Holding

The allegation of contempt could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the petition was dismissed.

Summary

The petition sought to hold the Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, in criminal contempt for allegedly denouncing the judiciary in statements published in the Daily Kashmir Times. The editor of the newspaper asserted the report was accurate, while the Chief Minister denied making the statements. No contemporaneous record of the speeches was produced, and the parties offered conflicting testimonies. The Supreme Court held that, for criminal contempt, the allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which was not possible given the word‑against‑word evidence. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed with no finding of guilt against either the Chief Minister or the editor.

Issues considered

Whether the statements attributed to the Chief Minister amount to criminal contempt of court.
Whether the standard of proof required for criminal contempt – proof beyond reasonable doubt – was satisfied.
Whether liability for contempt lies with the Chief Minister or the newspaper editor in the absence of conclusive evidence.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 129
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 15

Subjects

criminal contemptcontempt of courtfreedom of speechproof beyond reasonable doubtpolitical speechjudiciary criticismmedia responsibility

Judgment

760

M.R. PARASHAR AND ORS.

v.
B DR. FAROOQ ABDULLAH AND ORS.
January 31, 1984
( .

(Y.V. CaANDRACHUD, C.J. AND A.P. SEN, J.J
c Contempt of Courts Act. 1971-Publicarion in a newspaper of a/leqation
of Contempt of Court by Chief Minister-Requisite Proof not furnished-No
record of speech produced- Whether could be committed for contempt.

A news item appeared in the newspaper of which respondent No. 2
was its editor, that while addressing a rally of Judicial Employees' Welfare
Association, the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir denounced and
D ridiculed the judiciary stating that "Justice is being bought in judlci<ll
Courts" and that he would never honour the Coures stay a·rders because
justice could be bought with money. The news item also stated that the
Chief Minister expressed bis regret to the Chief Justice and other Judges
who were present at the meeting, explaining that the strong words used by
him were the voice of his conscience and that he had the greatest regard for
the judiciary.
E
The petitioner filed the contempt petition against the Chief Minister.

Although a show cause notice was issued under the Contempt of
Courts Act 1971 to the Chief Minister (respondent) on March 18, 1983 no
counter affl.davit was filed till September 26, 1983. When the contempt
0

petition was called out on that day his ndvocate accepted the notice on
F
behalf of the respondent. Eventually on November 21, 1983 the affidavit
of the Chief Minister dated November 9, 1983 was taken on record.

While the Chief Minister denied having made the statements
attributed to him, the Editor asserted that the version published in the
newspaper was true.

G On the question whether the statements published in the newspaper
amounted to contempt of court.

Dismissing the petition, .i
HELD : What is involved in this case is criminal contempt and there~
fore it is necessary to apply the particul:ir ·standard of proof required to be
established in a criminal case. Respondent, No. 1, on the material placed on
H record; cannot be held t.o be guilty of the charge. (764F]
"i'

M.R. PARASliAR v. FAROoQ ABDULLAH 761

Jo matters invOlving allegations Of criminal contempt., the Court has A
to act both as a prosecutor and as a Judge. It does so to uphold the
authority of law and not in defence of a particular Judge. Secondly, the
right _of free speech is an important right of the citizen an~ bona fide
criticism of any system or institution is aimed at inducing thC administrators
of that system or institution to look inwards and in1prove its public image.
Courts do not like to assume the posture that they are above criticism. At
the same time though Jaw does not restrain the expression of disapproba· B
tion against what is done in or by Courts of law, the liberty of free

--..
..
expression is not to be confounded with a licence to make unfounded allega-
tions of corruption against the judiciary. The abuse of the liberty of free
speech and expression carries the case nearer the law of contempt. Those
who criticise the judiciary must remember that they are attacking an
institution which is indispensable for the survival Of the rule of law but
which bas no means of defending itself. Therefore, Judges must receive c
the protection of law from unfounded attacks on their character.
(765H; 766A, B-E; F-G]
If the Chief Minister said what was alleged in the news item he was
in contempt; if he had not, the Editor had committed a contempt by
publishing a false feport of a scurillous speech that was never made~ In the
face of denial by one and an assertion by the other without more, it is D
difficult to deci<!e who is right. On the one hand is the tendency to ridicule
the system of justice and malign those: who administer it, on the ·othef is
the propensity of the fourth estate fo~ some little sensatioll and its political
involvment. When political considerations pollute the stream of life,
1 sifting truth from falsehood becomes a formidable .and .forbidding task. In

..
thfsc circumstances it is difficult to record a positive finding that the allega-
tation that the Chief Minister made the particular stat :men{ is proved E
beyond a reasonable doubt. [764D-F]

Although the petition\!rS had asserted that the Judges of the High
Court were present at One of the functions and that they walked out of the
meeting on hearing the abusive language used by the Chief Miaister 00
attempt was made to establish the truth of that assertion. A walkout by
Judges of the High Court during the speech of the Chief Minister or soon F
thereafter would have lent considerable weight to the allegation that the
statements made by the Chief Minister were open to grave objection.
[764G·H]
When a Chief Minister makes a formal speech an official record of the
speech, if it were a prepared. speech, or even if it were an extempore speech,
should have been kept. No one ·taped or took down the speeches ofa
·person as important as.the Chief Miaister. No written record kept contern~
poraneously or prepared soon after is cited to contradict the allegation G
that the Chief Minister scandalised the Courts and assailed the character of
Judges. [7658-D]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition No. 8118 of 1983.

