Dr Subramanian Swamy vs Arun Shourie

DATE OF THE CASE: 23 July, 2014

PETITIONER: Dr Subramanian Swamy

CITATION: CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 12 OF 1990
BENCH/JUDGES: Chief Justice, Anil R. Dave, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Dipak
Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh

IMPORTANT SECTIONS/ARTICLES: Section 2 of Contempt of Courts Act, section 19

& 20 of Indian Penal Code.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. An Editorial was Published in Indian Express in 1990, with a caption “If the shame
had survived”. Several allegations were made on the judgement made by the high
Court.
2. Allegations were related to a report by Commission of Inquiry report.
3. Justice Kuldeep Singh, then sitting judge at Supreme Court was appointed as
Chairmen of Commission of Inquiry, in June 1990, he submitted the report about the
investigations made on alleged acts of then CM of Karnataka, Mr Hedge.
4. The editorial said that, no judge would have done what was done under the report, and
conduct of the Commissioner.
5. Editorial said that, no judge would have done what was done under the report and any
judge would have left the chair after the false report.
6. According to then Attorney General, Editorial, overstepped the limitations of
permissible critics and law of Contempt.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

1. When SC gets appointed as Commission by Central Government under act of

Commission 1952, does he carry jurisdiction and all the powers of the Supreme
Court? i.e., the functions of Commissioner are Statutory functions under the
jurisdiction of Court.
2. Whether truth can be pleaded as defence in Contempt Proceedings.
 CONTENTION:

Arguments:

1) On 03.09.1990, the suo motu contempt matter and so also the contempt petition filed by
Dr Subramanian Swamy came up for consideration before the three Judge Bench of this
Court headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
2) These two cases of contempt, one by Dr Subramanian Swamy and the other suo motu, are
a result of the above-quoted editorial that appeared in Indian Express. Dr Subramanian
Swamy filed a contempt petition on August 23, 1990, alleging that the then-editor of
Indian Express, Mr. Arun Shourie, had made scandalous remarks about a sitting Supreme
Court of India judge and the judiciary under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 (henceforth referred to as the "1971 Act"). It amounts to criminal contempt of this
Court, weakens its authority, and erodes public confidence in it.
3) The argument makes the case that inaction on the part of this Court, even suo motu in
certain cases, would leave sitting judges defenceless and weak, undermining public trust
in the legal system as a whole.
4) On 03.09.1990, the suo motu contempt matter and so also the contempt petition filed by
Dr Subramanian Swamy came up for consideration before the three Judge Bench of this
Court headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The proceeding of 03.09.1990 reads as
under:
a) The editorial from August 13, 1990's "Indian Express" has been seen by us. We've
heard the Attorney General of India's perspective on the issue. According to Section
2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the editorial's paragraphs two and three
generally fit the definition of "criminal contempt." Consequently, we order that a
notice be sent to the alleged contemners, returnable on October 8, 1990, asking them
to explain why they shouldn't be held in contempt of court under Article 129 of the
Constitution for the offensive editorial they published. On October 8, 1990, the
contestants must physically appear in court. The notice that will be sent to the
contestants should be accompanied by a copy of the Attorney General's opinion in the
case. On or before October 8, 1990, they may submit their affidavits in support of
their defence. Notify the Indian Attorney General to come and support the court in
hearing the case.
b) The reply affidavit was submitted by respondent Arun Shourie on October 13, 1999.
His defence and objections will be discussed at a later time and place. It is sufficient,
however, to mention at this point that the respondent prayed in the counter affidavit
that, given the sensitive nature of the facts, he would prefer to put them in the form of
a signed statement in a sealed cover for the Court's review, which may be considered
an integral part of the counter affidavit, rather than putting them out in the affidavit.
On March 4, 1991, the Court dismissed the petitioner's request, noting that the
respondent's proposed procedure was unacceptable and did not follow the accepted
format for the pleadings. It was permitted for the respondent to take the sealed cover
away from the court. He was offered the chance to submit more affidavits.

RATIONALE:

The court answered the second issue first,

Some countries under common law practice, provide truth as a defence for contempt.

No provisions relating to this were present at the time of happening of this case, it was
settled by the amendment of 2003 revelation of truth for public benefit and making fair
criticism, does not considered contempt of court, unless, it is not deprived public
confidence on judge or court.

For answering the second question definition of the court Judge, contempt of court were
studied and defined under the case.

Contempt id of two types i.e., civil contempt which is will disobedience. Criminal
contempt id oral, written expressed, publication of degrading sentence, scandalising
interfering and obstruction to judicial proceeding.

Judge id a person officially designated to be Judge,

Commission of Inquiry is not properly called a court. It was created by Central

Government and course if action is decided by the centre, it can be said a fact-finding
body. Inquiry commission does not have any judicial character.

INFERENCE:
The above case is related to contempt of court Act. This case is related to a editorial
published under the Indian Express which made allegations on Justice of Commission of
Inquiry. This case while giving the judgement Court addresses two main issues in the
case. Contempt can be of two types i.e., civil and criminal contempt. By understanding
the definitions of court, judge, jurisdiction and judicial proceedings court solves the
second issue also. Since the Inquiry commission has no judiciary powers as it was
established just for making a report by conducting a survey. So it was just a fact finding
body.