Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
NATIONAL TEXTILE WORKERS’ UNION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
P.R. RAMAKRISHNAN & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/05/1983
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
TULZAPURKAR, V.D.
VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
CITATION:
1983 AIR 750 1983 SCR (3) 12
1983 SCC (3) 105 1983 SCALE (1)530
ACT:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 12-Contemner made
serious allegations of corruption against Judges of High
Court-Agreed to apologies-But resiled and published
scurrilous writings-Whether should be punished.
HEADNOTE:
The contemner, a journalist, was charged with
committing contempt of court for publishing in his journals
articles that certain judgments given by four Judges of the
High Court proceeded from corrupt motives. At the end of the
hearing of the contempt petition in this Court he was given
a choice to submit apologies to this Court as well as to
each of the four Judges of the High Court and if he chose to
do so he should publish them on the front page of his
papers. He submitted an apology to this Court; but within 10
days thereafter he published an article purporting to give a
gist of the proceedings of this Court in the contempt
petition stating that this Court told him that "if you
tender apology we will consider. Under the circumstances I
agreed for tendering apology". Later he came out with a
front page article that his "conscience did not permit him
to tender apologies to each of the four Judges and that he
had decided to go to jail rather than tender apology to
them".
^
HELD: The conduct and writings of the contemner
constitute serious interference with the administration of
justice, since his sole object in giving publicity to the
defamatory allegations against the Judges was to deter them
from deciding cases against him or against those in whom he
is apparently interested. The apology tendered by him was an
eye wash, a make-belief, and cannot be accepted. In fact,
there was no apology to accept because he had resiled from
it. Indeed he was penitent for having apologised to the High
Court Judges whose character he had assailed without the
semblance of sincerity of purpose or purity of means. He was
not penitent for his conduct. [17 E-G]
The apology tendered by the contemner to this Court was
a mere device to escape punishment for his culpable conduct.
He had committed a breach of the undertaking given by him to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
this Court that he would not make similar charges against
Judges and that he would publish his apology in the two
journals. Far from carrying out that undertaking he had
ventured into another bout of scurrilous writings against
the High Court Judges. [16 D-E]
13
From the tenor of his articles and his conduct it was
apparent that he was inspired by some others working from
behind the curtain. But the fact that the contemner was
writing at the behest of undisclosed principals is not an
extenuating circumstance.
Very often, contemners are so contemptible that it is
useless to take serious notice of their conduct but it is
necessary to take action in this case because nothing else
would stop a systematic campaign of vilification against the
defenceless Judges of the High Court. [18 B]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Civil Misc. Petition No. 24899
of 1982.
(For Contempt of Court)
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9661 of 1981.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 30 September,
1981 of the Madras High Court at Madras in O.S.A. No. 148 of
1981 arising in Company Petition No. 30 of 1981.
G. Vasant Pai, O. C Mathur, S. Sukumaran and D. N.
Mishra with him for the petitioner.
S.K. Jain and S. Ramaswamy for the Contemner.
P.M. Kumaraswamy @ Kailaimannan was present in person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. While special leave petition No. 9661
of 1981 (National Textile Workers’ Union v. P.R.
Ramakrishnan) was being argued before a five Judge Bench on
September 8, 1982, Shri G. Vasantha Pai, who was appearing
on behalf of the respondents, drew the attention of the
Court to certain statements which had appeared in the Press
under the name of one P.M. Kumaraswamy alias Kailaimannan.
On a petition presented by Shri Pai on behalf of one R. Baba
Chandresekhar under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the
Court issued a notice to P. Kumaraswamy asking him to show
cause why he should not be committed for committing contempt
of Court.
14
Thereafter, the Contempt Petition came up for hearing
before us on various dates. On some of those dates the
contemner asked for adjournment on the ground of his illness
while on some dates he remained absent. On one occasion, he
was absent without informing the Court as to the reasons of
his absence. At long last, the contempt petition was heard
at some length on March 30, 1983. On a motion made by Shri
S.K. Jain. Advocate, on behalf of the contemner, the latter
was permitted to argue his case in person, in Tamil. Another
Advocate whom the contemner had engaged, Shri S.Ramaswamy,
translated the contemnor’s argument in to English for our
benefit. One of us, namely, Varadarajan, J., of course knows
Tamil. We reserved our Judgment on that date and directed
that the matter be listed for Judgment on April 26, 1983. We
observed that the contemner may, if so advised, tender a
written apology to this Court as also to each of the four
Learned Judges of the Madras High Court against whom he had
made unfounded allegations, namely, Justice Gokulakrishnan,
Justice Ramanujam, Justice V. Ramaswami and Justice
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
Shunmugham. We directed that the apologies be tendered in
writing, if at all, by April 7, 1983 and be published on the
front page of the two so-called newspapers, ’International
Chronicle’ and ’Sigappu Nada’, which the contemner conducts.
