Hari
Singh Nagra & Ors. Vs. Kapil Sibal & Ors. [2010] INSC 536 (15 July
2010)
Judgment
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (CRL.)
NO. 2 OF 1997 Hari Singh Nagra & Ors. ... Petitioners Versus Kapil Sibal
& Ors. ...
Respondents
J.M.
Panchal, J.
1.
The relevant facts, from which the present contempt petition
arises, are as under :
2.
Mehfil-e-Wukala (`Mehfil' for short) is a cultural and literally
group / association of lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court. The main object
as claimed by the said organization has been to promote art, culture and
literature amongst the members of the Bar. The said group of 22 lawyers also
claims that Mehfil provides the members of legal fraternity a chance to break
away from the busy schedule to pursue their talents in the fields of art,
culture and literature. The Mehfil was started in the year 1986 as a small
group of poets-advocates who used to sit periodically at each other's place and
recite poems etc. In the year 1992-93, the members of the Mehfil decided to
hold an annual function and to invite more members of the Bar and also the
Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi to participate
in the activities of the Mehfil. It was also decided to release a souvenir on
the said occasion, which was to contain brief account of the activities of the
Mehfil, messages, articles etc. to be contributed by the Hon'ble Judges and
senior members of the Bar. Accordingly, Annual Function was held on February 6,
1993 at India International Centre, New Delhi and a souvenir was published.
Again on February 5, 1994, Annual Function was held which was attended by the
members of the Bar and the Hon'ble Judges. On this occasion also a souvenir was
published which contained various messages, articles, poems etc. contributed by
the 22 members of the Bar and the Hon'ble Judges. For the year 1994-95, it was
decided to hold the Annual Function on March 25, 1995. As was done in the
previous years, it was decided to release a souvenir on the said occasion. The
function was held on the scheduled date and the souvenir was published. It is
claimed by Mr. Suresh C. Gupta, learned counsel practicing in this Court in his
affidavit in reply that articles and messages were sent by the then Hon'ble
Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy, hon'ble
Justice Dr. A.S. Anand, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Mr. K.K. Venugopal,
Senior Advocate and the then President of Supreme Court Bar Association,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.L. Hansaria etc.
Mr. Kapil
Sibal who is Senior Advocate also sent a message to be published in the
souvenir. In his message Mr. Sibal expressed concern about the plight of junior
members of the Bar and also about falling standards of the legal fraternity.
The
message was not released to the press nor the souvenir was made available for
sale but was circulated to its members and other members of the Bar. Initially,
the message sent by 22 Mr. Sibal did not invite any controversy whatsoever for
about a month. However, Mr. Sibal, the learned Senior Advocate, decided to
contest for the post of President of Supreme Court Bar Association and filed
his nomination. Thereafter, a news item was published in the Sunday Times of India
daily dated April 16, 1995 wherein certain excerpts from the message which was
published in the souvenir of the Mehfil, were reported which suggested that Mr.
Sibal had made a frontal attack on the judiciary.
3.
The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are practicing advocates at the Punjab
and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Their claim was that Mr. Sibal who is a
Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and was contender for the Presidentship of
Supreme Court Bar Association, had by sending a message which was published in
the souvenir of the Mehfil committed a criminal contempt of the court. The
petitioner Nos.1 to 5 were of the view that a real prejudice, which can be
regarded as substantial interference in the administration of justice was
caused because of the calculated and keenly studied attempt 22 by Mr. Sibal to
denigrate the institution of judiciary. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 claimed that
the remarks made by Mr. Sibal against Hon'ble Judges amounted to an unignorable
and unpardonable mischief which had tendency to shake the faith of the people
of the country in the judiciary. What was claimed by the petitioners was that
Mr. Sibal had entered into a conspiracy with the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to
bring the administration of justice into disrespect which amounted to
deliberate interference in the administration of justice and as he had imputed
unsubstantiated charges of corruption against the Judges, he was liable to be
hauled up for contempt of Court. Therefore, the petitioners instituted Criminal
Contempt Petition No.12 of 1995 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh. The said petition was filed under Article 215 of the Constitution
and prayer made was to punish the respondents for committing contempt of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Initially, the said petition
was placed for preliminary hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High
Court. The learned Single Judge was of the view that what was alleged by the
petitioners against the three 22 respondents impleaded therein was criminal
contempt and, therefore, in view of the mandatory provisions contained in
Section 15 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 the petition should be heard and
decided by a Bench of not less than two Judges. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge, by an order dated May 16, 1991 directed the Registry to place the papers
before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for listing the matter before a Bench
consisting of not less than two judges. Accordingly, the matter was placed for
preliminary hearing before a Division Bench and the Bench issued show cause
notice to the original respondent Nos.1 to 3 stating that they were directed by
the Division Bench to implead the Editors, Printers and Publishers of `Mehfil-e-Wukala'.
