K N SUKUMARAN Vs. T M JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this original petition, the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court a publication in an evening daily "Deergaveekshanam', commenting on the proceedings in O.P.No.5538 of 1985, pending judgment, after a learned Judge of this Court had heard arguments, for taking action against the respondents under S.15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court on 11-7-1985 issued notice to respondents 3 and 4, the Editor and the Publisher of the aforesaid daily. The Division Bench even at that stage found that there was no case against respondents 1 and 2 to initiate contempt action against them. A copy of the evening daily 'Deergaveekshanam' dated 11-6-1985 wherein the publication appears is produced as Ext. P1. The publication is captioned as a news item that the case against the ministers is likely to be dismissed by the High Court. The news item relates to a writ of quo warranto against three ministers of the Kerala Congress Party, its Chief Whip and a former minister and M.L.A., that came up for admission before a learned Judge of this Court, the previous day. It is stated that the accusations against the Ministers and Leaders of the Kerala Congress Party are based on newspaper reports, devoid of merit and the Party Secretariat had on various occasions denied the alleged call for an agitation against the Central Government at the State Conference of the Party held at Cochin. The Court according to this news item appears to be convinced about the falsity of the accusation and the writ petition is likely to be dismissed.

(3.) The respondents have filed two counter affidavits denying that the news item in Ext. P1 amounts to contempt of court within the meaning of S.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. It is further stated that the publication was not intended to interfere with the due course of justice and was only a report of the proceedings before this Court in the case against the Ministers and certain other leaders of the Kerala Congress Party. The respondents have also raised a contention against the jurisdiction of a Division Bench of this Court to initiate suo motu proceedings for contempt of court.