Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka initiated suo-motu criminal contempt proceedings against certain individuals associated with ISKCON and advocates, arising from an incident during the hearing of a regular first appeal (RFA No.421 of 2009) in a property dispute between ISKCON Bangalore and ISKCON Bombay. After the appeal was adjourned to 10 July 2009, the judges received a cover containing two photographs and a message. The photographs showed one of the judges, Justice K.L. Manjunath, at the ISKCON Bangalore temple in 2003, receiving what appeared to be a gift. The accompanying message, purportedly from 'Jayapataka Swami Sisya Samuha', questioned the judge's integrity and suggested that he should not hear the appeal due to his past association with ISKCON Bangalore. When the court brought this to the notice of the counsel for both parties, the appellant's counsel denied involvement and alleged that the respondent had sent the packet to tarnish the appellant's image and scandalize the judiciary, requesting an enquiry. The respondent's counsel also denied responsibility and expressed full confidence in the court. The court then interrogated Advocate S.A. Maruthi Prasad, who was present in court, about his role in arranging visits by judges to the temple. The court recorded its opinion that the cover was a blackmail tactic to avoid the bench and scandalize the judge and judiciary. It directed both parties to file affidavits explaining how the photograph could have been sent. The matter was reported in newspapers the next day, quoting the judges' remarks about blackmail and judicial integrity. The court later registered a contempt case on its own motion under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The accused included two office-bearers of ISKCON and four advocates. The proceedings were heard and reserved for orders, and the judgment authored by Justice N. Kumar, dated 16 April 2015, detailed these facts. However, the available text cuts off before recording the final decision on contempt, indicating only that one of the appellants had filed an affidavit in compliance with the earlier direction. The primary legal issue was whether the acts amounted to criminal contempt by scandalizing the court. The court's analysis focused on the prima facie attempt to interfere with judicial proceedings and lower the court's authority. The outcome of the contempt proceedings is not captured in the truncated judgment text.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Scandalizing the Judiciary - Constitution of India, Article 215 and Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(c) - The court viewed the anonymous sending of photographs with captions questioning a judge's integrity as a blackmail tactic to avoid the bench and to scandalize the judge, thereby bringing down the reputation of the court - Directions issued for parties to file affidavits explaining how the photographs could have been sent, and the matter was posted for further hearing (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the act of sending photographs with a captioned message questioning the judge's integrity and impartiality in a pending appeal amounts to criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India
Law Points
- Contempt of court
- Scandalizing the judiciary
- Criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Article 215 of the Constitution of India
- Suo-motu contempt jurisdiction