The petitioners filed an application to implead the respondent Nos.4 and 5 as
respondents in the contempt petition as they were editors of the Mehfil. The
said application was granted and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were impleaded in
the Contempt Petition. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 Secretaries of
Mehfil-e-Wukala filed Transfer Petition No.251 of 1996 in this Court and prayed
to transfer the Contempt Petition pending before the Punjab and Haryana 22 High
Court at Chandigarh to this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties the said petition was allowed and that is why the Registry has
registered the case as Transfer Case (Criminal) No.2 of 1997. On notice being
served, Mr. Sibal and other respondents have filed affidavit in reply
controverting the claims advanced by the petitioners.
4.
The question posed for consideration of the Court is whether
sufficient case is made out by the petitioners to initiate contempt proceedings
against the respondents. It may be mentioned that after transfer of the case
from Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh to this Court, several notices
have been issued to the petitioners who are practicing lawyers at the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. However, they have not responded to the
notices nor entered appearance through their learned advocate nor thought it
fit to assist the Court in the proceedings initiated by them. However, it is
well settled that contempt of Court is a matter between the Court and the
alleged contemnor. The matter is pending in this Court since the year 1997.
22
Therefore, this Court has decided to proceed with the hearing of the matter,
notwithstanding, the absence of the petitioners.
This
Court has heard Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the respondent
No.1 and learned senior counsel Mr. Ranjit Kumar appearing for the learned
advocates at whose instance, the contempt petition was transferred to this
Court.
5.
In order to decide the question posed for consideration of this
Court, it would be relevant to set out the Message/Article contributed by the
respondent No.1 in the souvenir of the Mehfil :
"The
public image of the legal community is at its nadir. Influx of large numbers
into the profession, deterioration of moral standards of the legal community
questionable integrity of some of those who are in judiciary and the sheer
economic cost of starting as a professional and sustaining one self have
contributed to these falling standards.
The
judiciary, despite the above, provides a glimmer of hope for the common man.
Those who adorn this institution, though tainted, have not yet lost all
credibility. We have to all unite together to refurbish the image of the legal
fraternity. Before we point fingers at others, let us do some soul-searching.
22 For a
start, let us concentrate on the junior members of the Bar. Our senior
colleagues owe it to the profession to bring up the Junior Bar. This can never
be done until junior members of the Bar have access to the chambers of senior
lawyers. We must devise what I may call Voluntary Access Scheme : in terms of
which the Supreme Court Bar Association should rotate junior members of the bar
amongst the chambers of Senior Lawyers who voluntarily want to participate in
this scheme. Access should be provided to at least one, if not two, junior
members of the bar to each senior on the basis of rotation for 6 months at a
time. This will give to the junior members the advantage of having worked with
a variety of seniors. Of course, a minimum payment schedule must be part of
this scheme.
We must
draw up a Code of Conduct applicable to the members of the Bar which will lay
down norms not only in relation to their conduct with each other but also with
reference to their conduct qua the Bench. Lawyers must refrain from shouting at
each other, speaking in anger, threatening judges, threatening colleagues and
the like. It is also necessary that procedures must be devised to ensure
adherence to these norms.
Entry
into the profession should be limited to only those who pass an examination
which may be conducted by the Bar Council of India. This, of course, 22
requires legislation. Lawyers must get together, apply their mind to this issue
and ensure the passing of this legislation.
