Lawyer punished for insult of supreme court decision
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2099 OF 2011
M.V. JAYARAJAN
...... APPELLANT
Vs.
HIGH COURT OF KERALA & ANR.
......RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
1 This Appeal lays siege to the decision of
the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam,
which found the Petitioner guilty of having
committed criminal contempt punishable under Section
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and sentenced
him to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of
Rs.2000/-.
2 The facts leading to these events is that another
Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala had, by
Orders dated 23.6.2010, banned the holding of meetings on public
roads and road margins in the State with the object of
ensuring accident-free and uninterrupted traffic
along such public roads. Although not relevant
for the present purposes, these Orders were confirmed
subsequently; a Review Petition was dismissed and the Special Leave
Petition was also rejected by this Court. Meanwhile, on
26.6.2010, the Appellant delivered a speech in a public
meeting at Kannur, Kerala allegedly convened in
connection with a hartal organised to protest against the hike in
petroleum prices, which was widely reported by the media.
A
translation of the speech as appearing in local City News reads as
follows:-
"When the Court verdicts go against the
country and the people, those
verdicts have only the value of grass. From now on,
what worth do the
judges who pronounced the verdict have? Today
disregarding the verdict
of those Judges and flouting their judgments, people throughout
the length
and breadth of Kerala are organizing public meetings
and rallies. Why
should those Judges sit in glass houses and pass
verdicts any more? If
they have any self respect they should resign and
step down from their
office. The judiciary can attain greatness only when
judgments acceptable
to the country and obeyed by the people
are passed. Today even the
judiciary is ashamed. If the Executive exceeds its
limits the judiciary
is there to save. Judges are to interpret the
laws and interpret the
intention of the Legislature which had made
the laws and pass orders
accordingly. Unfortunately, what some idiots (fools)
occupying our seat
of justice say is nothing else. Actually speaking
they themselves make
laws and they themselves issue orders.
This is not conducive to a
democratic country. This is what they should correct.
Today is the day
on which the verdict of two senior Judges of Kerala
High Court has been
given only the value of grass."
AsiaNet news reported the speech as follows:-
"Today disregarding the verdict of those
Judges and flouting their
judgments, people throughout the length
and breadth of Kerala are
organizing public meetings and rallies. Why should
those Judges sit in
glass houses and pass verdicts any more? If they
have any self respect
they should resign and step down from their
office. The judiciary can
attain greatness only when judgments acceptable to the
country and obeyed
by the people are passed. Today
judiciary is the refuge. If the
Legislature exceeds its limits there is the judiciary which
comes to the
rescue. But if the judiciary exceeds its
limits who will tether the
judiciary. In a democracy people
are the supreme. Judges are to
interpret the laws and interpret the intention of the Legislature
which had
made the laws and pass orders accordingly.
Unfortunately, what some
idiots (fools) occupying our seat of justice say is nothing
else."
IndiaVision News also carried this speech, which translated reads
thus:-
"When the Court verdicts go against the
country and the people, those
verdicts have only the value of grass. Now on, what
worth do the judges
who pronounced the verdict have? Today disregarding the
verdict of those
Judges and flouting their judgments, people
throughout the length and
breadth of Kerala are organizing public meetings and rallies.
Why should
those Judges sit in glass houses and pass verdicts any more?
If they have
any self respect they should resign and
step down from their office.
Unfortunately, what some idiots (fools) occupying our seat
of justice say
is nothing else. Actually speaking they themselves
make laws and they
themselves issue orders. This is not conducive to a
democratic country.
This is what they should correct".
3 In his reply affidavit filed in
the High Court in the Contempt
proceedings the Appellant has asseverated, inter alia, as
follows:-
"4. It is true that I have made a
speech referring to Annexure V judgment passed by
this Honourable Court, prohibiting holding of
meetings on public roads and road margins. It was not a
prepared speech, but one delivered extempore.
The allegations that by making the said speech,
I have committed contempt of this Honourable Court,
by using, during the course of the speech, certain
words for which distorted meanings have been given in the
petition, is absolutely incorrect and without any basis.
