http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: In re THE EDITOR, PRINTER ANDPUBLISHER OF"THE TIMES OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ARABINDA BOSE AND ANOTHER.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/1952

BENCH: MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND BENCH: MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND MUKHERJEA, B.K. DAS, SUDHI RANJAN AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.

CITATION:  1953 AIR   75            1953 SCR  215  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1971 SC 221  (15)

ACT: Contempt  of Court-Article imputing motives to  judges-Gross contempt-Apology-Practice of Supreme Court.

HEADNOTE: It is not the practice of the Supreme Court to issue a  rule for contempt of Court except in very grave and serious cases and it is never over-sensitive to public criticism; but when there  is danger of grave mischief being done in the  matter of administration of justice, the animadversion will not  be ignored and viewed with placid equanimity. A leading article in the " Times of India " on the  judgment of the Supreme Court in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda  Bose and  Another  ([1953]  S.C.R.  1)  contained  the  following statements:  "the fact of the matter is that in  the  higher legal  latitudes  in Delhi the dual system was  regarded  as obsolete  and anomalous......... There is a, tell-tale  note at  the  top of the rules framed by the  Supreme  Court  for enrolment  of  advocates and agents to the effect  that  the rules  were  subject to revision and the  Judges  had  under consideration   a   proposal   for   abolishing   the   dual system.........  To  achieve a dubious or  even  a  laudable purpose by straining the law is hardly 216 edifying.   Politics and policies have no place in the  pure region of the law and Courts of law would serve the  country and  the  Constitution better by discarding  all  extraneous considerations   and   uncompromisingly   observing   divine detachment............"   In  proceedings  for  contempt  of Court:  Held,  that if the articles had merely  preached  to Courts  of  law a sermon of divine detachment  no  objection could  be taken, but in attributing improper motives to  the judges, the article not only transgressed the limits of fair and  bona fide criticism but had a clear tendency to  affect the dignity and prestige of the Court and it was therefore a gross contempt of court.   If  an  impression is created in the minds of  the  public

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

that  the  judges of the highest court in the  land  act  on extraneous  considerations in deciding cases the  confidence of  the whole community in the administration of justice  is bound to be undermined and no greater mischief than that can possibly be imagined.   [In  view  of the unconditional apology  tendered  by  the Editor,  Printer and Publisher and the undertaking given  by them to give wide publicity to their regret, the proceedings were dropped.] Andrew  Paul  v. Attorney-General of Trinidad  (A.I.R.  1936 P.C. 141) referred to.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 160 of 1952. Contempt of Court proceedings against the Editor, Printer and  Publisher of  the  "Times  of India" (Daily), Bombay  and  Delhi,  for publishing  a leading article in their paper of October  30, 1952, entitled A Disturbing Decision ".  M. C. Setalvad, Attorney- General for India (P.  A. Mehta, with him) (amicus curiae).  N. C.  Chatterjee (Nur-ud-Din Ahmad and A. E.  Dutt,  with him) for the contemners.  1952.  December 12.  The Order of the Court was delivered- by  MAHAJAN  J.-In its issue of the 30th October, 1952, the  " Times  of India", a daily newspaper published in Bombay  and New Delhi, a leading article was published under the heading "  A disturbing decision ". The burden of it was that  in  a singularly oblique and infelicitous manner the Supreme Court -had  -by a majority decision tolled the knell of  the  much maligned dual system prevailing in the Calcutta  and  Bombay High Courts by holding that the 217 right  to practise in any High Court conferred on  advocates of the Supreme Court, made the rules in force in those  High Courts requiring advocates appearing on the Original Side to be  instructed  by  attorneys  inapplicable  to  them.   The article concluded with the following passage:- "  The fact of the matter appears to be that in the  -higher legal latitudes at New Delhi and elsewhere the dual  -system is regarded as obsolete and anomalous.  There is a tell-tale note at the top of the rules framed by the Supreme Court for enrolment  of  advocates and agents to the effect  that  the rules  were  subject to revision and the  judges  had  under consideration  a  proposal for abolishing the  dual  system. Abolish  it  by ’all means if the system  has  outgrown  its usefulness and is found incongruous in the new setting of  a democratic Constitution.  But to achieve a dubious or even a laudable  purpose by straining the law is  hardly  edifying. Politics  and policies have no place in the pure  region  of the  law; and courts of law would serve the country and  the Constitution    better   by   discarding   all    extraneous considerations   and   uncompromisingly   observing   divine detachment  which is the glory of law and the  guarantee  of justice."  No objection could have been taken to the article had  -it merely  preached to the courts of law the sermon  of  divine detachment.   But  when it proceeded to  attribute  improper motives  to the judges, it not only transgressed the  limits of fair and bona fide criticism but had a clear tendency  to affect the dignity and prestige of this Court.  The  article in  question  was  thus a gross contempt of  court.   It  is obvious that if an impression is created in the minds of the

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

public  that  the judges in the -highest court in  the  land ’act  on  extraneous considerations in deciding  cases,  the confidence  of the whole community in the administration  of justice is bound to be undermined and no greater ,  mischief than that can possibly be imagined.  It was for this  reason that the rule was issued against the respondents. 218 We  are  happy  to find that the  Editor,  Printer  and  the Publisher of the paper in their respective affidavits  filed in  these  proceedings  have frankly stated  that  they  now realize that in the offending article they had exceeded  the limits of legitimate criticism in that words or  expressions which can be construed as casting reflection upon the  court and  constituting  Contempt had crept into  it.   They  have expressed  sincere regret and have tendered  unreserved  and unqualified apology for this first lapse of theirs. We would like to observe that it is not the practice of this Court to issue such rules except in very grave and serious cases  and it  is never over-sensitive to public criticism;  but  -*hen there  is danger of grave mischief being done in the  matter of  administration of justice,. the animadversion cannot  be ignored and viewed with placid equanimity.  In this  ’matter we  are  of  the  same opinion as  was  expressed  by  their Lordships  of the Privy Council in Andre Paul  v.  Attorney- General of Trinidad (1), Where they observed as follows:-  "The  path of criticism is A public way: the  wrong-headed are  permitted to err therein; provided that members of  the public  abstain  from  imputing improper  motives  to  those taking  part  in  the administration  of  justice,  and  are genuinely exercising a right of criticism and not acting  in malice  or  attempting  to  impair  the  administration   of justice,  they  are  immune.  Justice is  not  a  cloistered virtue;  she  must  be allowed to suffer  the  scrutiny  and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men."  In  view  of  the unconditional apology  tendered  by  the respondents  and the undertaking given by them to give  wide publicity  to their regret, we have decided to drop  further proceedings and we accept the apology and discharge the rule without any order as to costs. Rule discharged. Agent  for the contemners: Rajinder Narain. (1)  A.I.R. 1936 P.C. 141. 219