Madras High Court
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra vs M.P.Chinnadurai on 28 February, 2008
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28/02/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD)No.1012 of 2004 and C.M.P.No.10353 of 2004 All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, represented by its General Secretary, Selvi.J.Jayalalithaa, Poes Garden, Chennai. ... Petitioner/1st Defendant Vs 1.M.P.Chinnadurai 2.C.Durairaj 3.K.Govindasamy 4.M.Dhanakumar ... Respondents/Plaintiffs Prayer Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike out the plaint filed in O.S.No.733 of 2004 pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli. !For Petitioner ... Mr.N.Jothi ^For Respondents ... Mr.N.R.Murugesan for R.1, R.2 and R.4 R3- died. :ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is focussed as against the taking on file of the suit in O.S.No.733 of 2004 which has been filed before the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, for obtaining the following reliefs:
"(a) making a direction for contempt of Court proceedings by referring the same before the Supreme Court of India to be initiated the 2nd defendant, who is the General Secretary of the 1st defendant for the disobedience and contempt of Supreme Court's judgment rendered in favour of Mrs.Sonia Gandhi's citizenship in Civil Appeals Nos.4400/2000 and 4405/2000 dated 12.09.2001 from escaping the clutches of law.
(b) for award cost of the suit.
(c) for such other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in future circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. The parties are referred to according to their lititgative status before the trial Court for clarity sake.
3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the facts as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:
The first plaintiff is a public figure interested in the Congress Party. The second plaintiff is the Secretary of the Pallakadu All India Congress Party. The third plaintiff is the freedom fighter. The fourth plaintiff belongs to a family of freedom fighters.
4. The Honourable Apex Court gave its verdict regarding the status of Mrs.Sonia Gandhi that she is a citizen of India vide the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Civil Appeals Nos.4400/2000 and 4405/2000 dated 12.09.2001. Disregarding the same, the first defendant Selvi.J.Jayalalithaa, General Secretary, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, has openly declared that Mrs.Sonia Gandhi is a foreigner. In Public meetings held on various dates including 11.03.2004, she declared so. Her version was published in the following News Papers:
DATES Name of News Paper 15.04.2004, 29.08.2002, 19.03.2004, 23.03.2004, 24.03.2004, 26.03.2004, 27.03.2004, 28.03.2004 and 10.04.2004 Paper Publication in Dinamani.
30.08.2002 Paper Publication in Malai Malar.
31.08.2002 Paper Publication in Dina Thanthi.
10.03.2004, 11.03.2004, 04.04.2004, 07.04.2004, 29.02.2004 Paper Publication in Dinamalar.
11.04.2004 Paper Publication.
5. The plaintiffs have chosen to file the suit expressing their grievance that the defendant's public utterance amounts to gross contempt of the Honourable Apex Court's verdict.
6. On receipt of the summons, the defendants in the suit, namely, the revision petitioner/first defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the maintainability of the suit and also the factum of the suit having taken on file by the Court concerned, on the following grounds inter alia thus:
The civil Court is having no jurisdiction to entertain the suit with the aforesaid prayer. The said suit should be ordered to be removed from the file. The Munsif Court cannot be used as a forum for referring the alleged Contempt committed by the first defendant to the Honourable Apex Court.
7. Per contra, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the counter, the warp and woof, the gist and kernel of it, would run thus:
The revision petitioner described Mrs.Sonia Gandhi as a foreigner and also foreign import antithetical to the verdict of the Honourable Apex Court. The Civil Court has got jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain the Civil Revision Petition.
8. The point for consideration is as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs, ex facie and prima facie is tenable?
9. Heard both sides.
10. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs would draw the attention of this Court to the fact that the Civil Court as per Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can very well entertain any suit of civil nature; it is a common law remedy to get the grievance of the citizens redressed by approaching the civil Court; the nitty-gritty of the prayer in the suit is only for the purpose of making the Civil court to refer the matter to the Honourable Apex Court to initiate contempt proceedings as against the defendant; the wordings in the prayer may not be so appropriate; even so, the intention of the plaintiffs in filing the suit is only for the purpose of initiating contempt proceedings as against the defendant for having uttered out the aforesaid words disregarding the verdict of the Honourable Apex Court relating to the citizenship status of Mrs.Sonia Gandhi.
11. Per contra, denying and disputing, challenging and gainsaying the allegations/averments in the plaint as also the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, the learned Counsel for the first defendant would advance his argument to the effect that the Honourable Apex Court has got the powers to entertain directly contempt proceedings as per the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975; absolutely, there is no provision of law enabling the Munsif Court to entertain the suit of this nature so as to forward the grievance of the plaintiffs to the Honourable Apex Court for enabling it to exercise its power to punish for contempt. He also elaborated on various points touching upon the contempt powers of the Honourable Apex Court as well as the High Courts.
12. In this factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that this Court need not unnecessarily dilate on legal theories and various precedents relating to the powers of the Courts to punish as per Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 and Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971), except to extract hereunder the relevant provisions. Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 are extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"Rule 2.(1) Where contempt is committed in view or presence or hearing of the Court, the contemner may be punished by the Court before which it is committed either forthwith or on such date as may be appointed by the Court in that behalf.
(2) Pending the determination of the charge, the Court may direct that the contemner shall be detained in such custody as it may specify:
Provided that the contemner may be released on bail on such terms as the Court may direct.
Rule 3. In case of contempt other than the contempt referred to in rule 2, the Court may take action -
(a) suo motu, or
(b) on a petition made by Attorney General, or Solicitor General, or
(c) on a petition made by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt with the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General."
Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971) is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"Section 15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases.- (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by-
(a) The Advocate-General, or
(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General, or
(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.
(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate Court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate Court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty. Explanation.- In this section, the expression "Advocate-General" means-
(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General;
(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established;
(c) in relation to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf."
13. Ex facie and prima facie, the prayer in the plaint as set out supra, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsif Court. By no stretch of imagination, a Munsif Court could refer or forward a matter to the Honourable Apex Court directly for initiating contempt action, when no contempt has been committed before the Munsif Court concerned relating to any of its proceedings.
14. To the risk of repetition, without being tautologous, I would highlight that if at all, there is any pre-existing litigation before the Munsif Court concerned and if any one of the parties committed contempt relating to such matter, then, in such a case, Munsif Court can rightly draw a proceeding of it and refer it to the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act for invoking its power. Under no circumstances under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971), the Munsif Court could directly send any reference to the Honourable Apex Court.
15. The Munsif Court cannot punish anyone for contempt having been committed except under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to violation of injunction or under Sections 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the commission of the offence under Section 228 I.P.C in the presence of the Court. It is obvious and axiomatic that the High Court being a Court of record alone is having the right to punish a person for having committed contempt of High Court or the Subordinate Courts.
16. I am therefore of the opinion that this judgment need not be an academic one harping on those trite propositions. As per the Code of Civil Procedure and the Tamil Nadu Civil Court Act, the Munsif Court could only entertain suits of civil nature within certain limited jurisdiction.
17. The question is as to whether the matter brought before the Munsif Court in the form of the plaint, is within the jurisdiction of Munsif Court.
18. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that the political feelings of the plaintiffs got wounded by virtue of the remarks passed by the defendant as against Mrs.Sonia Gandhi; this is not a suit for defamation or for seeking any relief directly from the defendants. The civil Court could be approached for the purpose of getting reliefs as against the defendant, but here in the impugned civil suit, no relief is sought for as against the defendant for making her to provide anything to the plaintiffs.
19. Apparently the prayer in the suit is not for making the defendant to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. If there is any such prayer, the matter would be different. But, here the very prayer itself is for the purpose of making the Court to refer the matter to the Honourable Apex Court for taking action as against the defendant. As correctly highlighted by the learned Counsel for the defendants, the Honourable Apex Court could take even suo motu contempt proceedings or entertain contempt proceedings at the instance of the persons concerned.
20. Hence, in this view of the matter, I could see no substance in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs and in fact, I am of the considered opinion that the Munsif Court should not have even numbered the suit at all. Owing to some misconception, the Munsif Court numbered it and issued summons.
21. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs would make an extempore submission to the effect that under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendants had the opportunity to file an application for getting the plaint rejected, nevertheless they straight away approached this Court by filing this Civil Revision Petition. In connection with his submission, he relied on the decision of this Court in Ganapathy Subramanian v. S.Ramalingam and others reported in (2007) 7 MLJ 13.
22. I am of the considered opinion that the precedent cited on the side of the plaintiffs, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as an injunction suit was sought to be virtually quashed whereupon this Court felt that the appropriate remedy was not by way of filing the Civil Revision Petition and consequently directed the petitioner to approach the lower Court itself.
23. No doubt, the first defendant could have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for getting the plaint rejected. Nonetheless, the nature of this case is such that the Munsif Court should not have even numbered this case in view of the ratiocination as set out supra and consequently, the revision petitioner/first defendant thought fit not to appear before the same Court and prolong the litigation any more.
24. The maxim 'Ubi jus ibi remedium' (There is no wrong without a remedy) would indicate that if at all there is a right, there is a remedy before the Civil Court which is bound by the well established legal norms and jurisprudential theories.
25. As such, the original suit filed is beyond the scope of the civil Court.
26. The following maxims could also fruitfully be referred to:
"(i) Expressio unius, exclusio alterius. (The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another.)
(ii) Expressum facit cessare tacitum. (A thing expressed puts an end to tacit implication.)"
27. In view of the express provisions of the law extracted supra relating to the contempt proceedings, the plaintiffs have no right to approach the civil Court under the pretext of getting enforced the alleged non-existing common law right. The plaintiffs having caught the wrong end of the stick, have chosen to file the suit which by no stretch of imagination could be countenanced as the one maintainable before the Munsif Court.
28. A pre-existing litigation and commission of contempt relating to it, are sine quo non for initiating action by the Munsif Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
29. A fortiori, there is no infirmity in filing this Civil Revision Petition straight away before this Court and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the suit in O.S.No.733 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, is ordered to be removed from the file as it is having no legs to stand and consequently, the original plaint is rejected. Accordingly, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
rsb To The Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.