STATE Vs. SYED GH. HASSAN SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case before us of a contempt of Court. On a motion made by the learned Government Advocate, the High Court issued a notice to Syed Ghulam Hassan Shah Editor and Khawaja Ali Mohammad printer and publisher of the Vernacular Paper known as "Haqiqat" published in Srinagar to show cause why they should not be committed or otherwise dealt with in accordance with law for contempt of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Muzaffarabad, which is subordinate to this Court. Under section 20 of the Constitution of this Court, this Court has the power to punish any person who is guilty of contempt in relation to this, or to any Court subordinate to it. This authority being given under the Constitution no reference is necessary to any statute law of the State.

(2.) The charge against the respondents was that on the 21st of March 1935 under the heading "contradiction of wrong information about the death of Assistant Inspector Ramkot" they published comments which amounted to a gross contempt of Court in so far that they commented on a proceeding actually being taken in the Court giving their own opinion of the facts which comment was likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice. Able and leading Counsel represented the respondents in this case and also in another parallel case of a Hindu Paper. The Court has to regret that these eminent gentlemen of the Bar, who must be presumed to have a share in the dignity and independence of Courts of Law, had advised their clients to contest the notice. These gentlemen are also leaders in political matters concerning the State, which makes their advice to their clients all the more puzzling.

(3.) The article can by no possibility be defended. Mr. Ahmad Yar Counsel for these respondents entirely misunderstood an action of contempt when he pleaded that the article contained no reflection on the honesty of the Judge or on the proceedings pending before him. An attack on the judge is not the only contempt to be provided against in order not to obstruct the administration of justice. Contempt consists in words and acts tending to obstruct the administration of justice and not merely an attack on persons presiding in Courts of Law. Writing prejudicing the public for or against an accused person would be a contempt of a Criminal Court. What is to be considered is whether the writing is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice. There is nothing of more pernicious consequence than to prejudice the minds of the public with respect to either complainants or accused persons in causes before the cause is finally heard. The effect of such prejudice may be not only to deter persons from coming forward to give evidence on one side but to induce witnesses to give evidence on the other side alone. It is admitted that the proceedings in the subordinate Court were pending when these comments were published. The question in all such cases is not whether the publication does interfere with the due course of justice but whether it tends to interfere with it. It is a contempt to publish an article in a newspaper commenting on the proceedings in a pending criminal prosecution. The article complained of did not only contain comments but specifically stated that the facts were such as were presented by the newspaper. In a case where a defendant to an action for libel published during its pendency an article in his paper calculated to prejudice the fair trial, Wills J. stated that there was a great and mischievous tendency to publish articles of that sort and that if it went on, it would lead to trial by newspapers instead of by the proper tribunals of the country ( Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Vs. Henry (1894) 13 T.L.R. 586 ). Printing even without comments and circulating the brief pleadings, petition, or evidence of one side only is a contempt; and accounts of cases by notices, advertisements or circulars, which misrepresent or present mere exparte statements of a case, are also a contempt (page 287 Volume VII, Halsbury's Laws of England). It will thus be seen what precautions were thought to be necessary for the due administration of justice.