Amrit Nahata Vs. Union of India [1985]
INSC 131 (8 May 1985)
DESAI, D.A. DESAI, D.A.
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) MISRA, R.B. (J)
CITATION: 1986 AIR 791 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 561
1985 SCC (3) 382 1985 SCALE (1)1041
ACT:
Contempt of Court Act, 1971, section 15-Contempt
petition-Withdrawal when permissible.
HEADNOTE:
The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in this
Court for a declaration that a sections 3 and 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
and Rule 23 and 25 of the Cinematograph (Censorship) Rules, 1958 were
unconstitutional and invalid and for a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to certify his film 'Kissa Kursee Ka' for unrestricted public
exhibition. This Court directed delivery within one week of the negatives and
prints of the film to the Government for preserving the same in proper
condition until the disposal of the Writ Petition. The Court further directed that
the film 'Kissa Kursee Ka' be screened to be seen by five learned Judges to
this Court. The film was not made available for screening as directed.
The Solicitor General of India moved Criminal
Misc.
Petition requesting the Court to lake action
against the five persons named in the petition under section 15 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 on the ground that they were individually and severally
guilty of wilful disobedience of the directions and order of this Court with
regard lo the preservation of the negatives and the prints of the film in
proper condition until the disposal of the Writ Petition and that they have
interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and that their conduct
was intended and calculated to interfere with and obstruct the administration
of justice by causing the loss and disappearance of the film and preventing
this Court from effectively dealing with the Writ Petition pending before It
and judicially determining the issues arising therein Another Criminal Misc.
Petition was also moved by the Solicitor General inviting this Court to hold
that the aforesaid five persons also appear to have committed offences under
section 120-B read with sections 199 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code and it
was expedient in the interest of justice to file a criminal complaint against
them.
In the meantime a substantive prosecution was
launched against Shri Vidya Charan Shukla and late Shri Sanjay Gandhi for
various offences, which ultimately ended in their acquittal.
The hearing of the two Criminal Misc.
Petitions was postponed by this Court and after the acquittal of the two
aforesaid persons a petition was filed 562 by tho Union of India for withdrawal
of both the Criminal Misc. Petitions.
Granting permission for withdrawal of
petitions for initiating contempt proceedings as well as for filing the
Criminal Complaint.
^
HELD 1. The petitioner who has moved an
action for contempt is not entitled as a matter of right to withdraw the
petition whenever it suits his purpose. Once the act, which prima facie shows
that contempt of the Court has been committed, is brought to the notice of the
Court, the Court has to decide whether the contempt has been committed or not
or whether it is appropriate to take action or to drop the proceedings. The
matter is Primarily between the Court and the contemnor. [565 E-F]
2. While considering the request for
withdrawal of the proceedings initiated for taking action for contempt of the
Court, the Court would generally be guided by the broad facts of the case and
more particularly whether respect for judicial process would be enhanced or
dwindled by either granting or refusing to grant the request. There is a marked
difference between a com plaint made by an individual for wrong done to him and
a petition moved before this Court inviting the Court to take notice of the
fact that its contempt has been committed. The contempt is of the Court and not
of the individual. [565 A-B]
3. The power to commit for contempt of Court
has to be exercised with the greatest caution. Neither too sensitive attitude
nor an easy escape from performing the harsh duty would help in maintaining
respect and decorum for the judicial process. [565 D] In the instant case the
reasons which have weighed with the Court to permit withdrawal of the petitions
are: (i) failure to obey the interim order to preserve The film and to make the
same available for exhibition as directed is referable to the writ petition
filed by petitioner who himself at a latter date backed out and withdrew the
petition and (ii) subsequently a full-fledged prosecution was launched which
ended in conviction. The appeal was allowed and the accused acquitted holding
that it was not proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the prints and
negatives of the film were deliberately destroyed by the alleged contemnors.
This is the finding of this Court which would have an impact on the petition
for taking action for contempt on the allegation that the Court's order for
preserving the prints and negatives of the film for screening was deliberately
disobeyed. [565 H; 566 A-C]
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition Nos. 8009 & 8010 Of 1977.
In:-Writ Petition No. 595 of 1977.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India) Amrit Nahata Petitioner-in-person (not Present) 563 L.N. Sinha, Att.
General, R. Vasudevan, C.N. Murty, Miss A. Subhashini, A.K. Srivastava, D.
Bhandari and H.K.
Puri for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DESAI, J. The Union of India has moved this Court seeking permission to
withdraw Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 8009 & 8010/77 pending in
this Court since 1977.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8009 of
1977 was moved by the Solicitor General of India requesting the court to take
action against the five persons whose names and addresses have been set out in
the petition u/s 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on the ground that they
were individually and severally guilty of wilful disobedience to the directions
and order of this Court with regard to the preservation of the film 'Kissa
Kursee Ka', negatives and the prints in proper condition until the disposal of
Writ Petition No. 595/77 and thereby they have interfered with the due course
of judicial proceedings and their conduct was intended and calculated to
interfere with and obstruct the administration of justice by causing the loss
and disappearance of film 'Kissa Kursee Ka' with a view to disabling and
preventing this court from effectively dealing with the writ petition pending
before it and judicially determining the issues arising therein.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8010/77
was also moved by the Solicitor General of India inviting this Court to hold
that prima facie five persons whose names and addresses have been set out in
the petition appear to have committed offences under Sec. 120-B read with Secs.
199 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code and it was expedient in the interest of
justice to file a criminal complaint against them. Broadly, it was alleged that
the averments made in the petition for taking action under the Contempt of Courts
Act when properly viewed would show that the persons mentioned in the petition
prima facie appear to have entered into a conspiracy to intentionally give
false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding as also fabricated
evidence for the aforesaid purpose and intentionally made false statement and
declaration which may in law be receivable in evidence and thereby committed
offences under Secs. 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code.
