CASE ANALYSIS OF
J. R. PARASHAR V. PRASHANT BHUSAN
BY
Utsav sahu
INTERN
1st YEAR,
Indore Institute of Law
Indore
Mob-9171411146
Email :- utsavsahu0304@gmail.com
26 April 2020
1
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
On 30 December 2000, An alleged incident happened on that day after the verdict ordered by
the court a huge crowd held a dharna (The dharna were organised by the Narmada Bachao
Andolan and garnered the crowd where the people who live in the narmada valley and were
aggrieved by the majority judgement of the court related to the building of dam on the
Narmada river ) in front of the court and shouted abusive words and slogan against the court.
The slogan ascribed lack of integrity and dishonesty to the institution and this was done by
the Prashant Bhushan, Medha Patekar, Arundhati Roy. This was done in the presence of the
media and also allegedly that J.R. Parashar protested but were attacted and assaulted and
called brokers of the court while police also trying to disperse the throng. J.R. Parashar
lodged a complaint in the Tilak Marg Police station along with a public interest litigation
filed by the J. R. Parashar before the court.
FACTS IN ISSUE
A written petition is filed by the petitioner according to Article 32 of Constitution of India , to
seek remedies for the contempt of court under The Contempt of court Act 1971. The
petitioner claims that the decisions by the court were unreasonably criticized by the
respondent and the abusive word and slogan were shouted against the court which diminished
the integrity of the court. The petitioner further claim that during the protest the petitioner try
to disperse the throng the respondent called the broker of the court and should be liable for
the defamation for such a vilified statement under section 501 of the Indian Penal Code and
for unreasonably criticizing the court judgement should be liable for the criminal contempt of
the court. The purpose of the criminal contempt is to safeguard the judiciary from any
inappropriate verbal attack, which can lead to prejudice to the image of the judiciary
institution. The petitioner claim is the criminal contempt of the court and punishable act of
contempt under section 2(c)(i) of the contempt of court Act 1971 defines criminal contempt
means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which ?
(i) Scandalized or tends to scandalise, or lowers, tends to lower the authority of, any court;
(ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
Proceedings
2
(iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration
of justice in any other manner;
And Article 19(2) of India on Constitution deals with the freedom of speech and expression
and is not exercised so as to prejudice the court. Article 19(2) talks about certain reasonable
restriction. Thus, the freedom of speech and expression is not maintainable.
PETITIONER'S ARUMENTS
1. The freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) have certain reasonable
restriction so, the criticism against the court is not acceptable and should be liable for the
criminal court of contempt.
2. The criticism made was diminished the image of judiciary institution.
3. The criticism made was unreasonable.
4. The respondents defame the petitioner by calling broker of the court.
RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS
1. RESPONDENT NO. 1 ARGUMENT
a. The respondent denied that he did not holding the dharma as a way of protesting against
the judgement of the court
b. The respondent denied that he shouted any slogan against the court nor did assault, or
abuse any of the petitioner.
C. The petitioner claims that the allegation made in the petition should not be accepted as the
police who were present had refused to resister the FIR based on the complaint of the
petitioner.
2. RESPONDENT NO. 2 ARGUMENTS
a. The respondent denied that any incident involving the petition, as alleged in petition, had
taken place and asserted that the allegations that the petition were threatened or abused or
assaulted were false.
b. The respondent admit that she was is in dharma and also made speeches and raised slogan
but no slogan was raised or made impugning the integrity if the court.
3
C. The respondent claimed that the holding of dharma as the legitimate form of protest
against the judgement of the court.
d. The respondent contended that the petition was grossly defective and should not have been
accepted by the registry of this court.
RESPONDENT NO. 3 ARGUMENTS
a. The respondent denied that she had raised any slogan against the court so, their is no
contempt of court.
b. The respondent had left the dharna at about 6:00 pm and so that no such incident happened
as alleged in the petition.
c. The respondent had asserted that the right to participate in any peaceful protest that she
chose to.
FAIR CRITICISM
Article 19 is enshrined in the Indian constitution. It deals with the right of freedom of speech
and expression. Person have right to participate in any peaceful protest they have right to
choose.
In the case Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab it was held that every citizen have the
freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution which includes
fair criticism of the law or any executive action. A legitimate exercise of right of speech and
expression including a fair criticism is not be throttled. In the case Rajendra Sail v. Madhya
Pradesh1 High court observed that the speech that judgement is rubbish and deserve to be
thrown in a dustbin cannot be said to be a fair criticism of the judgement. These comments
have transgressed the limits of fair criticism and clear pendency to affect the dignity of the
judiciary. It has tendency to create apprehension in the mind of the people regarding the
integrity, ability, fairness of the judge.
