RUSTOM COWASJEE COOPER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is an off-shoot of the decision of this Court on the constitutional validity of the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act, being Act 22 of 1969. By a majority of ten Judges against one, this Court declared the Act to be unconstitutional. The decision of the Court was given on February 10, 1970.*

(2.) On February 13, 1970, a meeting was organised by the Blitz National forum at Vithalbhai Patel House at Delhi. It was presided over by Mr. Mohan Kumaramangalam, an advocate of this Court. According to the news items published the next day in the Hindustan Times, the Times of India and the Patriot, a number of persons spoke about the Act and the decision of this Court upon it. Among the speakers were Mr. R. K. Khadilkar, Minister in the Ministry of Finance, Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Mr. Kumaramangalam, Mr. Prabhatkar, Mr. S. M. Joshi, M. P., Mr. Bhupesh Gupta, M. P. and Mr. V. K. Krishna Menon, M. P. These speakers criticised the decision. Mr. R. K. Khadilkar, the Hindustan Times reported, said that such decisions 'do not enhance the prestige of the Judiciary', that such acts on the part of the highest Court 'will only encourage Naxalites who have rejected constitutional means to bring about socialism' and that the judgment would be treated with 'more and more contempt by ordinary people'. He observed that the situation would be rectified by Parliament because ten Judges 'sitting in any ivory tower' could not sit over the verdict of Parliament which represented the people". The Times of India report said that Mr. Khadilkar said that 'Government would soon bring forward an amending measure to off-set the dangerous implications for social progress of the community of the Supreme Court Judgment in the Bank Nationalisation case', that if necessary the issue whether Parliament or the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of the people's will should be referred to the people and a mandate taken from them and quoted Pandit Nehru that it was never the intention of the Constitution to make the Supreme Court 'the third house of correction'. The patriot reported that 'attempts to utilize community savings lying in banks for the welfare of the common man have been blocked by the judiciary', that 'the Supreme Court could not be accepted as the third chamber of legislature', that he did not 'want to threaten the judiciary' but Parliament would have 'to take steps to respect the feelings of the people for stabilising democracy'. Mr. Khadilkar also wished that the judiciary would take note 'of the changing situation and help to transform the society for the benefit of the common man.' The three reports also described what the other speakers had said at the meeting.

(3.) On February 26, 1970, two petitioners (Mr. Krishna Rao Kaushik M. P. and Lt. Col. R. R. Pasricha) swore an information based on the newspaper reports (with copies annexed) that a serious contempt of this Court was committed by Mr. R. K. Khadilkar inasmuch as his speech had a clear tendency to affect the dignity and prestige of this Court and there was danger of grave mischief in the administration of justice and the confidence of the whole community in the administration of justice was bound to be undermined. Two affidavits sworn in support were based on the newspaper reports.