In this connection I may submit that I am a person who believes in the
Rule of
Law and the supremacy of the
Constitution. I have firm faith
and unquestionable loyalty to the Constitution and the
institutions created under it. I have great respect and
adoration for the judiciary and
the Honourable Judges. I have always obeyed the verdicts
of Courts and have never once defied its
authority, or will ever I do it. The media
has reported distorted versions of the speech I made referring
to Annexure V judgment and give wide publicity to it
taking certain words used by me in the speech out
of context and providing their own
interpretation and
meaning to those with ulterior motives and designs. I have
criticized the judgment as to its impracticability and
difficulty of implementation. It was in a Public
Interest Litigation filed by a Transport Operator, seeking to
prevent conduct of public meetings in the PWD road in front
of Alwaye Railway Station that this Honourable
court has rendered the judgment prohibiting
the holding of meeting on public roads
and road margins throughout the State. As a Social
and Political Worker, I felt that the above
judgment has been passed without considering the vital
factual and legal aspects involved and that it may adversely
affect the legal rights of the Public including their
Fundamental Right of freedom of speech
and expression and to assemble peacefully, guaranteed to them under
Article 19 of the Constitution. In my speech I have used
the words commonly used by the villagers of North
Malabar to convey my message to the audience
and they have also understood the same in the sense those
words usually carry with them. There is no meaning
to those words as given and interpreted by the persons
who have preferred the contempt petitions
before this Honourable court seeking to initiate action
against this deponent under the Contempt of Courts Act.
5. Annexure V judgment
of this Honourable Court was
rendered without considering the Public Interest or the contentions
of the parties, affected thereby, including the Government.
The Court has gone beyond the issues before
it which it was called upon to
decide. The general declaration issued, prohibiting the
conduct of meetings on the road margins was far exceeding the relief
sought for in the writ petition. It has been the
practice followed in this country and in this State even from the
pre- independence period to hold meetings on the road margins.
If the conduct
of such meetings is likely to create any
law and order situation, or hindrance to the
traffic, the police and other statutory authorities
are clothed with power to control such meetings by resorting to
the provisions under the Police Act and other similar laws.
The Executive Magistrate has power to control, restrict
and prohibit the conduct of such meetings
by invoking the provisions of Sec. 144 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. Thus, under law without infringing the freedom
of movement of the public at large,
meetings could be convened on the road margins.
6. The criticism made by me
against the judgment was with honest intention and bonafide
purpose and by way of expressing of my opinion
in respect of the same to the public. As a public worker, I
thought it was my bounden duty to make such criticism
when the judiciary has failed
to consider properly the issue involved while rendering
the above judgment.
In so doing, I have never intended to demean any of
the Judges of this Honourable Court or
the authority of this Honourable Court.
The Fundamental Freedom of speech and
expression guarantied (sic) by
the Constitution is no less important than the freedom
of judgment to move freely throughout the
Territory of India. In the judgment the
Honourable Court has only considered the freedom of persons to
move freely, without such anxious
consideration to the freedom of speech
and
expression as also of the freedom to assemble peacefully
guarantied (sic) to the citizens by the Constitution with
equal force. For that reason, according to
me, the Judgment was not in consonance with the
constitutional scheme. I thought, I should bring this
infirmity to the notice of the General
Public. My speech was only to highlight the above.
7. The words in question used by
me in the speech, specifically referred to in the
Contempt Petition drawing it out of contest, are
those prevalent in the area and characteristic of
the assemblage to which I spoke. The
speech was one made in protest against the hiking of prices of Essential
Commodities and the audience was largely constituted of the poor sections
of the society, the common man of
the area. The words particularly referred
to in the contempt petition have no
specific or definite meaning and the sense it carries
is according to its ordinary
usage. That being so, those words taken out of context and
given a meaning that suits the intention of the
petitioner in the contempt of
court petition, may not be made the basis for
initiating contempt proceedings against me.
