SUO MOTU CONTEMPT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Contempt of Court proceeding was taken suo motu by the High Court under Sections 2(c) and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 7 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988. It is initiated, against the publication of an editorial by the Kerala Kaumudi daily on 18.12.2008, concerning the applications for bail pending before this Court at the relevant time, filed by the accused in a case known as Abhaya case. The respondents are the Printer and Publisher and Editors of the said daily. The said editorial contains certain allegations against the learned Judge hearing the bail applications and also against the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice of this Court. It was stated that the learned Judge was suspected to be under the influence of persons allegedly interested in the accused and the application of the C.B.I for posting the bail applications before another Bench was rejected by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice on communal grounds.

(2.) The information regarding the publication of the above editorial was placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice on the administrative side under Rule 7(i) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice designated another learned Judge of this Court to take action in the matter. The learned Judge on finding that the publication of the editorial will, prima facie, amount to commission of criminal contempt of court, as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), ordered to place the information for preliminary hearing before the Bench dealing with contempt matters as per the roster. Before placing the matter before the Bench, copies of the relevant papers concerning the suo motu proceedings were furnished to the learned Advocate General of the State under Rule 8A of the Rules. Thereafter, the case was listed before us for hearing on 15.1.2009 under Rule 9(i) of the Rules. Notice to the respondents would be issued, if only the Bench is also satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out, after preliminary hearing. At the stage of preliminary hearing, the learned Advocate General alone is before the Court to argue the matter.

(3.) Sri. C.P. Sudhakara Prasad, learned Advocate General made the following submissions before us:- Going by Section 15 of the Act, suo motu proceedings can be taken only by the High Court. The High Court, as contemplated under Article 216 of the Constitution of India, shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges, as the President may from time to time appoint. In the case on hand, the contempt case was posted before the Bench dealing with contempt matters for preliminary hearing, not based on the decision of the High Court, but by the decision of a Judge designated by the Acting Chief Justice. So, the proceedings initiated are vitiated and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Rules, to the extent they are against the provisions of the Act, should be ignored or the same should be read down in the light of Section 15 of the Act, it is submitted. The learned Advocate General also brought to our notice several news items published in Mathrubhoomi daily on various dates, highlighting the allegations that invisible hands are working to interfere with the investigation of Abhaya case and to hush up the same. The learned Advocate General also brought to our notice a news item, based on an interview, published in Deepika daily, which has the tendency to interfere with the due course of justice. An application for permission to initiate contempt proceedings is pending before the learned Advocate General, for publishing the said interview in Deepika daily. The intention of the editorial in Kerala Kaumudi was to warn against interference with the case by external forces. The newspaper never intended to interfere with the due course of justice by itself. In fact, in public interest, as a responsible newspaper, Kerala Kaumudi was voicing its concern against the alleged interference with the due course of justice by interested persons. When the editorial is read as a whole, it would show no disrespect for the judiciary. But, on the contrary, it was intended against interference with the functioning of the judiciary.