Binod Kumar Roy, P.K.Jain, JJ. - (1.) Following questions crop up in this case : (i) Whether respondent No. 1 had committed any criminal contempt in writing pages 137 and 138 of his autobiography 'Na Jivitha Katha' in regard to alleged disclosure of the Judge of his Judgment in the case popularly known as "Mrs. Gandhi's case to Sri Jai Prakash Narain and whether respondent No. 2--the Publisher of that book whose Managing Director is son of respondent No. 1 too has committed any criminal contempt of court in publishing the same? (ii) Whether any one has a right to know contents of any reserved judgment and order? (iii) Whether If he/she/or anyone attempts to know contents of any reserved order or judgment, through surveillance commits contempt of court? (iv) Whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances including the death of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it is a fit case in which a criminal contempt proceeding should be drawn up to find out who had done surveillance and at whose Instance on Mr. Justice J.M.L. Sinha during the period when he had reserved his judgment in the Election Case filed by Sri Raj Narain against Smt. Indira Gandhi?
(2.) Respondent No. 1 Sri J. Vengal Rao, a former Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh wrote his autobiography in Telugu and got ft published by respondent No 2 herein 'V.J. Financial Services Private Limited' (of which Sri J. Venkat Rao claims to be the Managing Director, and son of respondent No. 1) in form of a book captioned 'Na Jivitha Katha'. Sri Naresh Chandra Rajvanshi, the president of the Bar Association of this Court and Sri Haroon Ahmad, a member of the Bar Association of this Court filed an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as the Act) praying to punish respondent Nos. 1 to 2 under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for committal of gross contempt of this Court by them and for passing such other order which may be deemed fit and necessary in the Interest of justice asserting, inter alia, to this effect : (i) They are advocates practicing in this Court and keenly Interested in maintenance of its dignity and decorum. (ii) In the last week of August. 1996, they read in several newspapers about the scurrilous attacks on Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha of this Court, who had decided Election Petition No. 5 of 1971. Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and another, which are disparaging in character and derogatory to the dignity of the Judge and tends to shake confidence of the public in this Court, printed at pages 137 and 138 of the aforesaid book. (iii) To be sure about the exact text, they obtained copies of that book and found that the news as published in several newspapers in the country as correct. (iv) Annexure-1 is photostat copy of pages 137 and 138 of that book and Annexure-2 is their true and faithful English translation, which reads as follows : "Indira Election Annulled In India, for the opposition parties against Indira Gandhi tremendous rise in her popularity was unbearable. A few of them thought to bring her down in any manner. Therefore, an election petition was filed against her on the allegation that Government machineries were misused in her election for Parliament from Raibareli. But Indira Gandhi, her advisors and all other congress leaders without paying any heed, ignored it. But an incident occurred when the Judgment of the Court was yet to come in two-three months. The Judge hearing the election petition filed against Indira Gandhi once met Jai Prakash Narain and told him that the Judgment would be rendered against her. Jai Prakash Narain conveyed this fact to some friend and that friend informed Sri M.V.S. Subba Raju about that. Sri Subba Raju after being elected as M.L.A. from Kottapeta of East Godavari district was chief whip of the congress party while Sri Sanjeeva Reddy was the Chief Minister. He (Raju) claims himself to be very close to Sri Sanjeeva Reddy. The fact that the Judge conveyed to Jai Prakash Narain was correct to what extent or did Jai Prakash really conveyed this matter to his friend--there is no basis to verify all this. Howsoever this news be, Sri Subba Raju immediately wrote a letter to Sanjeeva Reddy and in that, he described literally all that was known to him. Somehow the letter of Sri Subba Raju came to the notice of the intelligence department of the State. The head of that department Sri Vijai Rama Rao brought a copy of the letter and showed to me, I Immediately ordered that the matter be brought to the notice of Indira Gandhi through the C.B.I, but the C.B.I, did not attach any Importance to that ; and the Prime Minister was assured that the Judgment would be in her favour, The congress leaders close to her also gave her the same Impression. Ultimately when the High Court fixed the date in June, 1975, all the congress Chief Ministers were asked to reach Delhi and stay there. We were all in Delhi on that day. At last, the Judge of Allahabad High Court delivered the judgment and annulled the election of Indira Gandhi and for misuse of official machinery in her election also disqualified her from seeking election for six years. It naturally caused strong commotion. Disappointment of all congressmen and jubilance of the opposition was visible. Just on reaching Delhi, I came to know of the news. I immediately met Smt. Indira Gandhi and told her that there was a long story behind that and regarding the letter written by Sri Subba Raju in the past and that the C.B.I, did not convey to the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi immediately called the C.B.I, officer and in my presence itself confronted him with the facts already stated by me. He admitted that what had stated by Sri Vengal Rao was correct and the fact that two or three months earlier copy of the letter had been brought to his notice by the intelligence department of Andhra Pradesh was verified." (Offending part underlined by us) (v) Even though respondent No. 1 has himself stated in paragraph I that "there is no basis for verification of the allegations made against the Judge," and despite has own statement in his 'sankalp' printed before commencement of the text that "in 1991. I decided to lead a calm and quiet life after distancing from politics." Yet he chose to make such statements intentionally which enhances seriousness of the guilt committed by them. (vi) The Judge dubbed the allegations as "utterly false and mischievous" as per his reply as contained in his letter dated 30th August, 1996 addressed to Sri S.N. Upadhyay, senior advocate, the relevant part of which reads as follows : ".....kindly refer to your letter dated nil personally handed over to me this morning. My reply thereto is as under : According to Mr. Rao, the decision in the election was conveyed to Sri Narayan two months in advance. It would mean even before the arguments were heard in the matter. The allegations made by Sri Vengal Rao are utterly false and mischievous. I never had any concern with Sri Jai Prakash Narayan either in person or through letters. I have seen many political leaders in my life making speeches from the podium but I never had any occasion to see Sri Jai Prakash Narayan even in that capacity. There was consequently no occasion for me to tell or narrate anything to Sri Jai Prakash Narayan about the judgment either before or after. Yours sincerely, Sd. (J. M.L. Sinha)" (Relevant denials underlined by us)
(3.) The aforesaid petition was placed on 12th September, 1996 before a Division Bench. From the order dated 12.9.1996, it appears that Sri Upadhyay, the learned senior counsel appearing in support of the petition had contended, inter alia, to the following effect : (i) No doubt the Judge concerned had superannuated long time back but in view of the fact that the allegations have been made recently tending to scandalising this Court, which has lowered Its reputation in the eyes of general public, despite the fact that the judgment of this Court was set aside on appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this petition is for restoration of the confidence in this Institution otherwise the very credibility of its functioning will be at stake. (ii) There Is yet another serious aspect of the matter. If we accept the correctness of the statements made in the autobiography of respondent No. 1, namely, that the C.B.I., the premier investigating agency of this country had tried to know the contents of the Judgment reserved by this Court, in doing so it has undoubtedly interfered with due administration of it's Justice.;