Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. Mr. Advocate General further argued that the offence, if any, committed by the Chief Minister was criminal contempt and he should be treated as an accused in a criminal case and the protection of Article 20 of the Constitution should apply to him. Mr. Advocate General also argued that no new material should be brought on the record after the issue of the Rule Nisi, particularly where the Rule was issued suo motu and that this Rule itself should not have been issued in the absence of an affidavit by a Registrar of this Court, calling attention of this Court, to the broadcast and publication of the speech of the Chief Minister. These points, in my opinion, are mostly not of substance. Mr. Meyer, who acted as amicus curiae, called my attention to the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Teja Singh C. J., AIR 1954 SC 186. In that case there was an application made, before the Supreme Court, for transfer of a Contempt proceeding from the Pepsu High Court to any other High Court, under the provisions of Section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the theory that contempt punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 was an offence to which section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code applied and was triable under the provisions of the Code. The Supreme Court dismissed the application with the following observations:--