V RAMA RAO Vs. T ANJAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 20/01/1982, the Ranga Reddy District Court was inaugurated by the Honble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while the Honble Sri Justice Madhava Reddy presided over the function. The petitioner herein who is a member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council and a practicing Advocate of this Court has field this case under Section 12 read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking action against the 1st respondent, the Chief Minister of the State, based on certain newspaper reports that the speech made by the 1st respondent as Chief guest on that occasion contained words, observations appreciations and threats and advice amounting to criminal contempt. The following statements are alleged to have been made by the 1st respondent according to the newspaper reports : (i) That the Courts while granting stay orders should take note of the Governments good intentions and consider the public cause which the Government are serving. (The Hindu : dated 21-1-1982). (ii) That the 1st respondent requested the Judges to (a) consider before granting stays whenever a public cause was involved adding that if the judiciary helped to this extent, Government was prepared to allocate additional funds for Judges house and other facilities. (b) The 1st respondent sought a more co-operative attitude in the matters of excise and income-tax cases as the State earns large revenues from them. (c) the 1st respondent said that the Government could not hold that Panchayat Elections earlier due to the stays granted by the Court then and that during his tenure as Chief Minister he had received full co-operation from the judiciary in several important matters like elections to the Panchayat Raj Bodies and reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in these bodies. (d) the 1st respondent said that he was quite often pained to learn that courts have set free anti social elements on flimsy grounds and remarked that a notorious criminal detained under the N.S.A. was released by the high Courts on the ground that the detention order on the ground that the detention order was written in a language not understood by the detainee. (e) that even when the courts delivered judgments against the Governments that letter had always honoured then. (Indian Express and Andhra Prabha dated 21-1-1982.) (iii)(a) The 1st respondent is reported to have also appealed that Courts should not interfere frequently with Social Welfare programmes adding that due to orders of stay and the like being issued by the Courts Governments is unable to complete its developmental activities as speedily as desired : (b) that by releasing rowdies there is every possibility of considerable danger to the Society and so Courts should not consider the languages in which the detention order is written. (c) The 1st respondent also reported observed that he would take stern action against anybody standing in the way of developmental programmes (EENADU Telugu Daily dated 21-1-1982). The petitioner field an affidavit before the Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh mentioning about the said speech and remarks of the 1st respondent and requesting permission under Section 15(1) of the Act for taking the action against the 1st respondent for criminal contempt. The Advocate General implemented as the 2nd respondent herein, by the letter D. N. O. 29/82 dated 28-1-1982 refused to accord permission to the petitioner to file a contempt case against the 1st respondent. The petitioner has thereupon filed this case for taking action against the 1st respondent for criminal contempt as already mentioned. The petitioner also challenged the constitution validity of Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act contending that the High Courts can take action for contempt either somewhat or when such matters are brought to the notice of this court by any fit person or any member of the Bar, and that Section 15(1) requiring permission from the Advocate General is inconsistent with the inherent powers of the high Court to take action for contempt of the court at the instance of a member of the Bar any person interested in the purity of administration of justice.

(2.) It is unnecessary for us to express any opinion on the second question as to the constitution validity of the provisions of S. 15(1) as we have heard the learned council for the petitioner on the main question viz. whether the statements attributed to the 1st respondents assuming they were in fact, made by him, as reported in the newspapers would constitute criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt as follows :

(3.) The contention of Sri N. Chandra Mouli the learned counsel of the petitioner is that the contents of the above speech give rise to an inference that the 1st respondents was treating the entire judiciary as a subordinate departments. But there is no merit in this contention as we do not find that any of the statements aforesaid give rise to any such inference.