It seems
that judges have started disciplining lawyers. Judges themselves need
disciplining. The judiciary has failed in its efforts to eradicate the
phenomenon of corruption. This phenomenon includes receiving monetary benefits
for judicial pronouncements rendering blatantly dishonest judgments, kow-towing
with political personalities and obviously favouring the Government and thereby
losing all sense of objectivity.
The legal
community instead of publically denigrading judicial system should come forward
with proposed legislation to deal with this issue. A committee must be set up
by the Supreme Court Bar Association to look into the modalities of bringing
about such legislation in the context of the present constitutional frame-work
which provides complete protection to the judiciary.
The issue
of legal education must be addressed by the legal fraternity in cooperation
with institutions providing legal education in India. Funding should be
provided for studies to be conducted in such aspects of the law as required
urgent attention.
There
must be greater interaction between the various Bar Associations in the
country. Constant interaction will lead to exchange of information which, in
turn, will enable all of us to attend 22 urgently to the needs of the members
of the legal profession.
These are
thoughts which require both immediate attention and a well thought of strategy.
If we pause for a moment and think about what I have said, at least we will
have made a start."
6.
It may be stated that the Times of India, Delhi dated April 16, 1995
in the issue of Sunday Times published excerpts from the above quoted message
sent by Mr. Sibal and title it as Sibal's Remark Stir Row in Legal Circles.
7.
A fair analysis of the message sent by Mr. Sibal makes it clear
that he was concerned with the public image of the legal community which
according to him was at its nadir. He was of the view that influx of large
numbers into the profession, deterioration of moral standards of the legal
community, questionable integrity of some of those who were in judiciary and
the sheer economic cost of starting as a professional and sustaining one self
had contributed to these falling standards.
He
expressed his firm opinion that judiciary despite the above, provided a glimmer
of hope for the common man and though 22 there were tainted Judges, the
institution had not yet lost all credibility. He called upon all concerned to
unite together to refurbish the image of the legal fraternity. In order to make
out his point Mr. Sibal first of all concentrated on the plight of junior
members of the Bar. After emphasizing that senior colleagues owe it to the
profession to bring up the Junior Bar and that the junior members of the bar
must have access to the chambers of the Senior Lawyers, he appealed to the
members of the Bar to devise a Voluntary Access Scheme in terms of which the
Supreme Court Bar Association would rotate junior members of the Bar amongst
the chambers of Senior Lawyers who voluntarily want to participate in the
Scheme. Mr. Sibal was of the view that access should be provided to at least
one if not two junior members of the bar to each senior on the basis of
rotation for at least six months which according to him was likely to give the
junior members the advantage of having worked with a variety of seniors. He
also emphasized that a minimum payment schedule to the junior members of the
Bar must be part of this Scheme. He called upon those concerned to draw up a
Code of Conduct 22 applicable to the members of the bar which would lay down
norms not only in relation to their conduct with each other but also with
reference to their conduct qua the Bench. He was of the opinion that lawyers
must refrain from shouting at each other, speaking in anger, threatening
Judges, threatening colleagues and the like and expressed his strong feeling by
stating that procedures must be devised to ensure adherence to these norms. He
was of the further opinion that entry into the profession should be limited to
those who passed an examination which should be conducted by the Bar Council of
India. Having addressed to the drawbacks then prevailing in the legal
profession, he proceeded to discuss the malaise affecting the judiciary. Having
practiced in the Supreme Court for a pretty long time, he perceived that Judges
had started disciplining lawyers. He, therefore, mentioned that Judges
themselves needed to be disciplined. In his Message, he noted with pain that
judiciary had failed in its efforts to eradicate the phenomenon of corruption
which included receiving monetary benefits for judicial pronouncements,
rendering blantantly dishonest, judgments, kow-towing with political
personalities 22 and favouring the Government and thereby losing sense of
objectivity. Mr. Sibal had noticed that legal community was assailing and
belittling the judicial system publically, which was harmful. He, therefore,
urged the legal community to desist from criticizing the judicial system
publically and asked them to come forward with proposed legislation to deal
with this issue and advised a Committee to be set up by the Supreme Court Bar
Association to look into the modalities of bringing about such legislation in
the context of then prevalent constitutional framework which according to him
provided complete protection to the judiciary. He also emphasized in his
message the necessity of legal education by the legal fraternity in cooperation
with institutions providing legal education in India and expressed a point of
view that funding should be provided for studies to be conducted in such
aspects of the law as required urgent attention. Mr. Sibal further stressed
necessity of having greater interaction between the various Bar Associations in
the country to exchange information which in turn would enable all concerned to
attend urgently to the needs of the members of 22 the legal profession.
