CASE SUMMARY

DR.D.C. SAXENA v. HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

SUBMITTED BY:
SAI SRINIVAS REDDY
(180401420063)
BBA LL.B (Hons.)
BATCH OF 2018-23

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS &

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

SUBMITTED TO:
PROF. ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA

ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW

ALLIANCE UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………3
2. Details of the case……………………………………………………………………………...3
3. Relevance of the case………………………………………………………………………….3
4. Facts and Background of the case……………………………………………………………..3
5. Issues involved………………………………………………………………………………...5
6. Reasoning given by the Court…………………………………………………………………5
7. Decision of the Court………………………………………………………………………….6
8. Principles of law laid down in the case………………………………………………………..6

2
 1. Introduction

In this case, the petitioner was accused of committing contempt of court as he was repeatedly filling
subsequent writ petitions when the first petition was dismissed. The court held the contemner guilty
of contempt of court and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months in addition to
a fine of Rs. 2000. Further, the court laid down certain principles of law in this case regarding
contempt proceedings and the freedom of speech and expression.

2. Details of the case

Citation - [1996 SCC (7) 216, JT 1996 (6) 5291

Hon'ble Judges/Coram - Ramaswamy K., Singh N.P., Bharucha S.P., JJ.

3. Relevance of the case

The Present Case was about the Contempt Proceedings initiated based on a writ petition filed by the
petitioner and once the writ petition was dismissed, he again filed another writ petition on the same
grounds and was repeatedly informed about the same but he insistently instituted the proceedings.

4. Facts and Background of the case

 The petitioner had initiated public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution to
direct Sri. PV. Narsimha Rao, the President of Indian National Congress and the former
Prime Minister of the country to pay a sum of Rs. 8.29 Lakhs said to be due to the union of
India for use of Indian Air Force aircraft or helicopters from October 1. 1993, to November
30, 1993.

 When the Writ petition was posted for hearing on July 17. 1995. before the learned Chief
Justice of India and Justice S.C Sen, the Solicitor General of India, Shri Dipankar P. Gupta
was sent for and the Court directed him to have the averments verified to be correct and
directed the petition to be listed after two weeks.

 On August 7, 1995, the writ petition came before the bench comprising the learned CJI.
Justice S.C. Sen and Justice K.S. Paripoornan.

3
  The Solicitor General had placed the record before the Court and upon perusal thereof and
after hearing the petitioner-in-person, the Bench summarily "dismissed" the writ petition
which had triggered the petitioner to file yet another writ petition, this time against the
learned Chief Justice of India, Justice A.M. Ahmadi.

 The Registry raised objections for its maintainability but, at the insistence of the petitioner, it
was posted, with office objections, for hearing, as an unregistered Writ petition before a
Bench of three learned Judges, viz. Justice J.S. Verma, Justice N.P. Singh and Justice S.P.
Bharucha.

 The petitioner, again appearing in person, persisted to justify the averments made against the
learned CJI Justice Ahmadi in the writ petition.

Despite the Court pointing out that the averments were scandalous, the proceedings of the Court did
indicate that the petitioner reiterated that he "stood by the averments made therein and sought for the
following declarations:

1. That Justice Ahmadi is unfit to hold the office of the CJI.

2. That he should be stripped of his citizenship,

3. To direct registration of FIR against him under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
for committing forgery and fraud under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. To direct prosecution of him under the Prevention of Corruption Act,

5. To direct him to defray from his pocket the expenses incurred by the petitioner in filing the two
writ petitions

4
6. To direct Justice Ahmadi to reimburse from his pocket to the public exchequer the entire loss
caused to the state, as a consequence of non-payment of the dues by Shri. P.V. Narsimha Rao with
the interest at 18% per annum, and
7. Other Consequential directions.

5. Issues involved

1. Whether the above-stated conduct of the petitioner amounts to contempt of Court?

2. Are the Provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.1971 ultra vires Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution?

3. Is it relevant in a contempt proceeding that the petitioner did not seek any personal gains for
himself and that he had made the averments for the public good with no intention to scandalize the
court?

4. Whether defense under Sections 485 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is available to the
contemnor?

6. Reasoning given by the Court

1. The conduct of the petitioner was held to be amounting to Contempt of Court.

2. The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was not held to be ultra vires Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution.

3. In this regard, the Court held that it is true that in an indictable offense, generally mens rea is an
essential ingredient and requires to be proved for convicting the offender but for criminal contempt
as defined in Section2 (c) any act which tends to create disaffection, disbelief in the efficacy of
judicial dispensation or tendency to obstruct the administration of justice or tendency to lower the
authority or majesty of law constitutes criminal contempt. Thereby, it excludes the proof of mens rea.

What is relevant is that the offending or affront act produces interference with or tendency to
interfere with the course of justice. The Court. therefore, is required to consider whether the bring to

5
have the effect of imputations made by a contemnor are calculated to bringing the court into
contempt or casting aspersions on the administration of justice or tends to impede justice, etc. The
Court has to consider the nature of the imputations, the occasion of making the imputations, and
whether the contemnor foresees the possibility of his act.

4. The Court held that the said provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act are inapplicable to the
present case as they would apply only to the publication of a report of the judicial proceedings fairly
and with accuracy to outside the world. Further, it was held that there is a distinction between
expression in pleading and publication of a report of the 20 seconds judicial proceeding or order
without malice as fair and constructive criticism to the readers. What he has written in the second
writ petition is neither a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of the earlier writ petition nor a
fair criticism thereof.

7. Decision of the Court

Having regard to the gravity of the contumacious statements, the recklessness with which they are
made, the in-temperateness of their language, the mode of their publication in a writ petition in this
Court, and the alleged Contemnor's influential position in the society, the Court held that punishment
only in nature of a fine would not be adequate. A contemnor such as the present must also undergo
imprisonment.

Accordingly, the alleged contemnor was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
and to pay a fine of Rs 2,000/- In default of such payment within three months, the alleged
contemnor shall undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

8. Principles of law laid down in the case

1. Liberty of speech and expression guaranteed by Article corresponding duty and responsibility, and
puts limitations 19(1)(a) brings within its ambit, the on the exercise of that liberty. The liberty of free
expression is not to be confounded or confused with the license to make unfounded allegations
against any institution including the judiciary.

6
2. Any citizen is entitled to express his honest opinion about the correctness of a judgment. order,
sentence with moderate language pointing out the error or defect or illegality in the judgment, order,
or sentence. Constructive public criticism, even if it slightly oversteps its limits, thus has fruitful play
in preserving the democratic health of public institutions. But liberty of expression should not be a
license to violently make a personal attack on a judge.

3. Scandalizing the judges or courts tends to bring the authority and administration of law into
disrespect and disregard and tantamount to contempt. All acts which bring the court into disrepute or
disrespect or which offend its dignity or its majesty or challenge its authority, constitute contempt.

4. It is not necessary to establish actual intention on the part of the contemnor to interfere with the
administration of justice. Making reckless allegations or vilification of the conduct of the court or the
judge would be contempt. The defense of intention, therefore, cannot be taken in the proceedings for
contempt of Court.

ACTS REFERRED

1. The Constitution of India, 1950- Article 19(1)(g)

2. The Contempt of Courts Act. 1971- Sections 4 and 5.