REPORTABLE

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 U D G M E N T

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

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.

22

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.

22

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; July 15, 2010

22