ABRAHAM Vs. DIRECTOR OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are concerned with the further action to be taken in the matter now that we have found the third respondent guilty of contempt under S.12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. He is found to have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court to give telephone reconnection to a subscriber forthwith. We rejected his offer to tender apology in court as we found it hollow. Subsequent events have shown that the offer was rightly not accepted by the court. He then offered to apologise in public and the court accepted the offer. Some controversy seems to have arisen as to the propriety of the Court adopting such a course. We have no doubt that in a case of this nature it would be appropriate for a contemner to offer a public apology and the court to accept it. But that must be done of his own free will. The contemner seems to have had second thoughts over his offer later. In fact he felt that the publicity of the matter and "the humiliation" to which himself "and the entire wing of the employees similarly situated will be put to in the matter of tendering apology" was never in his contemplation at that time. We naturally permitted him to withdraw the offer to tender apology in public. Consequently the question of further action to be taken has arisen for our consideration.

(2.) This court had occasion to consider the object of imposing punishment on the contemner in Vincent & ors. v. Gopala Kurup, 1982 KLT 151 . Dealing with the offer of apology in this court this court observed thus:

(3.) We must remember that the court has a duty of protecting public interest in the administration of justice. Punishing a contemner is not any act of retribution, but is only an attempt to uphold the majesty of law by protecting the public interest. In this context it may be appropriate to quote the words of Chinnappa Reddi J in the decision in Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries, AIR 1980 SC 946 to 949: