F J 
(2) A judiciary Is not Independent unless courts of justice are 
enabled to administer law by absence of pressure frQm without, 
whether exerted through the blandishments of reward 01· the menace of G 
disfavour. A free Press Is vital to a democratic society for Its freedom 
_gives It pow

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