Case Law Details
The Supreme Court has taken a sagacious view of the criticism of judges while dismissing a contempt of court case against Union Minister Kapil Sibal. In fact, it encourages “fair and reasonable” criticism of judgements as judges are not “infallible”. What provoked the petition was a message the minister had written for a souvenir brought out by a group of lawyers of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1995. Some portions of the message were published in a newspaper in such a way that it gave the impression that it was contemptuous of the judiciary. The court could not have overlooked Sibal’s record as a leading lawyer of the Supreme Court until he took to full-time politics. The judgement has gone beyond the narrow confines of the case to lay down the parameters of what constitutes “fair” criticism.
When the court says, “the national interest requires that all criticism of the judiciary must be strictly rational and sober and proceed from the highest motives without being coloured by any partisan spirit or tactics”, few can find fault with it. It is the judiciary, which commands the greatest respect, because, barring the period of Emergency, it has stood like a pillar of strength for the citizens to lean on. And even during the Emergency, there were judges of the calibre of Justice H.R. Khanna, who stood up against the autocratic practices that characterised the period. Even so, there is the indisputable fact that a section of the judiciary is not above board forcing a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to claim that he could not vouch for the integrity of at least 20 per cent of the judges.
When a “courier” arrives at a judge’s bungalow with a huge packet of currency notes as in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, another judge was found to trade in judgements as in the Delhi High Court and yet another is threatened with impeachment as in the Calcutta High Court, one can only quote the bard, “something is rotten in the state of Denmark”. Yet, few dare to take on the black sheep for fear of the Contempt of Court Act, which does not accept even truth as defence. Equally worrisome has been the growing tendency of some judges to make scandalous obiter dicta like “mafia rules Kerala”. Criticism of such questionable tendencies will only enhance the prestige of the judiciary and it should, therefore, be welcomed.
Source: Indian Express
FULL DETAILS OF THE CASE LAW OF KAPIL SIBBAL
Case No: Criminal Original Jurisdiction T.C. (Crl.) No(s). 2 of 1997
Appellant and Respondent:- Hari Singh Nagra and others
Vs Kapil Sibal and others
Date of Decision (mm/dd/yy): 07/15/2010.
Judge(s): Honourable Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal
and Honourable Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — contempt petition
Summary of Case law
the respondent, Senior Advocate of the Supreme court sent a message to be published in the souvenir and expressed concern about the plight of junior members of the Bar and also about falling standards of the legal fraternity — the petitioners claimed that the respondent, by sending a message which was published in the souvenir of the Mehfil committed a criminal contempt of the court- whether sufficient case is made out by the petitioners to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents— the message sent by the respondent/ Mr. Sibal was concerned with the public image of the legal community which according to him was at its nadir- only a part of message was published in the newspaper wherein sentences were torn out of context and an impression was given that Mr. Sibal had made a frontal attack on the judiciary- this Court held that the message sent by Mr. Sibal to be published in the souvenir of the Mehfil will have to be regarded as fair criticism of senior colleagues and the article nowhere targets a particular judge- there is nothing on the record to show that the souvenir of the Mehfil in which the message was printed was sold to the public. This was a kind of internal pamphlet/ brochure which was distributed to its member- held that the sending and/ or publication of the message in the Mehfil did not scandalise or tend to scandalise, or lower or tend to lower the authority of any court nor prejudiced, or interfered or tended to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings; or the administration of justice in any other manner- contempt proceedings dropped- petition dismissed.
SC says rational and sobber Criticism of judiciary in national interest”- Much water has been flown on this, but fail to achieve the sense in which hon’ble SC has said it. Not because it is a case of a leading lawyer, but in general. Contrary to this, contempt of court by executive has not much strengthen the role of judicial power by judicial officers under law which results that executive enjoys much powers than the judiciary by not taking decisions at their own level. This shows mountain of cases in different courts are at peak level and to resolve these by judiciary is not a fun.
The great words of the Supreme Court of India will certainly not fall on the deaf ears of the various tribunals (like the ITAT) who still believe that these entities also enjoy the powers of a court of law as such to punish even those-who are not parties before them-for alleged and misconceived contempt of court !