In the case Re Arundhati Roy v. Unknown2 it was observed that the constitution of Indian
guaranteed freedom of speech and expression to every citizen of the country as a fundamental
right. while guaranteeing such freedom it has provided under article 129 that the supreme
court shall be a record and shall have all powers of such court inclined the power to punish
for the contempt of court. Any expression of opinion would therefore be not immune fron the
1
SSC 109 at para 45
2
AIR 2002 SCC 1375
4
liability for exceeding the limits, either under the law of defamation or contempt of court or
other constitution limitation under Article 19(2) of Indian constitution.
In the case Rajendra Sail v. State of Madhya Pradesh 3 High court it was observed that fair
and reasonable criticism of a judgement which is a public document or which act of a judge
concerned with administration of justice would not be constitute as contempt of court. In fact,
such fair and reasonable criticism must be encouraged because after all no one, much less
claim infallibility. A fair and reasonable criticism comment would even be helpful to the
judge concerned on the matter.
In case Hetram & Beniram v. Raghuveer Singh 4 & ors held that the court would not use the
power to punish for contempt for curbing the right to freedom of expression which is
guaranteed under Art 19(1)(a) of the constitution of India. Only when the criticism of the
judicial institution transgress all the limits of decency and fairness or there is total lack of
objectivity or there is deliberate attempt to denigrate the institution then the court use this
power.
Law on Criminal Contempt of Court
The purpose of the criminal contempt is to safe guard the judiciary from any unreasonable
verbal attack which leads to prejudice the image of the court or judiciary institute. Under
article 129 and 215 of the Indian constitution, both Supreme Court and High court have the
power to punish for both their own contempt and for the contempt of lower court. There are
three ways under which contempt proceeding can be initiated.
(i) Action taken by Attorney general (or solicitor general) on his own motion wherein
requests the court to initiate contempt proceeding against the contemnor.
(ii) Action taken by the court on an application filed by a third person after getting the
permission of the Attorney general.
(iii) Suo motu action taken by High court and Supreme Court independently or on the
presentation of an application to it by a private person.
In 1971 parliament enacted the contempt of court Act, defining the power in punishing acts of
contempt. Section 2(c)(1) of the act defines criminal contempt:
3
2005 SCC 109 at Para 45
4
AIR 2007 SCC 2725
5
The publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by sign or by visible representation)
of any matter or doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalises or tends to scandalise or
lower the authority of court.
Apart from this section 228 of the Indian penal code also make the act of the contempt of
court as punishable offence.
The Delhi High court in Shri Surya Prakash Khatri & Anr v. Smt. Madhu Trehan and others5
took serious notice of a magazines attempt to rate the judges of the High court on parameters
such as integrity, honesty and knowledge of the judge or the authority of the judiciary
institute. This case questions the very genesis of contempt laws. Showing the contempt
proceeding are meant to protect the sham authority. It seems from the above evaluation that
the focus of court has been on maintaining a public perception rather than ensuring
compliance with court's order or criticizing the court judgement
Lowering the authority of the court
The judiciary time and again has again its interpretation of what all acts amount to be
lowering the authority of the court. In case D C Saxena v. Hon’ble The Chief Justice of
India6, the court observed that scandalizing a judge or the court would include act (such as
publication of defamatory statement or imputing partiality and lack of fairness against a judge
or judicial institution. Further from these judgement various objective of criminal contempt
concerning such as
(i) The confidence in the court of justice , which the people posses, cannot , in any way be
allowed to be tarnished, diminished out by the contumacious behaviour of any person
(ii) The dignity of the court needs to be maintained at all cost so as to preserve people
confidence in courts.
(iii) The contempt proceeding is intended to be a protection to be public whose interests
would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party the authority of the court is
lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it
is weakened.
In 1943 lord Atkin , while delivering the judgement of the privy council in Devi prasad v.
King Emperor7 observed that cases of contempt of court which consist of scandalizing the
5
2001 CRIL J 3476
6
AIR 1996 SC 2725
7
70 I. A. 216
6
court itself are fortunately rare and require to be treated with much discretion proceeding for
the contempt should be used sparingly and always with the administration of justice.
Lowering the authority of the court
A general question that arises from the court view on the law contempt is with regards to the
authority that the court enjoys under the Constitution fabriees. A unjust statement can belittle
the image of the judiciary institute law for the contempt of the court for maintaining the
decorum in the court proceeding or any other judiciary activity. Every judiciary authority
have their own dignity. If a statement which present truth about a particular judge or a
judiciary institute should not be taken as contempt of court and it is extremely necessary fot
the court or judiciary institute to show empiricism, tolerance and dignified indifference to
these statement.
