NATIONAL TEXTILE WORKERS UNION Vs. P R RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While special leave petition No. 9661 of 1981 (National Textile Workers' Union v. P. R. Ramakrishnan) was being argued before a five Judge Bench on September 8, 1982, Shri G. Vasantha Pai, who was appearing on behalf of the respondents, drew the attention of the Court to certain statements which had appeared in the Press under the name of one P. M. Kumaraswamy alias Kailaimannan. On a petition presented by Shri Pai on behalf of one R. Baba Chandersekhar under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court issued a notice to P. Kumaraswamy asking him to show cause why he should not be committed for committing Contempt of Court.

(2.) Thereafter, the Contempt Petition came up for hearing before us on various dates. On some of those dates the contemner asked for adjournment on the ground of his illness while on some dates he remained absent. On one occasion, he was absent without informing the Court as to the reasons of his absence. At long last, the contempt petition was heard at some length on March 30, 1983. On a motion made by Shri S. K. Jain, Advocate, on behalf of the contemner, the latter was permitted to argue his case in person, in Tamil. Another Advocate whom the contemner had engaged, Shri S. Ramaswamy, translated the contemner's argument into English for our benefit. One of us, namely, Varadarajan, J., of course knows Tamil. We reserved our Judgment on that date and directed that the matter be listed for Judgment on April 26, 1983. We observed that the contemner may, if so advised, tender a written apology to this Court as also to each of the four learned Judges of the Madras High Court against whom he had made unfounded allegations, namely, Justice Gokulakrishnan, Justice Ramanujam, Justice v. Ramaswami and Justice Shunmugham. We directed that the apologies be tendered in writing, if at all, by April 7, 1983 and be published on the front page of the two so-called newspapers. 'International Chronicle' and 'Sigappu Nada', which the contemner conducts.

(3.) The contemner submitted a written apology to this Court on March 30 itself, to the following effect: