Karnataka High Court
M.D. Muthu And Ors. vs Rev. D.P. Shettian on 8 January, 1992
Equivalent citations: ILR1996KAR3066
ORDER K.B. Navadgi, J.
1. The proceedings in this matter have been initiated and commenced on the Contempt Petition filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
2. On 25.8.1988, a Division Bench of this Court took cognizance of the matter and commenced the proceedings by directing issue of Show Cause Notice to the respondent, making the same returnable by 19.9.1988. In response to the Show Cause Notice, the respondent has entered appearance and filed his counter.
3. Along with the Contempt Petition ('the Petition' for short), the complainants have produced the affidavit of complainant No. 1; the certified copy of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 84/75(Dt. Council of UBMC v. S.N. MATHIAS, ILR 1989 KAR 587) as Annexure-'A'; the copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 355/87 instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, as Annexure-'B'; the copy of the publication issued by the respondent as Moderator's Commissary, Karnataka Southern Diocese, C.S.I. published in the issue of "Udaya Vani", a Kannada Daily published from Mangalore as Annexure-'C' and the English translation of the said publication is Annexure-'C-1'; and the copy of the publication issued by the respondent in his capacity as Moderator's Commissary, C.S.I. Trust Association, Karnataka Southern Diocese, published in the issue of "Udaya Vani" as Annexure 'D' and the English Translation of the said publication is Annexure-'D-1'.
4. Along with the counter, the respondent has produced the copy of the Order dated 31.3.1978 made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Company Reports 1 to 37 of 1978, as Annexure - 'A'; the copy of the Indenture of Revocation of Trust pertaining to the properties the benefit of which is "The Work of the Mission Church" dated 14.3.1972, as Annexure-'B'; the copy of the Indenture of Revocation of the Declaration of Trust pertaining to properties, the benefit of which is "The Work of the Church" of the same date, as Annexure-'C'; the copy of the Indenture of Transfer of Trust between the Evangelical Missionary Society in Basel (Basel Mission) and the Church of South India Trust Association, dated 14.3.1972, as Annexure-'D'; and the copy of the Indenture of Transfer of Trust between the Evangelical Missionary Society in Basel (Basel Mission) and the Church of South India Trust Association, dated 14.3.1972, as Annexure-"E'.
5. Along with the affidavit of M.D. Muthu, complainant No. 1, sworn to on 22.8.1989, the complainants have produced the copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 22/77 instituted in the Court of the District Judge, South Kanara, Mangalore, as Annexure-'F'; the copy of the Written Statement filed by defendant No. 1 on behalf of the defendants in O.S. No. 355/87, as Annexure-T'; the copy of the Memorandum of Appeal in M.F.A. No. 2784 of 1987 filed in this Court, as Annexure-'G'; and the certified copy of the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition No. 1907/88 instituted in this Court, as Annexure-'H'.
6. The complainants with their Counter-Statement by way of reply to the counter-statement, filed by the respondent, have produced the copy of the Order dated 25.9.1973 made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, in Inquiry No. 21/73, as Annexure-'J'; the copy of the order dated 7.1.1987 made by the Chanty Commissioner, Belgaum, in Revision Petition No. 9/84, as Annexure-'K'; and the copy of the order dated 25.8.1971, made by this Court on l.A.No. I in Regular Second Appeal No. 741 of 1971, as Annexure-'L'.
7. A written Note with regard to the matter in question is filed by Sri B.P.Holla, the Learned Counsel for the complainants, along with his Memo dated 16.8.1991. A written Note by way of reply to the contentions raised by the complainants is filed by Sri V. Krishnarnurthy, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. Along with the Written Note, the list of authorities on which the respondent relies in support of his plea that the case is not a fit one to frame charge; the Xerox copy of the Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 30 J.I.L.I (1988) in which the Article written by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice E.S. Venkataramiah, formerly the Chief Justice of India, on "The Sunday Times' Thalidomide Case" appeared; and Xerox copies of the paper cuttings of the "The Hindu" in which the Article titled "When criticism becomes contempt of Court" written by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.N. Mudaliyar, former Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, and former Minister for Law of the State of Tamil Nadu; and "Contempt of Court; Where to draw the line?" authored by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, formerly Judge of the Supreme Court, appeared, are also filed.