564 It may be mentioned that Shri Amrit
Nahata had filed a writ petition in this Court praying for a declaration that
Sec. 3 and 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Rule 23 and 25 of the
Cinematograph (Censorship Rules), 1958 were unconstitutional invalid and for a
writ of mandamus directing the respondents in the writ petition to certify his
film 'Kissa Kursee Ka' for unrestricted public exhibition. During the pendency
of the writ petition this Court had made an order on July 18, 1975 that the
petitioner will deliver within one week from the date of the order, negative
and prints, if any, of the film to the Government and the Government will
preserve negatives and prints, if any, in proper condition until the disposal
of the writ petition. During the course of the further proceedings on October
29, 1975, this Court made another order directing that the film 'Kissa Kursee
Ka' be screened on November 17, 1975 at 6 p.m. to be seen by five learned
Judges of this Court. This order led to practically a game of hide and seek but
ultimately the film was not made available for screening as directed by this n
Court.
In the meantime a substantive prosecution was
launched against Shri Vidya Charan Shukla, the then Minister of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India and late Shri Sanjay Gandhi for various
offences. The case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge who
convicted both the accused for various offences and imposed several sentences
on them. The matter was carried in appeal to the Delhi High Court. In the
meantime on the enactment of Special Courts Act, 1979, a declaration u/s 5(1)
of the Special Courts Act was made with the result that the appeal stood
transferred to this Court. The two appeals were heard by this court and the
judgment is reported in V.C. Shukla v.
State Delhi Administration. This Court
acquitted both the accused holding that the charge is not brought home to them.
It may be mentioned that pending the
prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge, this Court postponed hearing of
the petition for taking action for contempt as well as the petition for filing
a criminal complaint against persons shown in both the petitions. After the
decisions in the aforementioned two appeals, the present petition was filed
requesting the Court to permit the Union of India to withdraw both the
petitions.
565 While considering the request for
withdrawal of the proceedings initiated for taking action for contempt of the
Court, the Court would generally be guided by the broad facts of the case and
more particularly whether respect for judicial process would be enhanced or
dwindled by either granting or refusing to grant the request. There is a marked
difference between a complaint made by an individual for wrong done to him and
a petition moved before this court inviting the Court to take notice of the
fact that its contempt has been committed. The contempt is of the court and not
of the individual. Therefore, Sec. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
confers power on this Court as well as on the High Court to take suo moto
action or on a motion made by amongst others, the Solicitor General. It is for
the court to determine whether the act complained of tending to scandalise the
Court if viewed with certain severity with a view to punishing the person would
in the larger interest of the society enhance respect for the judicial process,
or too sensitive attitude in such matter may even become counter-productive.
The power to commit for contempt of court has to be exercised with the greatest
caution. Neither to sensitive attitude nor an easy escape from performing the
harsh duty would help in maintaining respect and decorum for the judicial
process which is essential for establishing a Society based on rule of law.
The Court is to steer clear between two
extremes but it must be remembered that the petitioner who has moved for taking
action in contempt is not entitled as a matter of right to withdraw the
petition whenever it suits his purpose. Once the act, which prima facie shows
that contempt of the court has been committed, is brought to the notice of the
court it is the court which has to decide whether the contempt has been
committed or not or whether it is appropriate to take action or at a latter
date whether to drop the proceedings.
The matter is primarily between the court and
the contemnor.
It is for this reason that while we are
inclined to grant request for withdrawal of petitions we consider it proper to
give few reasons why we consider it proper at this stage to permit withdrawal
of the two petitions.
The first important aspect that has
considerably influenced our thinking is that the failure to obey the interim
order of this Court to preserve the film and negatives and prints of the film
'Kissa Kursee Ka' and to make the same available for exhibition as directed by
this Court is referable to the writ petition filed by Amrit Nahata who himself
at a later date backed out and withdrew the petition. But that 566 itself is a
circumstance of innocuous character.
Subsequently a full-fledged prosecution was
launched inter alia alleging that the prints and negatives of film 'Kissa
Kursee Ka, were deliberately destroyed with a view not to make them available
for screening before the Court as directed by this Court. In this proceeding
evidence was led on behalf of the prosecution and the case ended in a
conviction. While allowing the appeal this Court acquitted the accused holding
that it is not proved to the satisfaction of the court that the prints and
negatives of the film 'Kissa Kursee Ka' were deliberately destroyed by the
alleged contemnors. This is the finding recorded by a Bench of this Court. It
will have an impact on the petition for taking action for contempt on the
allegation that the court's order for preserving the prints and negatives of
the film for screening was deliberately disobeyed. Undoubtedly, the interim
order had to be respected and obeyed. The defence canvassed was that the
negatives and prints of the film got mixed up with other boxes and could not be
traced and that defence appears to have found favour with a Bench of this
Court. This is the most important aspect which has a considerable bearing on
the question whether two petitions should be proceeded with or not.
We must frankly say that the judgment of this
Court in the criminal case by itself is not decisive of the matter.
Independent of it, we would have been
required to examine whether at the date the court made the order, there was any
attempt at deliberately flouting the court's but that would be an attempt at
flogging a carcass, and it would be merely delving deep into an unsavoury past
not very conducive to judicial and judicious approach And one of the alleged
contemnors has met a tragic end.
We are keen to emphasise the fact that the
change in climate has no relevance and it must be said in fairness to Mr. L.N.
Sinha, the learned Attorney General of India who appeared at the hearing of
these petitions that he even once did not refer to it.
Accordingly, having regard to all the aspects
of the matters, we are of the opinion that the prayer for withdrawal of the two
petitions should be granted. Both the petitions are disposed of as withdrawn.
A.P.J.
Back