Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. It so happened that Justice Kuldip Singh, the then sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, was appointed as Chairman, Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1952 Act’) to probe into alleged acts of omissions and commissions by Shri Ramakrishna Hegde, the former Chief Minister of Karnataka. The one man Commission headed by Justice Kuldip Singh submitted its report on 22.06.1990.

3. These two contempt matters, one by Dr. Subramanian Swamy1 and the other2 suo motu arise from the editorial published in Indian Express as quoted above. In the contempt petition filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy on 23.08.1990 under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, "1971 Act") against the then Editor of Indian Express, Mr. Arun Shourie, it is contended that the editorial is a scandalous statement in respect of a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India and the judiciary. It lowers the authority of this Court as well as shakes public confidence in it and amounts to criminal contempt of this Court. It is submitted that unless this Court acts promptly and if necessary, [Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.11 of 1990 Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie] [Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.12 of 1990 In the matter of Mr. Arun Shourie] suo motu in the matter, sitting Judges would be helpless and unable to defend themselves, and in the process, public confidence in judges and the courts would be eroded.

5. 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:

"In Re : Arun Shourie and Anr.
4
We have seen the editorial in the "Indian Express" of August 13, 1990. We have obtained the opinion of the Attorney General of India in the matter. We consider that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the editorial tend to fall within the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We, therefore, direct that notice returnable on 8th October, 1990 be issued to the alleged contemners calling upon them to show cause why proceedings for contempt of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution should not be initiated against them in respect of the offending editorial published by them. The contemners shall be present in the Court in person on 8 th October, 1990. A copy of the opinion given by the Attorney General in the matter should accompany the notice to be issued to the contemners. They may file their affidavits in support of their defence on or before 8th October, 1990.
Issue notice to the Attorney General of India to appear and assist the Court in hearing the matter.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. OF 1990 :
Learned Attorney General of India has also drawn our attention to an issue of the ‘Current’ (August 25-31, 1990) which contains an Article by M.V. Kamath. We will consider that matter separately later on.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Mr. Arun Shourie:

35. In view of the above reasons, the contempt petitions are dismissed and the contempt notices are discharged.

.......................................CJI. (R.M. Lodha) ..........................................J. (Anil R. Dave) ..........................................J. (Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya) ..........................................J. (Dipak Misra) NEW DELHI; ..........................................J. JULY 23, 2014. (Shiva Kirti Singh) ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII [FOR JUDGMENT] S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 11 OF 1990 DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Petitioner(s) VERSUS ARUN SHOURIE Respondent(s) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 12 OF 1990 Date : 23/07/2014 These petitions were called on for Judgment today.