Since the above judgment was practically
impossible of implementation, there were public meetings held
on the road side on the day subsequent to the judgment also in
several places in the State and that was the reason for me to say
that the above judgment was rejected
by the public. In doing so, I have
never challenged the authority of this
Honourable court or made any disparaging remarks
demeaning any of the Honourable Judges of this
Honourable Court. Therefore, considering that the
speech made by me was in a particular context and the language used
was one apposite to the issue and the nature of
the audience, there is no justification in
picking up one or two words used in the speech
out of context and raising the allegation of contempt of court
against me based on the incorrect and fanciful meanings
attributed to those words,
without considering the entire speech as a whole and the context
in which such a speech was made. In this
connection it is pertinent to note that the
petitioner has not produced the entire text of the speech made by
me along with the Contempt Petition and it is a well
established principle of law that in order to
decide whether there is contempt or not reading of
the speech as a whole is necessary. Since words torn out
of context from it may be liable to be
misunderstood.
........
Sumbhan is a word used in Malayalam
without any specific or definite meaning.
As distinct from a "word" with a definite meaning in a
language, there are "usuages" in every
language which have different shades
of meaning with varying connotations depending on the occasions in
which it is used as also the regions,
sections of people, circumstances, etc
in relation to which it is used. The word "Sumbhan",
is such a usuages which is understood in different senses and
connotations in different parts of the State and
depending on the class of people who uses the same.
Even inspite of such variations, it is submitted that the
word "Sumbhan" can never be understood as
having the meaning attributed to it in the contempt petition
namely "idiot" or "fool".
I hail from Cannanore District, in the Northern part of the
Kerala State. The impugned speech I was making to
a village population at Kannur,
a considerable section of which cannot claim even to be
moderately educated. "Sumbhan", is a word widely
used by the people in the area to refer to a person who
had said or expressed something or acted in any particular
way without properly considering the various aspects of a
matter intensively, in all its aspects, or evaluating or
taking into consideration, the likely consequences that may
ensure thereby, in a hasty and casual manner, even if he be a person
highly reputed and accepted by all as an intelligent
and knowledgeable person. In such a situation by referring
to the Honourable
Judges who have issued the judgments in question, to the people
who were at a loss to understand the logic and reason of the
disapproval of a right which for them was an
integral part of their legal right which they
have been enjoying all through the past, and as
old as the memory of the existing
generations goes as "Sumbhan", I was only conveying to
them and carrying home to them the idea
that those Judges, while passing
the judgment have not properly considered the issue involved in all
its aspects nor have they comprehended the attendant
circumstances or the resultant
consequences thereof.
.........
21 Having regard to the above,
it is humbly submitted that,
this Honourable Court may be pleased to see that the charges
levelled against me in the above Contempt of Courts
Case are not sustainable in law
and accordingly it is prayed that accepting this reply affidavit,
the Contempt of court proceedings initiated against me may
kindly be dropped."
The Appellant has also relied on Article 19(1) (b), 19(1) (a)
and 19(1)(d) and 19(3) of the Constitution. He has deposed
that he considered his duty "to speak to the
people evaluating the same and expressing
my views regarding the impact and the adverse
consequences it will make on
the social and political life of this country and
its people, as also the interference and the
intrusions it will make on the rights, including
the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens
of this country by the
Constitution .... I may submit in my speech I have not made
consciously or otherwise any disparaging or disrespectful
statements or remarks against any of the Hon'ble
Judges of this Court." As regards the use of the
word 'sumbhan' or 'sumbhanmar', the Appellant has taken the stand that
the word implied that "those Judges, while passing the
judgment have not properly considered the
issues involved in all its aspects
nor have they comprehended the attendant
circumstances or the resultant
consequences thereof."
4 In the said affidavit, the Appellant has
quoted decisions of this Court in P.N. Duda v.
P.Shiv Shanker 1988 (3) SCC 167; Re- S Mulgaokar 1978 (3) SCC 339
and R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex-parte
Blackburn 1968 (2) All ER 319(CA). We are in
respectful agreement with all the observations
made in these judgments.
5 On 15.11.2011, the Appeal was
taken on Board and admitted.
A direction was passed that the Appellant be released on bail
but that the fine should be deposited within one
week. By that time, as per
the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for
the Appellant had suffered incarceration for one week.
