HAJI RASHEED MOHAMMED Vs. D RAMANUJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for punishing the respondents herein for criminal contempt under S. 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.

(2.) The petitioner herein who is running a video library along with 30 others filed writ petition No. 753 of 1984, questioning the validity of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 2 of 1984, which was later replaced by Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders (Regulations) Act 1984 (Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 1984). The said writ petition was admitted on 26-1-1984, by Sathiadev J. and interim orders were passed staying the operation of Ss. 17 and 18 of the Ordinance till 15-3-1984. Similar writ petitions had also been filed by several other video libraries and similar interim orders have been passed therein. The writ petitioners later sought extension of stay beyond 15-3-1984 and Ratnavel Pandian J. by an order dt. 15-3-1984, extended the said stay till 15-4-1984.

(3.) In the meanwhile on 21-3-1984, a programme was broadcast from the T. V. Centre of Madras. It was a television interview in which respondents 1 and 2 herein participated. The subject of the interview was the recent video legislation. In the course of the interview reference has been made to the necessity for bringing the legislation and the pendency of the writ proceedings before the Court. The petitioner is said to have recorded the said programme. According to the petitioner, the respondents, in so far as they made a direct reference to the pending writ proceedings and the nature of the orders passed by the Court and gave their comments on the merits of the cases before the Court, they are guilty of gross contempt of Court, and, therefore, this Court should punish them for the said contempt. It is the specific case of the petitioner that both the first and second respondents made specific reference to the pending writ proceedings and the orders passed by the Court with a view to prejudice the mind of the public, that the picture given by them in their speeches is with a view to mislead the public and that as the speeches made by respondents 1 and 2 at the interview amounted to criticism of a pending litigation and as they roused public interest against the petitioners, they had effectively interfered with the course of justice. So far as the third respondent, the Director of Doordarshan Kendra, is concerned, it is said that in so far as he had enabled contempt of Court being committed by inviting the first and second respondents to participate in a discussion in respect of a matter which is sub judice, he is also guilty of contempt.