PE Presentation.pptx Contempt of Court Act, 1952

•The appellant is the Chief minister of Kerala who was charged with contempt and convicted with a fine of Rs.1000/- along with simple imprisonment for one month by the High Court of Kerala.
•The Appellant has appealed under Article 134(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution. That article stipulates that an appeal shall lie against the final order in a criminal proceeding of the High Court, if the HC certifies that the case is fit for an appeal under the SC.
•The appellant is convicted because when he was the CM he made certain utterances at a Press Conference held by him at Trivandrum in 1967. The report was published on the next day in Indian Express.
•The appellant showed cause via an affidavit stating that the report was substantially correct barring some mistakes.

1. Contempt of Court Act, 1952 (now 1971). Case: E.M.Sankaran Namboodripad v T. Narayanan Nambiar , 1970.

2. Facts: The appellant is the Chief minister of Kerala who was charged with contempt and convicted with a fine of Rs.1000/- along with simple imprisonment for one month by the High Court of Kerala. The Appellant has appealed under Article 134(1) (c) of the Indian Constitution. That article stipulates that an appeal shall lie against the final order in a criminal proceeding of the H igh Court, if the HC certifies that the case is fit for an appeal under the SC. The appellant is convicted because when he was the CM he made certain utterances at a Press Conference held by him at Trivandrum in 1967. T he report was published on the next day in Indian Express. The appellant showed cause via an affidavit stating that the report was substantially correct barring some mistakes.

3. The statements that the appellant made were: 1. He said that Judges are guided and dominated by class hatred, class interests and class prejudices and where the evidence is balanced between a well dressed pot-bellied rich man and a poor ill-dressed and illiterate person the judge instinctively favours the former. 2. election of Judges would be a better arrangement, but unless the basic state set up is changed, it could not solve the problem. 3. The judiciary is weighted against workers and other sections of the working classes and the law and the system of judiciary essentially serve the exploiting classes. T he judiciary influences the executive . To say this is not wrong. The judiciary was only an institution like the President or Parliament or the Public Service Commission. Even the President is subject to impeachment. After all, sovereignty rested not with the people. The judge is subject to his own idiosyncrasies and prejudices . He finally said that ”the HC and SC can maul me up, if they want.”

4. Contentions of the Counsel for the appellant: In his affidavit, he stated that his intensions were not mala fide but were just opinions made in view of freedom guaranteed under the Constitution. [ Article 19(1)a]. It is pertinent to mention that the statements made by me do not fall under the reservations mentioned under Article 19(2). He also said that what he stated was was contained in Chapter 5 of the Programme of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) adopted in November 1964 . He says that he is a follower of the preachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin. These contentions were accepted by one of the judges of the SC but the other two dissented, which is the majority opinion. He pleaded that his statement did not have the intention to undermine the majesty of law, dignity of courts or obstruct the administration of justice. It was just fair and reasonable criticism of the judicial system. He added that he had always shown respect to the judiciary but the fair criticism of the judiciary was not only his right but also his duty towards the people.

5. Contentions of the Counsel for the Appellant: The law of contempt must be read in isolation of the freedom of speech and expression. The intention of the contemnor in making the statement must be considered in light of his political views along with the harm done to the judiciary. A case cited was a criminal appeal In Re Basuddeo Prasad, Advocate , Patna High Court, 1962 , wherein the offending statement was that many lawyers without practice get appointed as judges of the High Courts. The court in this case did not constitute this statement as contempt and held that since the person was then the Secretary of the Indian Council of Public Affairs and an advocate, was entitled to comment on the choice of judges and that the remarks were within the proper limits of public criticism. To this the court in hearing held that Each case must be examined on its own facts and the decision must be reached in the context of what was done or said.

6. The Law of contempt: Traditionally, contempt used to mean when a person has disregarded the order of a king or any governmental authority. Contempt of Court act originated from the English law. Essentially, contempt of court is the conduct of a person who disrespects or insults the a uthority of a court. Section 2 of the Act, talks about contempt and divided them into civil and criminal contempt. The primary form can be insulting, attacking, commenting, scandalizing the judges and their judgements or obstructing the administration of justice. The final form of contempt is when the conduct of the person is in disregard to the order of the court and to offend the dignity and majesty of law. Such contempt may be committed either in the presence of a judge or absence of the judge or it can be addressed to the whole of the judicial community.