6 Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has drawn
our attention to certain expressions used in the
impugned Judgment, which we unhesitatingly and unequivocally
find to be inappropriate when used by the Judge in
an Order or judgment. Since we have expressed our
opinion we shall adjure from even mentioning the
explanation offered on behalf of the Bench
as elucidation in the backdrop of the
syntax. The sentence
passed comprehensively does all the speaking. The endeavour of the
learned Senior Counsel is to persuade us that these words had been
employed by the Judges because they were prejudiced against
the Appellant, and that prejudice has resulted in imposing
the impugned sentence in its total
and complete severity. The said observations do not impact
upon the character of the words used by the
Appellant in his public speech, since they occur after
the event.
7 Learned Senior Counsel has not addressed any
arguments or give any extenuating explanation with regard to
his utterance that if the Judges have any
self respect they should step down from their office. We are
also unable to accept the meaning sought to be given
to the word 'sumbhan'/ 'sumbhanmar' since
our inquiries reveal that they are
pejorative or insulting epithets/abuses akin to calling a
person a fool or idiot. The Appellant indubitably
has exercised his freedom of speech insofar as he has dissected the
Judgment and argued that it was contrary to law.
He may also be excused in saying that Judges live in glass
houses, and that the judgment's worth is less than
grass, since this is his perception. But it is not open to
the Appellant or any person to employ abusive and
pejorative language to the authors of a judgment and call upon them
to resign and step down from their office if they have
any self respect. The
Appellant should have kept in mind the words of Lord Denning,
in the Judgment upon which he has relied, that
those that criticise a judgment must
remember that from the nature of the Judge's
office, he cannot reply to their criticism.
In the case in hand, the Appellant had his remedy in the
form of a Special Leave Petition to this Court, which he
has exercised albeit without success. The speech
was made within a couple of days of
the passing of the ad interim injunction; no empirical evidence was
referred to by the Appellant, nor has any been presented
thereafter, to support his utterance that the
Judgment/Order was being opposed by the public at large. Hence
we see these parts of the speech as intending to
scandalize and lower the dignity of the Court,
and as an intentional and
calculated obstruction in the administration of justice. This
requires to be roundly
repulsed and combated.
8 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Respondent State has in his brief submission highlighted the
fact that at no stage has the Appellant tendered
an apology. We have given an opportunity
to learned Senior Counsel for the
Appellant to elucidate this position but
he has categorically stated that he has instructions that
the Appellant does not intend to apologise for any of
his statements.
9 The Appellant is an advocate and also an ex-member
of the Legislative Assembly. He is fully aware that our
Constitution is premised on the separation
of powers which enjoin the Executive, the Legislature and
the Judiciary to perform their duties within the Constitutional
framework. He is fully aware that while he
has the right of freedom of speech
of expression, this postulates a temperate and reasoned
criticism and not a vitriolic, slanderous or
abusive one; this right of free speech certainly does
not extend to inciting the public directly or insidiously to
disobey
Court Orders. The remedy is provided by way of an appeal to
the Division
Bench, which was taken recourse to. Having perused
the translations of his speech, we are left in no manner
of doubt that he intended to lower the dignity of Court, to obstruct
and impede its functioning and not merely to criticise its
pronouncement which was not to his liking. His conduct leaves him
unquestionably guilty of the offence of Contempt of Courts, calling
for him to be punished for his illegal act.
He has shown no remorse or contrition
for his conduct. Instead, he has vainly
etymologised the Sanskrit origin of 'sumbhan', fully aware of
the fact that in its slang, especially to the
rural and rustic persons he was addressing, it conveyed a
strong abuse. Judges expect, nay
invite, an informed and genuine
discussion or criticism of judgments, but to incite a relatively
illiterate
audience against the Judiciary, is not to be ignored.
It was, not the
Petitioner's province, as exercising his freedom of speech, to
advise that
"if those judges have any self respect, they should resign
and quit their
offices".
10 The impugned Judgment has
correctly and condignly committed the
Appellant for committing contempt of Court and ordered
his incarceration.
Nevertheless, while affirming the impugned Judgment, we reduce the
sentence
of six months imprisonment to that of simple imprisonment for
a period of
four weeks.
11 The Appeal is disposed of in
the above terms. We desist from
imposing costs.
............................................J.
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN]
............................................J.
[ C. NAGAPPAN]
New Delhi;
January 30, 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment