Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the publication in a Patna newspaper of a notification issued by the Governor of Bihar under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, appointing a Commission of Inquiry to investigate charges against former ministers, including an allegation of interference with the administration of justice. The appellant, a sitting minister, provided a copy of the notification and its schedule of allegations to the press, which published it while criminal revision petitions concerning the withdrawal of prosecution against two accused were pending before the Patna High Court. The accused persons, Kedar Prasad Sinha and Arjun Pandey, filed a contempt application against several persons, including the appellant, alleging that the publication prejudiced the public and interfered with the course of justice. The Patna High Court found the appellant guilty of contempt but, observing that it was technical, let him off with a warning. The appellant appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The material facts were that on January 2, 1966, a murder led to criminal proceedings against several persons, but no charge sheet was filed against Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey. The committing magistrate later ordered them to be summoned as accused, which order was upheld in revision. The public prosecutor then sought withdrawal of the case against them, which the magistrate dismissed as an abuse and improper interference. Both the State of Bihar and one Abani Kumar Mandal filed revision petitions against the dismissal, which were admitted by the High Court on November 30, 1967. During the pendency of these revisions, the Governor of Bihar issued the notification dated March 12, 1968, appointing a Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into charges against fourteen former ministers, including Shri Hasibur Rahman. Allegation No. J-4 in the schedule stated that Shri Hasibur Rahman, as Law Minister, had directed withdrawal of the prosecution against the two accused despite contrary recommendations from the District Magistrate and Law Secretary, and after the trial court rejected the withdrawal, he directed filing of a revision in the High Court. The notification and schedule were published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary on March 12, 1968, and the appellant gave a copy to the press, which published it in the Searchlight on March 14, 1968. The core legal issues were whether the newspaper publication of the notification constituted contempt of court given the pending criminal revisions, and whether Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act mandated publication in the official gazette and whether that requirement was met. The applicants contended that the publication related to the subject matter of the pending revisions and prejudiced the public, while the appellant's side effectively argued that the publication was a statutory gazette notification and did not interfere with the court proceedings. The Supreme Court analyzed the law of contempt, noting that while courts have power to punish acts calculated to obstruct justice, intention is not a necessary ingredient, and in technical cases the court should exercise circumspection and judicial restraint. On Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, the Court held that publication in the official gazette was an imperative requirement, and since the schedule was part of the notification, its publication in the official gazette was compliance. The Court found that the whole notification was given to the press without undue emphasis to any portion. It further held that the subject matter of the inquiry before the Commission—whether the minister misused his official position—was distinct and separate from the question before the High Court in the criminal revisions, which was whether the magistrate’s order refusing withdrawal was contrary to law. Therefore, the publication did not constitute contempt. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and discharged the rule issued against the appellant.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Elements and Judicial Restraint - Intention to obstruct is not a necessary ingredient; act must be calculated to interfere with due course of justice; technical contempts require circumspection and judicial restraint - Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, Section 3 - The High Court found the appellant guilty of technical contempt for handing over a copy of the Bihar Gazette notification to the press; the Supreme Court considered the principles governing contempt and held that courts must evaluate surrounding circumstances and material facts before punishing, especially in cases of technical contempt; Held that in technical cases restraint is necessary (Paras 189-190). B) Commissions of Inquiry - Publication of Notification - Section 3(1) makes publication in the official gazette an imperative requirement; the schedule of allegations is part of the notification - Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, Section 3(1) - The notification appointing the Commission and the schedule containing allegations were published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary dated March 12, 1968; the appellant gave the full notification to the newspaper without undue emphasis; Held that publication in the official gazette satisfied the statutory requirement and publication of the schedule in the gazette was sufficient compliance (Paras 190-191). C) Contempt of Court - Pending Proceedings and Identity of Subject Matter - Contempt requires the publication to relate to the very matter pending before the court; distinct and separate matters do not constitute contempt - Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, Section 3 - Allegation No. J-4 concerned the misuse of official position by a minister in ordering withdrawal against official advice; the pending criminal revisions concerned whether the magistrate's order rejecting withdrawal was contrary to law; Held that the two matters were distinct and separate and not identical, so no contempt of court arose (Paras 191-192). D) Outcome - Discharge of Contempt Rule - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and discharged the rule - Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, Section 3 - Held that the appeal was allowed and the rule issued against the appellant for contempt was discharged (Para 192).
Issue of Consideration
Whether publication in a newspaper of a notification under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, containing allegations against a former minister relating to pending criminal revision petitions, constituted contempt of court; whether Section 3(1) of the Act mandated publication in the official gazette and whether such publication was satisfied
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and discharged the rule issued against the appellant for contempt of court. It held that the publication of the notification in the official gazette complied with Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and that the subject matter of the inquiry and the pending criminal revisions were distinct and separate; hence no contempt was committed.
Law Points
- Contempt of court requires act calculated to obstruct or interfere with due course of justice
- intention not necessary
- technical contempts demand judicial restraint
- publication of notification under Section 3 of Commissions of Inquiry Act in official gazette is mandatory and sufficient
- schedule of allegations is part of notification
- contempt requires identity between published matter and pending court proceedings
- distinct and separate subject matters do not constitute contempt