As
mentioned earlier, only a part of message was published in the newspaper
wherein sentences were torn out of context and an impression was given that Mr.
Sibal had made a frontal attack on the judiciary. A fair reading of the message
quoted above makes it explicit that the sending and/or publication of the
message in the Mehfil did not scandalize or tend to scandalize, or lower or
tend to lower the authority of any court nor prejudiced, or interfered or
tended to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings; or
interfered or tended to interfere with or obstructed or tended to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner, within the meaning of `criminal
contempt' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Having regard to the contours of the issue involved, this
Court feels that it would be essential to recall to the memory the weighty
observations made by His Lordship Sabyasachi Mukherji in P.N. Duda vs. P. Shiv
Shanker & Ors. (1988) 3 SCC 167.
Therein,
Mr. P. Shiv Shankar who at the relevant time was the 22 Hon'ble Minister for
Law, Justice and Company Affairs had delivered a speech before a meeting of the
Bar Council of Hyderabad. Mr. P.N. Duda, an advocate practicing in Supreme
Court had drawn attention of the Court to that speech. According to Mr. Duda,
the speech of Mr. P. Shiv Shankar contained statements which were derogatory to
the dignity of this Court as it attributed partiality towards economically
affluent sections of the people, by this Court.
Mr. Duda
was of the view that language used in the statements was extremely intemperate,
undignified and unbecoming of a person of Mr. Shiv Shankar's stature and
position. Mr. Duda, therefore, urged the Court to initiate contempt proceedings
against Mr. P. Shiv Shankar. The Court went through the entire speech and also
noticed the newspaper version of the said speech. This Court took into
consideration the suggestion made by Lord Atkin in Ambard vs. Attorney General
for Trinidad and Tobago 1936 AC 322, E.M. Shankaran Namboodiripad vs. T.
Narayanan Nambiar (1970) 2 SCC 325 and made following apt observations in
paragraphs 12 and 13 of the reported decision :
22
"12. The question of contempt of court by newspaper article criticising
the Judges of the Court came up for consideration in the case of Re: Shri S.
Mulgaokar. In order to appreciate the controversy in this case it has to be
stated that the issue dated 13th December, 1977, of the Indian Express
published a news item that the High Courts had reacted very strongly to the
suggestion of introducing a code of judicial ethics and propriety and that
"an adverse has been the criticism that the Supreme Court Judges, some of
whom had prepared the draft code, have disowned it". In its issue dated
December 21, 1977 an article entitled "behaving like a Judge" was
published which inter alia stated that the Supreme Court of India was
"packed" by Mrs. Indira Gandhi "with pliant and submissive
judges except for a few". It was further stated that the suggestion that a
code of ethics should be formulated by Judges themselves was "so utterly
inimical to the independence of the judiciary, violative of the Constitutional
safeguards in that respect and offensive to the self-respect of the Judges as
to make one wonder how it was conceived in the first place". A notice had
been issued to the Editor-in-Chief of the Newspaper to show-cause why
proceedings for contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution should not be
initiated against him in respect of the above two news items.