8. The complainants have also produced Xerox copy of the Order dated 1.3.1990 made by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5020 of 1989; the Xerox copy of the Order-sheet maintained in R.A.No. 176/89 that was on the file of the Court of Civil Judge, Managalore, containing the Order dated 28.9.1989; and the Typed Copy of the said Order.
9. We have examined the record, the petition, the counter and the documents produced by the complainants and the respondent. We have heard Sri B.P. Holla, the Learned Counsel for the complainants, and Sri V. Krishnamurthy, the Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent assisted by Sri H.N. Srinivas Anand and Sri V. Tarakaram, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, along with Sri V. Krishnamurthy.
10. The question for consideration is, whether there is a prima facie case to proceed to frame charge against the respondent for the offence of criminal contempt of this Court and of the subordinate Courts in the State in which the various proceedings instituted by the complainants and the respondent were and are pending.
11. In order to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the complainants and the defences projected to the said contentions on behalf of the respondent in the proper perspective and with a correct approach and to determine the question about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case to frame charge against the respondent, it may be necessary to refer to certain facts which emerge from the material on record.
12. There are two Churches, two religious denominations, namely, the United Basel Mission Church in India ('UBMC' for short) and the Church of South India ('CSI' for short). M.D. Muthu, R.H. Soans, Newman L. Isacs, S.C. Karkada, John G.H. Anchan and Stanely G. Philips (complainants Nos. 1 to 6) are the members of 'UBMC'. D.P. Shettian (the respondent), who is accused of the offence of criminal contempt, is a member of 'CSI', as a Moderator's Commissary.
13. The properties of the 'UBMC' were held and managed by a Trust Association called "the United Basel Mission Church in India Trust Association", a Company registered under the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'UBMC Trust Association' for short). Likewise, the properties of 'CSI' are held and managed by a Trust Association called "the Church of South India Trust Association" (hereinafter referred to as the 'CSI Trust Association'). There was a proposal for the merger of 'UBMC' with the "CSI'. The proposal was placed before the District Church Council of the "UBMC' (the Governing Council of 'UBMC') in the Meeting held on 9.5.1961. The proposal was put through and a resolution came to be passed for the merger of 'UBMC' with the 'CSI'.
14. Some members of the UBMC being not satisfied with the merger resolved by means of a resolution, filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff, Mangalore in O.S. No. 221/61. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit. There was first appeal in R.A.No. 189/68 by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit. The appeal was dismissed. There was a Regular Second Appeal to this Court in R.S.A. No. 741/71. This Court, by the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.1974, allowed the appeal setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court. The Judgment of this Court has been reported in SALVADOR NICHOLAS MATHIAS AND ORS. v. THE DISTRICT CHURCH COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BASEL MISSION CHURCH OF SOUTH KANARA AND COORG AND ORS., ILR 1974 KAR 1002. The defendants in the suit took the matter to the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 84/ 75. The Apex Court, by the Judgment dated 20.1.1988, allowed the appeal, set aside the Judgment and Decree of this Court in R.S.A. No. 741/72 and restored the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court, affirming those of the Trial Court.
15. With regard to the issue relating to the merger of 'UBMC' with 'CSI' the Supreme Court observed:
"The only Unit of UBMC that remained is the South Kanara and Coorg Unit By the impugned resolution dated May 9, 1961, the majority of members of the District Church Council of UBMC of the South Kanara and Coorg decided to join the CSI. Being aggrieved by the said resolution and to get rid of the same, the respondents instituted the said suit in a representative character under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure as representing the members of UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg."
16. Dealing with the same issue, the Supreme Court' further observed:
"It is the case of the Appellants that Synod has accorded its permission for the merger of UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg in the CSI. It is also their case that the resolution has already been implemented. The Learned Judge of the High Court has taken much pains in coming to the conclusion that there has been no such implementation as alleged by the Appellants. The question before us is not whether there has been any implementation of the resolution or not, but the question is whether the District Church Council had the authority to pass such a resolution. It is true that the District Church Council has only the power of amendment of the Constitution. No power has been conferred on it to pass a resolution relating to the union of UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg with the CSI.
... ... ...
We are unable to agree with the finding of the learned Judge of the High Court that the impugned resolution violates the provision of Section 6 of the Religious Societies Act and in view of the fact that the Synod has unanimously accorded permission for the merger, the High Court was not justified in striking down the impugned resolution on the ground that it was beyond the authority of the District Church Council to pass such a resolution. In our opinion, the impugned resolution is legal and valid."
17. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the resolution dated 9.5.1961 for merger of 'UBMC' with 'CSI' was legal and valid.
18. Dealing with the point as to whether the question raised was of merger of 'UBMC' with the 'CSI' or its dissolution, the Supreme Court observed:
"We are afraid, this decision has no manner of application to the facts of the instant case. Here we are not concerned with the question of dissolution of UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg, but with the question of merger. Dissolution contemplates liquidation of the Club and distribution of all assets among the members, but in the case of merger, there is no question of liquidation or distribution of assets. Moreover, we have already discussed above that the properties held in trust for UBMC will not be diverted to the use of the CSI, but will continue to be held in trust by the UBMC Trust Association for the benefit of the members of UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg, even if a merger takes place."
19. Pointing out the distinction between dissolution and merger, the Supreme Court held that the question was of merger and not of dissolution.
20. The plaintiffs in the suit (O.S.No. 221/61) had averred that the properties of UBMC had been vested by the Evangelical Missionary Societies in Basel (Basel Mission) in the UBMC Trust Association by a declaration of trust. It appears that by a Deed dated 18.9.1934, produced in O.S.No. 221/61, marked as Ext.A-146. therein the Evangelical Missionary Society in Basel (Basel Mission) (hereinafter referred to as such for the sake of brevity) declared itself as the trustee seized of or entitled to the lands and premises mentioned in the schedule to the said deed, holding the same in trust, inter alia for the benefit of the members of the Church founded by the Basel Mission in the District of South Kanara, Bombay-Karnataka and Malabar known as UBMC in India. The Basel Mission appointed UBMC Trust Association, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, as the managers of the Trust properties which belonged to the Basel Mission and not to the UBMC Trust Association. The plaintiffs made an averment that the properties belonged to the Basel Mission and it holds the same as the trustee for the benefit of the UBMC in India. The Supreme Court, dealing with the question as to whether, in the event of merger, there would be any diversion of the properties held in trust by the Basel Mission and managed by the UBMC Trust Association, held that in the case of merger, there cannot be any diversion and the properties would remain the properties of the Basel Mission which held them only for the purposes as mentioned in the deed. The Supreme Court laid down that even if there was merger, the properties or the income thereof would be utilised only for the benefit of the members of the UBMC of South Kanara and Coorg.
21. On examining the record in the suit, the Supreme Court held that there was no material placed by the parties to the suit that the 'UBMC' Trust Association had agreed to transfer the properties to the 'CSI' in case of merger and that there was no allegation made in the plaint in that regard. The Supreme Court negatived the contention of the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 221/61 that in case of merger, there would be diversion of the properties in the hands of the 'UBMC' Trust Association to the 'CSI' in breach of trust.
22. Though the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the merger resolution, as can be seen from the Judgment, it did not go into the question as to whether the resolution had been implemented, See ILR 1974 Kar 1002 at p.1020.
23. The respondent was a party to the suit in O.S.No. 221/61, to the first appeal in R.A.No. 189/68 and to C.A. No. 84/75.
24. We now proceed to refer to the proceedings pending between the 'UBMC' and the 'CSI' that have a bearing on the question to be determined.
25. The suit in O.S.No. 22/77 is the suit filed by some of the members of the 'UBMC' in the Court of the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code') for framing a Scheme for the management of the 'UBMC' Trust properties, for possession and certain other reliefs. In the said suit, the leave sought for to institute the suit has been granted and a regular suit has been registered. The respondent is defendant No. 7 in the said suit. The suit is pending.
26. The respondent, as power of attorney holder of the 'CSI' Trust Association, has filed a suit in O.S.No. 355/87 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Daskshina Kannada, against the complainants for a declaration that the formation of District Church board of the 'UBMC' by the complainants is null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the complainants (the defendants in the suit) from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the 'UBMC' Trust property by the plaintiff. The subject-matter of the said suit is the subject matter in O.S.No. 22/77.
27. In O.S.No. 355/87, the respondent had filed an application (I.A.No. II) for an order of temporary injunction restraining the complainants (defendants therein) from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The Learned Civil Judge had granted the interim injuction. The complainants filed a Miscellaneous First Appeal in this Court in M.F.A. No. 2784/87 on 26.10.87. This Court at the stage of admission, after hearing both the sides, directed the return of the Memorandum of Appeal on the ground that the appeal was competent to the Court of the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, and not to this Court. That order came to be passea on 22.2.1988. It was during the pendency of this appeal in this Court, the respondent made the publication dated 4.2.1988, Annexure-'C', published in the issue of "Udaya Vani" dated 6.2.1988.
28. The Memorandum of Appeal was presented to the Court of the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada. It was registered in the said Court as M.A.No. 13/88, the Learned District Judge dismissed the appeal by the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.1988. The complainants brought the dismissal to this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1907/88. That petition was filed on 4.4.1988 and, according to the complainants, it is still pending in this Court. The respondent made the second publication dated 5.7.1988, Annexure-'D', which came to be published in the issue of "Udaya Vani" dated 6.7.1988.
29. O.S.No. 355/87 is pending disposal. O.S.No. 345 of 1968 is the suit filed by some members of the 'UBMC' against 'CSI' and others questioning the merger.
30. We now refer to the publications made by the respondent, published in the issues of "Udaya Vani", Annexure-'C' and Annexure-'D', They read as under, The publications in Kannada language are omitted, but the Court has summarised them in the paras that follow - Editor:
31. Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act codifies the definition of 'criminal contempt' which, by the time the Act came into force (24.12.1971) had stood crystallised by a series of judicial decisions.
32. The said Clause defines 'criminal contempt' to mean, publication of any matter, whether by words or spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise of any matter, or the doing of any other act whatsoever which (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
33. It is in the tight of the definition of 'criminal contempt' and in the backdrop of the undisputed facts and the facts that emerge from the two publications, we have to find out whether the two publications made by the respondent constitute 'criminal contempt' within the meaning of Sub-clause (ii) and/or Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act.
The respondent sought justification for the publication pleading that it was necessary to bring the important observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court to the notice of the members of the public and to inform them of the real state of affairs.
36. The publication dated 4.2.1988 after quoting certain observations of the Supreme Court, verbatim, asserted that the properties of 'UBMC' were not the subject-matter of dispute in the suit; that after the transfer of the properties by registered deed in favour of 'SIC' Trust Association and after the liquidation of 'UBMC' Trust Association, no one had challenged the arrangement by instituting Court proceedings and that O.S.No. 22/77 instituted by the opponents (complainant No. 1 and others) which had been filed in 1977 on the basis of the decision of the High Court in 1974 had lost its ground in view of the reversal of the decision by the Supreme Court. According to it, in view of the reversal of the decision of the High Court by the Supreme Court, there was no support to the contentions raised (in the suit).
37. The publication informed the public that the copy of the judgment was available in the Office and that members of the public may look into it to seek confirmation of the truth of the publication.
38. The publication dated 4.2.1988 concluded with a warning to every one not, to distort Court proceedings or give distorted publications in newspapers and give unnecessary complaint to the Police Department asserting that the institution by name 'UBMC' even after its merger with the 'CSI' was still in existence and claiming right in the properties of the merged institution under the administration of 'CSI'.
40. The said publication incorporated verbatim the warning notice given by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mangalore East Police Station and the endorsement given by the Sub-Inspector to the respondent with reference to his complaint.
41. From the publications, extracted earlier and their core and substance, it can be said that the respondent wanted to say that O.S.No. 22/77 was not at all maintainable, since the assertions made and contentions raised by the plaintiffs in the said suit had lost the basis and foundation in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. In our opinion, prima facie, the publications were and are likely to prejudice or interfere with the due course of the judicial proceedings adverted to earlier. They have the tendency and tend to interfere with the due course of the judicial proceedings. They interfere and were/are likely to have a tendency or tend to interfere with or were/ are likely to obstruct or have a tendency or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. The first publication was made when MFA No. 2784/87 was pending in this Court and the second publication was made during the pendency of C.R.P.No. 1907/88 in this Court, which, according to the complainants, is still pending.
42. We feel it advantageous to quote the law as to interference with due course of justice of any judicial proceeding and cause prejudice in the minds of the Judge, referred to in Clause (c)(ii) of Section 2 of the Act, well stated by Gopal Rao Ekbote C.J., of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Y.V. HANUMANTHA RAO v. K.R. PATTABI RAM, :
"Now the law on contempt is well settled. When litigation is pending before a Court, no one shall comment on it in such a way that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the action, as for instance by influence on the Judge, the witnesses or by prejudicing mankind in general against a party to the cause. Even if the person making the comment honestly believes it to be true, still it is Contempt of Court if he prejudices the truth before it is ascertained in the proceedings. To this general rule of fair trial one may add a further rule and that is that none shall by misrepresentation or otherwise, bring unfair pressure to bear on one of the parties to a cause so as to force him to drop his complaint or defence. It is always regarded as of the first importance that the law which we have just stated should be maintained in its full integrity. But in so stating the law we must bear in mind that there must appear to be a real and substantial danger of prejudice."
43. It would be contrary to the practice of all Courts of Justice, unfair to an adversary, a Contempt of Court and highly dangerous to the administration of justice that a party to a suit or proceeding on any pretext whatever should communicate by publication or in any manner other than by public proceedings in open Court stating the merits of any case in which he is interested and which is pending in the Court of a Judge. Any wilful obstruction which is clear is a Contempt of Court within the meaning of Section 2(c)(iii) of the Act.
44. We are satisfied from the material, of course prima facie, that the two publications which, prima facie, appear to be contumacious, satisfy the ingredients of Criminal Contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Act.
45. May be, as contended by Sri V. Krishnamurthy, the Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, the provocation for the respondent to make the publications might be in the publications made by the complainants touching the subject of disputes, earlier in point of time, but we are inclined to hold for the present limited purpose that such a contention would not be available to the respondent in support of the plea that there is no prima facie case to frame the charge. In the law relating to contempt, justification cannot be pleaded as a defence. In GURCHARAN DASS CHADHA, v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, , the Supreme Court has observed that justification is not a plea heard in bar when contempt is clear and manifest. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in SHRI C.K. DAPHTARY, SR.ADVOCATE AND ORS. v. SHRI O.P. GUPTA AND ORS.,
46. The law as laid down by the Supreme Court is clear that a condemner cannot justify the contempt by the plea of justification.
47. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the respondent was provoked to make the publications by the complainants by making publications anterior to the publications in question that cannot afford an excuse for the respondent to make the publications which, in our opinion, prima facie, constitute contempt of Court within the meaning of Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act.
48. It was urged by Sri V. Krishnamurthy, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, that the 'UBMC' did not exist consequent on the merger resolution and on its implementation. That contention stands effectively answered by the observations made by the Supreme Court in C.A.No. 84/75 to which we have made a detailed reference in one of the earlier paragraphs.
49. Sri V. Krishnamurthy, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, contended, referring to the copies of Indentures produced by the respondent that the, Basel Mission revoked the Trust pertaining to the properties, the benefit of which was "the work of the Mission Church" and for "the Work of the Church" on 14.3.1972 and the transfer of Trust made on the same day between the Basel Mission and 'CSI' Trust Association, that the 'UBMC' Trust Association did no longer hold the properties and the properties had been transferred to the 'CSI' Trust Association. It appears from the Judgment of the Supreme Court in C.A.No. 84/75 that the revocation and creation of Trust by the Basel Mission as evidenced by the Indentures was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court. We have adverted to the decision of the Supreme Court on the question of diversion of properties held by 'UBMC' Trust Association consequent on the implementation of the merger resolution. It may suffice, for our present purpose, to state that during the pendency of R.A.No. 189/68 and RSA No. 741/71, there was an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from implementing the merger resolution and also making over the 'UBMC' Trust properties to the 'CSI'. The interim injunction was granted by this Court in RSA. No. 741/71 at the time of its admission. It was made absolute on 14.10.1971. It continued to hold the field till 19.4.1974. On that day, a permanent injunction was granted in terms of the prayer made by the plaintiffs in the suit. The Supreme Court declined to grant stay of the operation of the Judgment and Decree of this Court in RSA.No. 741/71 while admitting the appeal.