7. Whether the appellant has said anything which brings him out of the protection of the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and exposes him to a charge of contempt? ISSUE :

8. Court’s decision: The law of contempt should be so applied that the freedom of speech and expression are not whittled down . Though this is true, while exercising the right of freedom of speech and expression contempt of court shall not be committed. Article 129 and 215 specifically confer on this court the power to punish for contempt of themselves. The guaranteed right under article 19(1)(a) is intended to give protection to expression of free opinions to change political and social conditions and to advance human knowledge. While the right is essential to a free society, the Constitution has itself imposed restrictions in relation to contempt of court and it cannot therefore be said that the right abolishes the law of contempt or that attacks upon judges and courts will be condoned . The court goes on to say that they shall consider the justification given by the appellant in order to decide if it comes under the guaranteed right stipulated under Article 19(1)(a). in para 13 the court summarizes the affidavit that was submitted to court by the appellant.

9. The Court went on to explain how the appellant had a distorted view of the philosophy. It held that Marxism was about how man’s inherent rationalism would help create a better society where there would be no injustice, oppression. Marx basically demanded social justice and called out all forms of oppressions on the exploited classes. Marx’s contribution was to provide for a scientific and ethical approach to the problem of inequality. He saw the revolution coming, wherein the capitalistic form shifted to a socialistic form. This was with the introduction of machinery which cut down labour value the means of production passed into the hands of a few. His view was the obstruction to the triumph of the working class was the government stablished by capitalists, from where stemmed his hostility towards state, its government and its laws. Lenin thought that the the State degenerated into an instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed classes and wielded special public powers to tax and maintain armies . The State is the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises when , where and to the extent that class antagonisms objectively cannot be reconciled . And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable . The state according to Engels was the product of society and the officers of the State were specially protected as they had the protection of the laws. From this sprung his hostility to the State.

10. The court quotes one of Engel’s letters to the Spanish Federal Council of the International Workingmen's Association, London , wherein he mentioned that the power of the exploiting class kept the working class in service not only by exploiting as labour but also by the power of the state, the army, the bureaucracy and the courts. He did not point at the judiciary as the culprit but only mentioned it as an evil adjunct of the administration of class legislation. The fault was with the state and the laws and not with the judiciary. Marx and Engels knew that the administration of justice must change with laws and changes in society, there was thus no need to castigate the judges as such beyond saving that the judicial system is the prop of the state . The Court concludes that after thorough consideration of all the theories and socialist views of various scholars, they have not come across the quotes or theories that the appellant alleges. The court further concludes that either the appellant has no knowledge of all the writings or has deliberately distorted the writings of Marx, Lenin and Engels. It is obvious that the appellant has misguided himself about the true teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

11. FINAL WORDS BY THE COURT The court held that the judiciary gets it powers and jurisdictions from the Constitution and that is the supreme law. The actions of the court may sting the party that loses a case and it is pertinent to note that one of the main functions of the court under the Constitution is to declare actions that are in violation of the Constitution or any laws as invalid. All organs of the State are equally bound by the provisions of the Constitution. Another aspect that the court touches upon is that the court cannot be sentimental to all the comments made upon it and give support to something which they consider to be wrong against the Constitution and the laws . The judiciary as a legal system has to maintain the people’s confidence and attempts made to shake that confidence cannot be condoned as that will strike at the very root of democracy. “ To say that the judiciary is an instrument of oppression, the judge i s guided and dominated by class hatred, class interests and class prejudices, instinctively favouring the rich against the poor is to draw a very distorted and poor picture of the judiciary . It is clear that it is an attack upon judges which will raise in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with, and distrust of all judicial decisions. It weakens the authority of law and law courts . ” (para 34) The Court held that Whether the appellant misunderstood the teachings to Marx and Engels or deliberately distorted them is not to much purpose. The likely effect of his words must be seen which have the effect of lowering the prestige of judges and courts in the eyes of the people. His intention was deliberate or ignorant is not to be considered here as a justification to his utterances. The court upheld the conviction. Considering that the appellant has misunderstood the teachings, the sentence was lifted and the fine was reduced to Rs.50/- (Para 36 of the judgement)