13. It
was observed by Chief Justice Beg in that decision that national interest
required that all criticisms of the 22 judiciary must be strictly rational and
sober and proceed from the highest motives without being coloured by any
partisan spirit or tactics. This should be a part of national ethics. The
comments about Judges of the Supreme Court suggesting that they lack moral
courage to the extent of having "disowned" what they had done or in
other words, to the extent of uttering what was untrue, at least verge on
contempt. None could say that such suggestions would not make Judges of this
Court look ridiculous or even unworthy, in the estimation of the public, of the
very high office they hold if they could so easily "disown" what they
had done after having really done it. It was reiterated that the judiciary can
not be immune from criticism. But, when that criticism was based on obvious
distortion or gross misstatement and made in a manner which seems designed to
lower respect for the judiciary and destroy public confidence in it, it could
not be ignored. A decision on the question whether the discretion to take
action for Contempt of Court should be exercised must depend on the totality of
facts and circumstances of the case. The Chief Justice agreed with the other
two learned Judges in that decision that in those facts the proceedings should
be dropped. Krishna Iyer, J. in his judgment observed that the Court should act
with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardised by a gross and/or
unfounded attack on the Judges, where the attack was calculated to obstruct or
destroy the judicial process. The Court must 22 harmonise the constitutional
values of free criticism, and the need for a fearless curial process and its
presiding functionary, the judge. To criticise a judge fairly albeit fiercely,
is no crime but a necessary right. Where freedom of expression subserves public
interest in reasonable measure, public justice cannot gag it or manacle it. The
Court must avoid confusion between personal protection of a libelled judge and
prevention of obstruction of public justice and the community's confidence in
that great process. The former is not contempt but latter is, although
overlapping spaces abound. The fourth functional canon is that the Fourth
Estate should be given free play within responsible limits even when the focus
of its critical attention is the court, including the highest court.
The fifth
normative guideline for the Judges to observe is not to be hypersensitive even
where distortions and criticisms overstep the limits, but to deflate vulgar
denunciation by dignified bearing, and the sixth consideration is that if the
Court considers the attack on the judge or judges scurrilous, offensive,
intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law
must strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by
fouling its sources and stream."
8.
There is no manner of doubt that Judges are accountable to the
society and their accountability must be judged by their 22 conscience and oath
of their office. Any criticism about the judicial system or the judges which
hampers the administration of justice or brings administration of justice into
ridicule must be prevented. The contempt of court proceedings arise out of that
attempt. National interest requires that all criticisms of the judiciary must
be strictly rational and sober and proceed from the highest motives without
being coloured by any partisan spirit or tactics. There is no manner of doubt
that freedom of expression as contemplated by Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution is available to the Press and to criticize a judgment fairly
albeit fiercely is no crime but a necessary right. A fair and reasonable
criticism of a judgment which is a public document or which is a public act of
a Judge concerned with administration of justice would not constitute contempt.
In fact, such fair and reasonable criticism must be encouraged because after
all no one, much less Judges, can claim infallibility. The Message examined the
evils prevailing in the judicial system and was written with an object to
achieve maintenance of purity in the administration of justice. The message was
exposition of Mr.
22
Sibal's ideology and he had shown the corrective measures to be adopted to get
the institution rid of the shortcomings mentioned by him. On the facts of the
case, the message sent by Mr. Sibal to be published in the souvenir of the
Mehfil will have to be regarded as fair criticism of his senior colleagues for
their failure to bring up the Junior Bar and of those members of the Bar who
were shouting at each other and threatening the Judges. The message is nothing
but concerns of a senior advocate who has practiced long in this Court who
noticed that the public image of the legal community was its nadir.
The
article nowhere targets a particular judge. This is not a case of an attack on
a Judge which is scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond
condonable limits, in respect of a judgment or his conduct. The article is an
expression of opinion about an institutional pattern. The article by itself
does not affect the administration of justice. Here, it would not be out of place
to refer to certain reported decisions dealing with the question as to when a
publication can be regarded as scandalizing the Court or tending to interfere
with the administration of justice or lowering the authority of 22 Court.
Scandalising in substance is an attack on individual Judges or the Court as a
whole with or without referring to particular cases casting unwarranted and
defamatory aspersions upon the character or the ability of the Judges.
`Scandalising
the Court' is a convenient way of describing a publication which, although it
does not relate to any specific case either post or pending or any specific
Judge, is a scurrilous attack on the judiciary as a whole which is calculated
to undermine the authority of the Courts and public confidence in the
administration of justice.
9.
