Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from contempt proceedings initiated in the Calcutta High Court against three members of a Special Committee of the Calcutta Corporation. The respondent, B. K. Sen, was the Commissioner of the Corporation and an accused in a criminal case under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant in that criminal case had filed a complaint in 1955, and after a protracted trial, the Magistrate discharged the accused under Section 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on July 13, 1957. The Sessions Judge directed further enquiry on November 22, 1957, and the Magistrate allowed further evidence on January 3, 1958. Aggrieved, the accused filed a revision petition in the Calcutta High Court, which issued a Rule and stayed further proceedings on February 3, 1958. While the criminal revision was pending, the Calcutta Corporation at a meeting on February 14, 1958, passed a resolution appointing the appellants as members of a Special Committee to enquire into allegations against certain officials of the Corporation who were alleged to have taken advantage of their high offices in carrying on business in their own names. The resolution specified that the Committee would take up only matters relating to the Corporation. Subsequently, the Mayor handed over to the Committee certain papers from a Councillor containing allegations against the Commissioner. The Committee then examined the complainant Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury and witness Tarak Nath Dey, and issued a questionnaire to B. K. Sen. The questionnaire referred to appointments given by B. K. Sen to relatives of witnesses cited in the criminal case, and alleged that such appointments were made during the pendency of the trial, suggesting possible subornation of witnesses. B. K. Sen filed a contempt petition in the Calcutta High Court, alleging that the Special Committee had set up a parallel court of enquiry over matters directly and substantially in issue in the pending criminal proceedings, thereby creating an atmosphere of prejudice and interfering with the free flow of justice. The High Court found the appellants guilty of contempt and sentenced each to a fine of Rs. 500. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Special Committee's enquiry and issuance of the questionnaire amounted to contempt of court by constituting a parallel enquiry into matters pending before the criminal court or the High Court. The appellants contended that the Committee acted within the scope of the Corporation resolution, that the enquiry was administrative in nature, and that there was no intention to interfere with the course of justice. The respondent argued that the Committee deliberately traversed grounds pending in court, examined witnesses, and created prejudice against him. The majority judgment by Imam and Raghubar Dayal JJ. held that the Special Committee was directed to enquire into malpractices of Corporation employees, including unworthy appointments, and ascertaining the motive for such appointments was incidental to the main purpose of the enquiry. The Committee did not constitute a court of parallel enquiry with regard to matters in issue before the trial Magistrate or the High Court. The record showed that the appellants had at no time intended to interfere with the course of justice, nor had their conduct tended to do so. They had taken care not to comment on any proceedings pending in court or on the issues arising out of them. The comparison to a trial by newspaper was rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were held not guilty of contempt. Justice Subba Rao dissented, opining that the enquiry initiated by the Committee went beyond the scope of the Corporation resolution and, with knowledge of pending criminal proceedings, examined witnesses and issued a questionnaire in a non-confidential manner. Applying the settled test that a person is guilty of contempt if the act is intended or calculated or likely to interfere with the course of justice, he found that the enquiry could have serious repercussions on the pending proceedings, might unconsciously affect a weaker judicial mind, and could cause public apprehension about a fair hearing. He considered the contempt to be of a serious character calculated to interfere with and obstruct the due course of justice.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Parallel Enquiry - Special Committee of Corporation enquiring into employee malpractices, including appointments of relatives of witnesses in pending criminal case, did not constitute a parallel court of enquiry because ascertainment of motive was incidental to main purpose of administrative enquiry - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 497; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 253(1) - The High Court convicted Committee members for contempt, but Supreme Court majority held that the enquiry was within the broad terms of the Corporation resolution to investigate officials taking advantage of office; no direct comment on pending proceedings or issues; Held, no contempt of court. B) Contempt of Court - Test for Interference - A person is guilty only if act is intended or calculated or likely to interfere with course of justice; mere initiation of administrative enquiry does not per se amount to contempt unless such intention or tendency is shown - Common law of contempt / inherent jurisdiction of courts - The record showed appellants never intended to interfere and their conduct did not tend to do so; the enquiry was not akin to trial by newspaper; Held, absent intention or tendency, conviction cannot stand. C) Contempt of Court - Dissenting View - Likelihood of Prejudice - The test also includes acts likely to interfere; the Committee's examination of complainant and witnesses, open enquiry, and questionnaire to accused could create public apprehension and influence weaker judicial minds, thus obstructing justice - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 497 - Subba Rao J. dissented, finding the enquiry had serious repercussions on pending criminal proceedings and was calculated to interfere; Held, contempt should be punished even if judges personally unaffected.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Committee appointed by the Calcutta Corporation to enquire into allegations against officials, by issuing a questionnaire to the Commissioner during pendency of criminal proceedings under Section 497 IPC, functioned as a parallel court of enquiry and whether its members were guilty of contempt of court.
Final Decision
Supreme Court by majority (Imam and Raghubar Dayal JJ.; Subba Rao J. dissenting) allowed appeal, set aside conviction and sentences of fine of Rs. 500 each, and held appellants not guilty of contempt of court. The Special Committee did not constitute a parallel court of enquiry and its conduct did not intend or tend to interfere with course of justice.
Law Points
- Contempt of court requires intention or tendency to interfere with course of justice
- A committee enquiring into employee malpractices does not constitute a parallel court merely because incidental motive relates to pending proceedings
- No contempt where no comment on pending proceedings and no intention to interfere
- The scope of enquiry must be considered in context of administrative oversight of Corporation officials.
