Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a criminal contempt petition against the editor of a Hindi newspaper in Gwalior for publishing a news report “Sarvoch Nayalaya Aaj Ki Tarah Nishpakch ho jai to Judge Shri Mody Ji Ko Jail Mein Hona Tha” against one of sitting judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Modi in 2011, a division bench comprising of Ravi Malimath, CJ., and Milind Ramesh Phadke,* J., held that the respondent’s actions indeed constituted criminal contempt of court under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court noted that despite warnings and opportunities to retract statements, the respondent persisted in justifying the publication, demonstrating a lack of remorse, and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the M.P. High Court Bar Association, Gwalior, as punishment.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, a contempt petition was initiated against the respondent, editor of a Hindi newspaper in Gwalior, based on a news item published in the Hindi newspaper “Dainik Chambal Vani” on 11-04-2011. The news item, titled “Sarvoch Nayalaya Aaj Ki Tarah Nishpakch ho jai to Judge Shri Mody Ji Ko Jail Mein Hona Tha”, was brought to the attention of Registrar J-1. Registrar J-1 found that the publication of the news item attempted to scandalize the image of a Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, thus constituting criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
After obtaining permission from the Chief Justice, a contempt criminal case was registered against the respondent. The case went through various benches and hearings, during which the respondent submitted replies and applications but did not appear in person on several occasions. The respondent, despite being present, attempted to withdraw his pleadings and submitted an oral apology, which was deemed insincere by the Court.
Moot Point
Whether the publication of the news item and subsequent actions of the respondent constitute criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?
Court’s Observation
The Court considered the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and cited Prashant Bhushan, In re (Contempt Matter), (2021) 1 SCC 745, D.C. Saxena v. Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216 and Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court, (1974) 1 SCC 374, emphasising that attacks on judges or the judiciary, especially those aimed at scandalizing the court and vilification of judges, constitute contempt of court. The Court noted that the respondent had deliberately made comments upon a particular judge, other judges and their judgments. The Court stated that respondent’s comments cannot be categorised in the nature of “mere dispassionate criticism of the judges, their working and their judgments, but are couched in intemperate language and use of undesirable expletives”. The Court found that the respondent’s actions, including the publication of the news item and subsequent justifications were intended to scandalize and lower the authority of the judiciary, thus falling within the definition of criminal contempt.
The Court emphasised on the importance of upholding the dignity and authority of the judiciary and deterring actions that undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The Court noted that despite opportunities to apologize and show genuine remorse, the respondent persisted in defending the contemptuous actions, indicating a lack of genuine repentance. The Court deemed the respondent’s attempt to apologize orally and withdraw pleadings as insincere.
“From the very appearance of the respondent-contemnor before this court, it appears from his attitude that there is no repentance of any kind on his face and just for the sake of apology he had made a regretful acknowledgment of the offence, which appears to this court not bona fide.”
Court’s Decision
-
The Court held that the respondent-contemnor is guilty of committing a criminal contempt as defined u/s 2(c) of the Contempt of 26 Courts Act, 1971;
-
The Court imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on the respondent, with an alternative of 10 days’ simple imprisonment if the fine was not paid within 10 days;
-
The Court ordered the respondent to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the M.P. High Court Bar Association within one month.
The contempt petition was finally disposed of.
[In Reference v. Suman Singh Sikarwar, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 2933, order dated 06-05-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Vivek Khedkar — Additional Advocate General, Counsel for the Petitioner/State
Party-In-Person, Counsel for the Respondent