50. From what has been stated above, it becomes clear, the Basel Mission, which was defendant No. 7 in the suit and respondent No. 7 in RSA.No. 741/71, despite the order of injunction operating against it, revoked the Trust and transferred the 'UBMC' Trust properties to the 'CSI' Trust Association. Add to that, in O.S.No. 22/ 77, the validity of these Deeds of Indentures is questioned.
51. True, it appears from the material that the 'UBMC' Trust Association was a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. This Court, by the Order dated 31.3.1978, on the basis of the Company Report made by the Official Liquidator under Sub-section (6) of Section 497 of the Companies Act, 1956, directed that the 'UBMC' Trust Association and the other companies involved in the Reports should be deemed to have been dissolved with effect from the respective dates on which the Reports were made to the Court.
52. It appears, this fact again was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court during the pendency of C.A.No. 84/75 or at the time of its disposal.
53. Countering the argument urged on behalf of the respondent that when the 'UBMC' Trust Association itself has ceased to exist by virtue of the Order made by this Court in a Company Matter, there is no question of it holding the properties for the benefit of the members of the 'UBMC' of South Kanara and Coorg, Sri B.P. Holla, the learned Counsel for the complainants, submitted that even if it is assumed that consequent on the order made by this Court in the Company Matters, the 'UBMC' Trust Association has ceased to exist, it may be a case for the appointment of new trustees to manage the affairs of the Trust and to discharge the obligations created under the Trust. The contention cannot be dismissed out of hand as unsubstantial.
54. In our opinion, the publications, admittedly authored by the respondent, prima facie, were and are calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. It has been held by the Supreme Court in RE:P.C. SEN, 1969(2) S.C.R. 649 the question in all cases of comment on pending proceedings is not whether the publication does interfere, but whether it tends to interfere, with the due course of justice. The question in such cases would not be so much of the intention of the condemner as whether it is calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. In our opinion, the publications, prima facie, are such that it can be said that they are calculated to interfere with the due course of justice. Evidently, as noticed earlier the first publication was made when the Miscellaneous First Appeal was pending in this Court and the second publication was made when the Civil Revision Petition was pending in this Court. The matters referred to in the publications, there is no dispute, were and are the subject matter of the suits between the complainants and others and the respondent and others. The respondent has abused the complainants who were the parties to the pending proceedings in one capacity or the other. The result of the abuses may lead to the consequences that may hold them up to public ridicule. The comments in the publications had and have the tendency to prejudice the issues that were and are pending before the Courts.
55. We are satisfied from the material, of course, prima facie, that there is a prima facie case made out to proceed to frame the charge for the offence of criminal contempt of this Court and the subordinate Courts in which the proceedings were and are pending against the respondent. We have touched the contentions urged on behalf of the complainants and the respondent for the purpose of finding out whether the contentions raised by the complainants show a prima facie case to frame a charge against the respondent and the contentions raised by the respondent show that he is entitled to the discharge. We have carefully examined the contentions in the light of the principles that have stood crystallised as a result of several judicial decisions, depended and relied upon by the complainants and respondent. We hasten to add that the opinion former by us on the basis of the material, regarding the existence of a prima facie case to frame charge against the respondent-accused will not, as it ought to be, have the effect of the pleas of the complainants and respondent-accused being prejudged will not affect or prejudice the rights of the parties in any manner in the further proceedings of the matter. We reiterate that the opinion formed by us about the existence of a prima facie case is the opinion limited for the purpose for which it is formed. We make it clear that all the contentions raised by the respondent would be open to him for being urged, advanced, canvassed and agitated in accordance with law at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.
56. We, therefore, direct that the charge shall be framed against the respondent in writing for the offence of Criminal Contempt of this Court and the subordinate Courts in which the proceedings were and are pending.