http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: AMRIT NAHATA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/05/1985

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

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]

JUDGMENT:      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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

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. 567