VISHWAS NARAYAN LIMAYE Vs. SHARAD PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in which a private individual describing himself as a Social Worker moved this Court for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act, against respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 1 is a Minister of State for Home, Government of Maharashtra. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are respectively the editor and printers and publishers of 'Times of India' in which a certain speech delivered by respondent No. 1 was published. The. gist of the application is that the speech made by respondent No. 1 tends to interfere with due course of justice relating to a criminal case pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay. The criminal case relates to a riot resulting in the death of a police officer and causing of injuries to several others within the compound or near about Godrej Colony, Vikhroli, Bombay.

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court issued rule on July 24, 1973. Today when the rule was called out for hearing the learned Advocate -General appeared for respondent No. 4, the State. He raised a preliminary objection to our entertaining this petition and hearing it on merits. Since this preliminary objection went to the root of the matter and seemed to render the present proceedings incompetent, we have heard the learned advocates on both the sides on this preliminary objection.

(3.) WHAT has happened in the present case is that a private person moved this Court by an application and after going through the application and perhaps after hearing the petitioner or his advocate at the motion hearing rule was issued. Such a rule or action could be treated either as action at the instance of and on the application of a private party or if this Court had otherwise power it could be treated as a suo motu action. Since in neither of these manners cognizance of a contempt of Court subordinate to it could be taken by the High Court, the learned Advocate -General contended that this action is misconceived and must be dropped. Shri Pungliya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has opposed the preliminary objection and he has tried to support by bringing to our notice various provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') that suo motu action in the matter of contempt of Court is always possible whether the contempt is in respect of this Court or a Court subordinate to it.