ADVOCATE GENERAL Vs. BAHULEYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADVOCATE General of Kerala has moved this petition to lake action against four persons for contempt of this Court. This action is based on a speech made by the first respondent - Bahuleyan on 28-12-1995 while addressing a well attended public meeting at Gandhi Park, Thiruvananthapuram. First respondent is alleged to have hurled scurrilous epithets against a sitting judge of this Court regarding a matter connected with his judicial function. The other three respondents are persons connected with a newspaper by name "jemnabhoomi" as the of tending speech of the first respondent was published in one of the issues of Janmubhoomi newspaper.

(2.) THE stand adopted by the first respondent, in general, is that though he addressed the said meeting in which he had occasion to refer to some of the orders passed by the learned judge concerned he did not make any offensive remarks against the judge and that he had always held the institution of judiciary as of prime importance in democratic setup.

(3.) THE offending portion of what first respondent has spoken at the meeting mentioned above is the subject matter of this proceeding. 'jenmabhoomi' newspaper published the speech in it issue dated 29-12-1995. THE following is the offending portion of the said speech as published in the newspaper: "what happened at Sivagiri was an act of grave cheating. But what justice (name of the judge mentioned) of Kerala High Court has done was a graver act of cheating. Persons belonging to different religions and casts are being appointed as judges, but they do not become representatives of their casts. THEy blind their eyes with black cloths while sitting on the judge's seat. But mis judge has thrown off the black domes and exhibited the face of his upper caste. When another judge who was hearing Sivagiri case happened to be on leave misjudge sat on mat seat, snatched out the file of Sivagiri case from among the records and delivered the judgment. This judge has earlier violated the Constitution. THE man who violated the Constitution is a criminal. This judge has delivered a partisan judgment. " He then proceeded to challenge the learned judge to take action against him for contempt of court for which he used an un civilised and derisive expression.