In re: Sham Lal AIR 1978 SC 489, a news item referring to a signed
document describing one of the views expressed in the Habeas Corpus case, i.e.,
ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521 as `misdeed' and Judges who
gave such decision would be `ostracized' in other countries appeared in
newspaper Times of India. This Court was called upon to initiate contempt
proceedings. The Court took the view that this was not a fit case for drawing
up formal contempt proceedings and dropped the proceedings. In 22 Vishwanath
vs. E.S. Venkataramaih 1990 Cri.L.J. 2179 (Bom), Mr. E.s. Venkataramaiah,
former Chief Justice of India, gave an interview to a noted journalist Kuldeep
Nair at the eve of his retirement on 17.12.1989 which was published in several
newspapers. In course of interview, the former Chief Justice is stated to have
made the following statements : "The judiciary in India has deteriorated
in its standards because such judges are appointed as are willing to be influenced
by lavish parties & Whisky Bottles." In every High Court, Justice
Venkataramaiha said, there are at least 4 to 5 judges who are practically out
every evening, wining and dining either at a lawyer's house or foreign embassy.
He estimates the number of such judges around 90 and favours transferring them
to other High Courts.
Chief
Justice Venkataramaiha reiterated that close relations of Judges be debarred
from practicing in the same High Courts. He expressed himself strongly against
sons-in- law and brothers of Judges appearing in the Courts where the latter
are on the Bench. Most relations of Judges are 22 practicing in High Courts of
Allahabad, Chandigarh, Delhi and Patna.
According
to C.J. Venkataramaiha practically in all the 22 High Courts in the country
close relations of Judges are thriving. There are allegations that certain
judgments have been influenced through them even though they have not been
directly engaged as lawyers in such case. It is hard to believe the reports
that every brother, son or son-in-law of a judge whatever his merit or lack of
it as lawyer can be sure of earning an income of more than Rs.10,000/- a month.
The
Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that the words complained of did not
amount to Contempt of Court on the grounds that (1) the entire interview
appears to have been given with the idea to improve the judiciary; (2) the
Supreme Court had dismissed the Writ Petition (C) No.126 of 1990 filed on
behalf of State Legal Aid Committee, J & K for an appropriate writ
commanding the Union of India or any other appropriate authority to disclose
the names of 90 judges as mentioned by the former Chief Justice of India.
10.
In Bramhaprakash Sharma vs. State of UP AIR 1954 SC 10, Resolution
of the Executive Committee of the District Bar Association of the Muzzafarnagar
to the effect that two judicial officers were thoroughly incompetent and to not
inspire confidence and are given to stating wrong facts, was considered
overbearing and discourteous but no action was taken against the members of the
Bar.
11.
Bearing in mind the trends in the law of contempt as noticed by
this Court in P.N. Duda vs. P. Shiv Shankar (supra), the message contributed by
Mr. Sibal, read in its proper prospective, did not bring the administration of
justice into disrepute or impair. Therefore, it must be held that no criminal
contempt was committed or attempted to be committed by the respondent No.1.
12.
On behalf of the Times of India, written statement has been filed
by Mr. Rakesh Bhatnagar. In the reply, the contempt petition is sought to be
defended on merits but it is mentioned that there was no deliberate or
intentional attempt on the part of the answering respondent to lower the
prestige 22 of the Hon'ble Court. By filing the reply the newspaper has
tendered unconditional and unqualified apology, if the Court comes to the
conclusion that contempt of court was committed by the respondent No.3.
However, it will not be out of place to mention that the article which appeared
in the Times of India was torn out of text. If the full text of the message
sent by Mr.
Sibal had
been published in the newspaper, in all probabilities the petitioners were not
likely to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of the Court against the
respondents.
However,
in view of the unconditional apology tendered, it is not necessary for this
Court to delve into details about the conduct of the respondent No.3 any
further. There is nothing on the record to show that the souvenir of the Mehfil
in which the message was printed was sold to the public. This was a kind of
internal pamphlet/brochure which was distributed to its members. Therefore, no
case is made out against respondent Nos.4 and 5 who were subsequently impleaded
in the petition.
13.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the opinion that this is not a fit case where a formal proceedings for
contempt should be drawn up and, therefore, notices issued to them will have to
be discharged and the petition will have to be dismissed.
For the
foregoing reasons, the contempt proceedings are dropped. The notices issued to
the respondents are discharged and the petition is dismissed.
...................................J. (J.M. Panchal)
...................................J. (A.K. Patnaik)
New Delhi;
Back
