A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has reiterated that truth in the publication of a news item can be treated as defence in contempt of court proceedings. The court, however, held that Commissions of Enquiry have no power to initiate contempt proceedings against newspapers.
Giving this ruling a Bench comprising Chief Justice R.M. Lodha and Justices Anil R. Dave, S.J. Mukhopadaya, Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh pointed out that the Contempt of Courts Act had been amended and a provision had been inserted to the effect that ‘truth’ could be claimed as a defence.
Writing the judgment Justice Lodha said “The amended section enables the Court to permit justification by truth as a valid defence in any contempt proceedings for purging out of contempt if it is satisfied that such defence is in public interest and the request for invoking the defence is bona fide. We approve the view taken earlier by a two Judge Bench.”
In the instant case, ‘The Indian Express’ published an editorial on August 13, 1990 against Justice Kuldip Singh, the then sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, who was appointed as Chairman, Commission of Inquiry to probe into alleged acts of omissions and commissions by Ramakrishna Hegde, the former Chief Minister of Karnataka.
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy filed a contempt petition against Arun Shourie who was the then Editor of the newspaper alleging that the editorial had scandalised the judiciary. The apex court also initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Mr. Shourie. The matters were referred to a larger Bench.
Dismissing the contempt proceedings, the Bench said “When a sitting Supreme Court Judge is appointed as a Commissioner by the Central Government, he does not carry with him all the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. We do not have any doubt that functions of the Commission are not like a body discharging judicial functions or judicial power. The Commission in our view is not a Court and making the inquiry or determination of facts by the Commission is not of judicial character.”
The Bench held that a Commission was not a Court within the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act. The mere fact that the procedure adopted by the Commission was of a legal character would not clothe it with the status of Court.