In the case its motion v. M. k. Tayal and ors.8, The mid day daily was charged for the
contempt for publishing a statement against the chief justice of India, wherein it was alleged
that the biased judgement were passed by him . The court held that the statement had lowered
the image of the court since the person imputed a wrong statement against the Chief justice of
India.
Defamation
Holding the dharna can be termed as criticizing the judgement of the court or judiciary
institute. Holding dharna which obstruct the entry and exit of the court premise and can create
obstruction in the administration of justice. Holding dharna create other illicit activities
punishable by the law such as creating nuisance. By criticizing the order of the court and
protesting against the judgement of the court and also imputing allegation to the the judiciary
officer, or criticizing the judgement may amount to the defamation proceeding can be
initiated by the particular judge against the person so accused of making false statement.
In the case Perspective Publication v. State of Maharashtra9 supreme court held that
"There is a distinction between a mere libel or defamation of a judge and what amount to
contempt of court . The tests are:
(i) Is the impugned publication a mere defamatory attack on the judge or is it calculated to
interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law by court?
8
AIR 2007 (98) DRJ 41
9
AIR 1971 SCC 221.
7
(ii) Is the wrong done to the judge personally or is it done to the public.
Keeping in mind but this case observed that the mere defamation of a judge does not amount
to sculling the process of the justice
In case Brahma Prakash Sharma and ors. V. The State of Uttar Pradesh 10 the court in this
case started that
"It will be an injury to the public if it tend to create apprehension in the mind of the people
regarding the integrity, ability or the fair of the judge or to deter actual and prospective
litigants from placing reliance upon the court administration of justice or if it is likely to
cause embarrassment in the mind of the judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties
In the case of Re s. K. Sundaram suo moto contempt petition wherein the court observed that
"Scandalizing the court therefore would means hostile criticism of judges as judges or
judiciary . Any personal attack upon judge would be liable under law libel or slander.
Precedents of High court and Supreme court
In case. Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabind bose11 the times of India a daily news paper
published in Bombay and New Delhi a leading article under the heading "Disturbing
decision". The court held that the apology tendered by the respondent and the undertaking
given by them to give wide publicity to their regret, the court to drop further proceeding and
accepted the apology and discharge the rule without any order as to cost.
In case Andre Paul v. Attorney General12 of Trinidad the privy council observed that the path
of criticism is a public way: the wrong headed are permitted to err therein provided that
members of the public abstain from imputing improper motive to those taking part in the
administration of justice and are genuinely exercise a right of criticism and not acting malice
or attempting to impair the administration of justice they are immune. Justice os not a
cloistered virtue; she must allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though out
spoken comment of ordinary men".
In case Rama Dayal Markarhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh the respondent committing
contempt by scandalizing or tending to scandalise, or lowering or tending to lower the
authority of the Additional District Magistrate by publishing a pamphlet on commenting the
judgement rendered by the court, but the court held that the contempter is trying to impose
himself upon courts or in his mistaken zeal he is publishing pamphlets criticizing judgements
10
1954 AIR 10, 1954 SCR 1169
11
AIR 1953 SC 75
12
AIR 1936 PC 141
8
of the court, there is some error in judgement the court while the court did not exonerated the
contempter and impose the sentence of 1 Rs fine
In case Rustom Cawasjee v. Union of India13 by a majority of the decision the court declared
the judgement and this judgment were severely criticized by number person the Hindustan
Times reported said that such decision 'do not enhance the prestige of the judiciary the court
held that even the fair and temperate criticism of the court or even other court even if strong,
may be actionable attributing improper motive and or tending to bring judge or court into
hatred and contempt directly or indirectly with functioning of the court.
S. K. Sarkarv. Vinay Chandra Mishra in the case the judgement of the court was delivered by
the court after then the appeal is directed against an order. It raises question of law as to the
jurisdiction and power of the High court to take the action of Suo Motu under the section 15
of the contempt of court Act 1971. in this case the respondent denied the allegation of the
petitioner latter on the preliminary objection was taken by the appellant before the high court
that the latter was not competent to take the cognizance of the contempt alleged to have been
committed in the petition moved without any reference from the subordinate court or without
any motion by a Advocate-General. In the peculiar circumstances of the case the high court
act improperly in taking the suo motu cognizance. And therefore the appeal send back to the
High court and the appeal dismissed on the basis of the allegation.
Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries 14 in this case the State
of Bihar filed an application for committing the Respondents for contempt of court, alleging
that by the conduct the respondents were obstructing the administration of justice and
interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings. The High Court expressed the view
that there was no specific allegation that any contempt of Court had been committed by the
filing of the application because there is no evidence which can prove the contempt of the
court. All the facts and circumstances enumerated in the petition established that the
respondents were obstructing and interfering with the due course and administration of justice
of judicial institution. It was not necessary that every allegation made should be followed
then and there by the statement that the allegation established a Contempt of Court.
13
AIR 1970 SC 1918
14
1980 AIR 946, 1980 SCR (2) 1172
9
LAW FOR TAKING SUO MOTU
Under the Contempt of court act 1971 the high court have power to take suo motu
cognizance. Under section 15 of the contempt of the court Act 1971
Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases. (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other
than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take
action on its own motion or on a motion made by
(a) the Advocate-General, or
(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General.
S. K. Sarkar v. Vinaychandra Mishra in the case the judgement of the court was delivered by
the court after then the appeal directed against an order. It raise question of law as to the
jurisdiction and power of the High court to take the action of suo motu under the section 15
of the contempt of Court Act 1971. In this case the respondents denied the allegation of
petitioner later on the preliminary objection was taken by the appellant before the high court
that they were not competent to take the cognizance of contempt alleged to have been
committed in the petition moved without an reference from the subordinate court or without
any motion by a advocate general. In the peculiar circumstances of the case the high court act
improperly in taking the suo motu cognizance. And therefore appeals send bake to the High
court and appeal dismissed on the basis of the allegations.
OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT
The allegation of shouting of abusive allegation cannot be accepted by the court because their
is no other legally admissible evidence before the court and the only material which the court
can take into the account of the statement contained in the PIL. At the time of dharna police
refuse to record any FIR on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petition.
Therefore their is no allegation in the complaint that the respondent shouted defamatory
statement against the court. The respondent no. 1 has not shouted any slogan against the
court nor did assault to any of the petitioner. respondent 2 argue that he had not participated
in any illegal activity or not shouted abusive word to the court. respondent 3 argue that he had
not participated in the dharna or not assault to the petitioner. the only evidence in the case is
the police did not lodged any FIR related to this incident. Respondent No. 1 and 2 denied on
their oath that shouted any slogans and respondent 3 denied shouting any slogan which could
be termed as contumacious. The allegation made against the respondent for defamation of the
10
petitioner (calling the broker of the court) were not proved by the petitioner due to lack of
evidence.
Holding dharna by itself may not amount to contempt and there is no allegation in the petition
that the participants in the dharna had picketed at the gate of the court and prevented lawyer
or litigant from entering and leaving the court premises and not disturb any court
proceedings.
This should have concluded the matter in favour of the respondent while, The question is
whether the statement made in the affidavits of the respondent no. 2 and 3 could be termed as
the fair criticism or do the comment impute improper motive to those taking in the
administration of justice and no personal motive has been ascribed by the respondent no. 2 to
any judge her comment are general in nature and could be consider as fair criticism. So,
therefore the sentence does not in fact correctly state in the law by the petitioner and
dismissed the PIL and issued notice to the respondent No 3.
REFERENCES
J. R. Parashar v. Prashant Bhushan AIR 2001 SC 3395
Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab, 14 Feb 2002
Rajendra Sail v. Madhya Pradesh High Court 2005 SCC 109 at para 45
Shri Suryarakash Khatri & Anr v. Smt. Madhu Trehan, 2001 CRIL J 3476
Het Ram Beniwal & Ors v. Raghuveersingh & ors, AIR 2007 SC 2725
D C Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, AIR 1996 SC 2481
Its motion v. M. K. Tayal & Ors, AIR 2007 (98) DRJ 41
Brahma Prakash Sharma & Ors v. State of UP. AIR 1954, 10 , 1954 SCR 1169
Ashwini Kumar Ghose v. Arabind Bose AIR 1953 SC 75
Andre Paul v. Attorney General of Trinidad, AIR 1936 PC 141
S K Sankar v. Vinay Chandra Mishra
Devi Prasad v. King Emperor, 70 I. A. 216
Perspective Publication v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 221
Rustom Cawasjee Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1318
Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries, AIR 1980, SC 946,
1980 SCR (2)1172
11
Re Arundhati Roy v. Unknown AIR 2002 SC 1375
BRIEF ABOUT AUTHOR
Utsav Sahu is pursuing B.A.LL.B (Hons) from Indore Institute of Law, Indore. He is 1 st year
student. He has published many articles in the Naya Disha. He has a keen interest in the
research work. He frequently writes on social legal issues for enhancing the writing skills. He
want to work in a law firm to enrich knowledge and enhance research skill other then
academics he always participates in extracurricular activities. He has interests in
Constitutional Law, contract law, law of torts.
12