The contemner submitted a written apology to this Court
on March 30, itself, to the following effect:
"I state that I understand that my writings
created an impression in the mind of this Hon’ble Court
that the articles are contemptuous in nature. I am
therefore submitting my sincere and honest apology to
this Hon’ble Court and also to Mr. Justice
Gokulakrishnan, Mr. Justice Ramanujam, Mr. Justice
Shunmugham of the Madras High Court and I am extremely
sorry for writing the impugned article.
I further undertake not to write anything against
the Madras High Court Judges in my journals ’Sigappu
Nada’ and International Chronicle’ in future. I also
undertake to publish the text of this affidavit in the
above said two journals."
How hollow and unmeaning the apology was, is clear from
the fact that within 10 days after submitting the apology to
this Court,
15
the contemner published an article in ’Sigappu Nada’ on
April 8, 1983 purporting to give an account of what had
transpired in this Court on March 30, 1983. This is what he
says in the said issue of his journal :
"The Court told me
We convict you to the maximum punishment of six
months imprisonment and Rs. 1,000 fine; if you tender
apology, we will consider. Under the circumstances,
what can I do ? I agreed for tendering apology.
After this, they told me that I have to appear
before each and every Judges about whom, I have written
in my paper and tender apology. Since, I have accepted
for the first apology, I have agreed for this also."
On April 14, 1983 the contemner came out with a front
page article in ’Sigappu Nada’ in which he has stated as
follows :
"Kailaimannan is ready to go to Jail
In the case filed against me in the Supreme Court,
Judgment is to be delivered on 26.4.1983.
The Judgment has been announced already it has
been published as news item in Newspapers. The Supreme
Court has ordered that I must go to four of the High
Court Judges personally and tender apology. But my
conscience does not permit me to tender apology to
them.
I have decided to go to Jail, rather than
tendering apology to them.
But my case will make a new turn in India. I do
not wish to say anything about it now. My enemies are
jubilant that ’Kailaimannan’ will be finished with
this. Sigappu Nada will not be published hereafter.
Even if I go to Jail, Sigappu Nada will be
published continuously.
16
How can the corruption of a Judge be proved in the
Supreme Court. Only if C.B.I. enquiry is ordered on the
counter filed by me, truth will be known. For that,
Supreme Court has not done anything and it is the
highest Court.
I have written to the Secretary, Home Department,
Central Government, seeking for permission to file
complaints against two Judges regarding corruption
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
charges.
As soon as sanction is given, I will file the case
against the two Judges in Court and I will prove that
those corruption news published by me are true only.
If I do not prove those charges, it will not be
conducive to my self-respect."
The apology tendered by the contemner to this Court on
March 30 was thus a mere device to escape punishment for his
culpable conduct. He has no real repentance for the wanton
charges of corruption made by him against the four Judges of
the Madras High Court. He has committed a breach of the
undertaking given by him to this Court to the effect that he
will not make similar charges against the Madras High Court
Judges and that he will publish his apology in the two
journals. Far from carrying out that undertaking, he has
ventured into another bout of scurrilous writings against
the High Court Judges. His pose now is of injured innocence.
And, he warns that he will not apologise to those Judges and
that he will persist in his campaign of vilification.
Incidentally, he never apologised to Justice V. Ramaswami,
with or without contrition.
