- (1.) Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 54/2019 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Arguments concluded. Order reserved. Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1/2019 and Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 2/2019
(2.) Heard Sh. K.K.Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India, and Sh. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India.
(3.) To contend that by act in question, contempt of court has been committed, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in RE : P.C.SEN (Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 1966), reported in (1969) 2 SCR 649, wherein the following observations have been made by this Court :- "8. The law relating to contempt of Court is well settled. Any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a Court or a Judge into contempt, or to lower his authority, or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the Court, is a contempt of Court : R. v. Gray,1900 2 QBD 36 at p. 40. Contempt by speech or writing may be by scandalising the Court itself, or by abusing parties to actions, or by prejudicing mankind in favour of or against a party before the cause is heard. It is incumbent upon Courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, for prejudicing the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finally heard has pernicious consequences. Speeches or writings misrepresenting the proceedings of the Court or prejudicing the public for or against a party or involving reflections on parties to a proceeding amount to contempt. To make a speech tending to influence the result of a pending trial, whether civil or criminal is a grave contempt. Comments on pending proceedings, if emanating from the parties or their lawyers, are generally a more serious contempt than those coming from independent sources. The question in all cases of comment on pending proceedings is not whether the publication does interfere, but whether it tends to interfere, with the due course of justice. The question is not so much of the intention of the contemner as whether it is calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. As observed by the Judicial Committee in Debi Prasad Sharma and Ors. v. The King-Emperor , L.R. 70 I. A. 216 at p. 224: ".... the test applied by the .... Board which heard the reference was whether the words complained of were in the circumstances calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of the law.";