Contempt of Court – Editorial in Indian Express on report of Kuldip Singh Commission’s report – Whether the commission is a court -Constitutional Bench upheld that The Commission constituted under the 1952 Act is a fact finding body to enable the appropriate Government to decide as to the
course of action to be followed. Such Commission is not required to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and has no adjudicatory functions. The Government is not bound to accept its recommendations or act upon its findings. The mere fact that the procedure adopted by the Commission is of a legal character and it has the power to administer oath will not clothe it with the status of Court. That being so, in our view, the Commission appointed under the 1952 Act is not a Court for the purposes of Contempt of Courts Act even though it is headed by a sitting Supreme Court Judge. Moreover, Section 10A of the 1952 Act leaves no matter of doubt that the High Court has been conferred with the power to take cognizance of the complaint in respect of the acts calculated to bring the Commission or any member thereof into disrepute. Section 10A provides the power of constructive contempt to the Commission by making a reference to the High Court with a right of appeal to this Court. Our answer to the first question is, therefore, in the negative.
In view of the above reasons, the contempt petitions are dismissed and the contempt notices are discharged. =
“If shame had survived”
The legal opinion that the former Chief Justice of India, Mr. Y. V.
Chandrachud, has given on the Kuldip Singh Commission’s report is a
stunning indictment.=
It so happened that Justice Kuldip Singh, the then sitting
Judge of the Supreme Court, was appointed as Chairman, Commission of
Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘1952 Act’) to probe into alleged acts of omissions and commissions
by Shri Ramakrishna Hegde, the former Chief Minister of Karnataka. The one
man Commission headed by Justice Kuldip Singh submitted its report on
22.06.1990.=
In the contempt petition filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy
on 23.08.1990 under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as, “1971 Act”) against the then Editor of Indian
Express, Mr. Arun Shourie,
it is contended that the editorial is a
scandalous statement in respect of a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of
India and the judiciary. It lowers the authority of this Court as well as
shakes public confidence in it and amounts to criminal contempt of this
Court.
It is submitted that unless this Court acts promptly and if
necessary, suo motu in the matter, sitting Judges would be helpless and
unable to defend themselves, and in the process, public confidence in
judges and the courts would be eroded.=
The then Attorney General Shri Soli Sorabjee in his opinion dated
27.08.1990 noted that the editorial had, prima facie, overstepped the
limits of permissible criticism and the law of contempt, as was existing in
the country, did not provide for truth as defence and, therefore, he opined
that an explanation was called for and a notice could be issued for that
purpose. In his view, the question
whether the contempt of a Commission or
Commissioner appointed under the 1952 Act tantamounts to contempt of the
High Court or Supreme Court of which the Commissioner is member needs to be
authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in view of the reoccurrence of
the issue. =
On 03.09.1990, the suo motu contempt matterby the Hon’ble the Chief
Justice.
The proceeding of 03.09.1990 reads as under:
“In Re : Arun Shourie and Anr.
We have seen the editorial in the “Indian Express” of August 13,
1990. We have obtained the opinion of the Attorney General of India in the
matter. We consider that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the editorial tend to fall
within the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ in Section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. =
The two principal questions that arise for consideration and
need our answer are as follows:
(i) When a sitting Supreme Court Judge is appointed as a
Commissioner by the Central Government under the 1952 Act, does he carry
with him all the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? In other
words, whether the functions which are discharged by the Supreme Court
Judge as a Commissioner are purely statutory functions independent of the
jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court?
(ii) Whether truth can be pleaded as defence in contempt
proceedings?
Conclusion
The Commission constituted under the 1952 Act is a fact
finding body to enable the appropriate Government to decide as to the
course of action to be followed. Such Commission is not required to
adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and has no adjudicatory
functions. The Government is not bound to accept its recommendations or
act upon its findings. The mere fact that the procedure adopted by the
Commission is of a legal character and it has the power to administer oath
will not clothe it with the status of Court. That being so, in our view,
the Commission appointed under the 1952 Act is not a Court for the purposes
of Contempt of Courts Act even though it is headed by a sitting Supreme
Court Judge. Moreover, Section 10A of the 1952 Act leaves no matter of
doubt that the High Court has been conferred with the power to take
cognizance of the complaint in respect of the acts calculated to bring the
Commission or any member thereof into disrepute. Section 10A provides the
power of constructive contempt to the Commission by making a reference to
the High Court with a right of appeal to this Court. Our answer to the
first question is, therefore, in the negative.
35. In view of the above reasons, the contempt petitions are
dismissed and the contempt notices are discharged.
advocatemmmohan 
Discussion
Comments are closed.