We do not propose to give publicity to the grossly
defamatory allegations made by the contemner, by reproducing
them in our Judgment. The gist of those allegations is that
certain Judgments given by the four Judges of the High Court
proceeded from corrupt motives. The contemner seems to think
that he can deter the Judges from discharging their duty by
maligning them before the public, by alleging that their
judgments are influenced by corrupt motives. The fact that
the contemner has made allegations of corruption against the
four Judges is not denied by him and indeed, he stated
before us that he wanted an opportunity to establish those
17
allegations. If we were to grant him such an opportunity,
that would have aggravated the contempt. A reckless and
malicious person like the contemner could have borrowed the
support of some disgruntled litigants of his own feather to
aid and abet him. Even then, in order to test the bona fides
of the contemner, we asked him to furnish to us a list of
the names of persons, particularly advocates, whose
affidavits he proposed to file in support of the charges of
corruption levelled by him against the High Court Judges. He
did scribble a few names in our presence but that was the
end of the matter. He conveniently forgot all about his tall
claim that he will be able to get the affidavits of even
practising lawyers in support of his case. It is clear that
the contemner was only trying to trick the Court into
believing that he is not a lone fighter in his demand for
justice against the four dispensers of justice. No one came
forward to support him. No one possibly could. He is not
fighting in the cause of justice. He has become an enemy of
the Courts because certain decisions given by them are not
to his liking. "I will leave you alone, if you decide in my
favour. I will charge you of corruption if you dare to
decide against me" -That sums up his attitude to the Courts.
Judges must tread their path of rectitude uneterred by such
threats. This Court is there to protect them from scurrilous
accusations prompted by malice.
The conduct and writings of the contemner constitute
serious interference with the administration of justice,
since his sole object in giving publicity to the defamatory
allegations against the High Court Judges is to deter them
from deciding cases against him or against those in whom he
is apparently interested. The apology tendered by him is an
eye-wash, a make-belief, and cannot be accepted. In fact,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
there is no apology to accept because he has resiled from
it. He is penitent for having apologised to the High Court
Judges whose character he has assailed without the semblance
of sincerity of purpose or purity of means. He is not
penitent for his conduct.
We are inclined to believe that the writings in the two
journals conducted by the contemner are inspired by some
others who are working from behind the curtain. They appear
to have promoted the contemner to speak and write with such
great venom. But the fact that the contemner is acting at
the behest of undisclosed principals is not an extenuating
circumstance. Indeed, many hirelings are equally despicable,
since they charge their price for blackmail.
18
We hold that the conduct of the contemner constitutes
serious interference with the course of justice. He has
exhibited a dogged determination to pursue the four Judges
of the High Court, come what may. He is not sorry for his
ways. He is sorry that he was even apparently sorry.
Perhaps, having charged his price, he has to play to the
tune of his masters. Very often, contemners are so
contemptible that it is useless to take any serious notice
of their conduct. We are compelled to take action in this
case because nothing else will stop this systematic campaign
of vilification against the defenceless Judges of the High
Court.
As we were coming to the end of this Judgment, a
communication was received from before the contemner, which
is filed by his Advocate, Shri S. K. Jain. That
communication contains an additional affidavit affirmed by
the contemner at Madras on April 28, 1983. He says therein :
"I wholeheartedly and sincerely tender my
apologies before this Hon’ble Court if this Hon’ble
Court feels that I have committed contempt by my
writings. I also undertake that I will not write
anything about the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court in
my journals "Sigappu Nada,‘ and International
Chronicle" About the other two conditions, I would like
to submit the following few lines for the benevolent
consideration and sympathetic approach of this Hon’ble
Court."
In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit he says that he is a
freedom fighter, that he was arrested during freedom
movement at the early age of 18 and that he was detained
under MISA during the emergency. "So prison life is not new
to me". After saying all this, he has reiterated in
paragraph 7 of the affidavit that though he is unable to
justify his writings and substantiate his allegations ’at
present’, he was certain that he will be able to do so. He
says that he has already addressed a letter to the
Government of India and the Government of Tamilnadu for
according sanction to prosecute "corrupt Judges for offences
punishable under section 161 IPC and the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act". He winds up the affidavit by
saying that he believes that he will be able to prove that
his writings contain the truth. Any comment on this
affidavit is superfluous.
19
For the reasons abovesaid, we convict the contemner
under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and
sentence him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months
and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. He shall be taken in custody
forthwith. If he is suffering from any physical ailment,
care ought to be taken of the state of his body. Those who
have spurred him into this kind of activity will take the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
care of his mind.
P.B.R. Petition allowed.
20