SUO MOTU Vs. NIPUN CHERIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suo motu contempt case was taken against the respondent contemnor pursuant to information laid before us by the Registrar of this Court that the respondent had made a public speech casting aspersions on the honesty and integrity of a learned Judge of this Court whom he publicly accused of being corrupt. The specific charge levelled against the respondent, and to which he pleaded not guilty, reads as under:

(2.) Before embarking on a narrative of the conduct of the respondent during the proceedings before this Court, we deem it apposite to enumerate the principles that guide us in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction so that the conduct of the respondent that led to the framing of charges against him, as well as his conduct during the proceedings before us, can be analysed in the backdrop of the settled law on the subject.

(3.) The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions. The jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of the courts and the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. Dr. Prodip Kumar Biswas v. Subrata Das and Ors. - (2004) 4 SCC 573 It is an unusual type of jurisdiction combining "the jury, the judge and the hangman" and it is so because the court is not adjudicating upon any claim between litigating parties and the jurisdiction is not exercised to protect the dignity of an individual Judge but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. Supreme Court Bar Association v. UOI - (1998) 4 SCC 409 Viewed against the backdrop of our Constitution, which guarantees all citizens the freedom of speech and expression, the contempt jurisdiction of the courts can be seen as a reasonable restriction imposed on the said fundamental freedom enuring to citizens. This is not to say that the court enjoys complete immunity from any criticism. As a matter of fact, no court can claim to be always right although it does not spare any effort to be right according to the best of the ability, knowledge and judgment of the Judges. Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Ors. - JT (2007) 9 SC 231 However, while fair and temperate criticism of the court, even if strong, may not be actionable, the attributing of improper motives or actions that tend to bring Judges or courts into hatred and contempt, and thereby erode public confidence in the judicial institution, will certainly lead to the invocation of the jurisdiction so as to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. This is because, if an impression is created in the minds of the public that the Judges in the highest court of this State act on extraneous considerations in deciding cases, the confidence of the whole community in the administration of justice is bound to be undermined, and we cannot remain mute spectators in such situations. 'The law should not be seen to sit by limply while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope.' Jennison v. Baker - 1972 (1) All.ER 997 @ p.1006 So also, 'if the court considers the attack on the Judge or Judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream.' Re. S. Mulgaokar - (1978) 3 SCC 339 per Krishna Iyer, J