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 JUDGMENT 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 JUDGMENT
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 bestowing 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.
…….. 13 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”.
14 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.JUDGMENTSince 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 given
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.JUDGMENT 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.
[ C. NAGAPPAN] New Delhi; January 30, 2015.