Under Art. 129 of the Constitution read with Section 15 of
the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971.
H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984} 2 S.C.R

A Subhash Sharma, N. M. Popli and K. R. R. Pillai for the
petitioner.

S. N. Kacker and Altaf Ahmad for Respondent No. 1.

M. C. Bhandare, E. c. Agarwa/a and Mrs. Indira Saivlmey
B for Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
•
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. This is a petition asking that the respon- ;.
dents be committed for contempt for certain statements allegedly
c made by Respondent !, who is the Chief Minister of Jammu and
Kashmir. Respondent 2 is the Editor of a newspaper called Daily
· Kashmir Times in which those statements were published, while
Respondent 3 is its correspondent.

In the issue of the Daily Kashmir Times dated November 13,
D 1982, a news item appeared under the caption "CM asks engineers
to forcibly occupy club building". According to the report, the
Chief Minister, while addressing the annual general meeting of the
Institute of Engineers, said that the engineers should occupy a
certain building forcibly as it would not be possible for them to evict
the Amar Singh Club through the norma\ legal process and that he

-
would provide the necessary police assistance for that purpose. The
report says that the Chief Minisier advised the Institute of Engineers
to move quickly in the matter before the management of the Club
could obtain a stay order from the· Court.

Another new.s item appeared m the same newspaper on I
November 23, 1982 under the caption "Chief Minister says he will _;;.,_ -
F
never accept courts' stay orders". According to the report, the i '
Chief Minister, while addressing a rally of Judicial· Employees'
Welfare Accociation, denounced and ridiculed the judiciary by
saying that "justice is being bought in the judicial courts". Taking
exception to the frequent stay orders issued by the Courts against
G the Government, the Chief Minister is alleged to have said : "I will
never honour these stay orders even if I am hanged", that justice )
could be bought with money and that this task could be performed
conveniently by any leading lawyer. The news item concludes by
saying that later, the Chief Minister expressed his regret to the
Chief Justice and other Judges of the High Court who were present
at the meeting, explaining that the strong words nsed by him were
the voice of his conscience hut, otherwise, he had the greatest regard
M.R. PARASHAR v. PAROOQ ABDULLAH (Chandrachud, C.J.) 163
for the judiciary, and that he ouly wanted quick justice for the A
people.
On March 18, 1983 a riotice was issued by this Court to the
respondents asking them to show cause why action under the Con-
tempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be taken against them. Since
one of the respondents is a Chief Minister, we assumed that there n
would be no difficulty in serving the notice upon him and he would
file his reply promptly, in view of the seriousness of the ailegations
made against him. But, until September 26, 1983 no counter-affi-
davit was filed in the matter. When the Contempt Petition was
called out on that date, Mr .. Altaf Ahmed, accepted the notice on
behalf of the Chief Minister. On that date, the Court directed the c
Chief Minister to file his counter-affidavit within four weeks. On
October 21, 1983 the Registry submitted a report to the Court that
Mr. Altaf Ahmed had not yet filed his appearance for the Chief
Minister. On November 21, 1983 an affidavit dated November 9,·
1983 of the Chief Minister was taken on record. Since the Chief
Minister denied by that affidevit that lie had made the kind of state- 0
ments attributed to him, we issued a specific direction that Respon-
den(2, the Editor of Daily Kashinir ·rimes, should appear in person
before the Court on November 28, 1983. That was with a view to
obtaining his explanation as to how the newsprper came to publish
the various statements which the Chief Minister denied he had ever E
made.

Respondent 2 appeared before. us on' November 28, !983
and stuck to the versioff published in the newspaper. In the light
of that, we reverted to the counter-affidavit filed by the Chief Minis-
ter when we found that it did not traverse the allegations of the F
petitioners satisfactorily. We therefore directed him to file a further
affidavit dealing with the allegations against him clearly and specifi·
cally. In pursuance of that direction, Respondent I filed an affidavit
dated December 14, 1983:

By his affidavit Uated January 9, 1984, Respondent 2 has
adhered to. his original stand that the report which appeared in the G
Daily Kashmir Times was true and correct. According to him, the
Chief Minister did make the various statements complained of and
that bis denial is untrue. .

If we were satisfied that the Chief Minister had made the
statements attributed to him, it would have been a serious matter.
Then, we could not have dismissed the perora!Jon as an ill-tempered fl
764 SUPPJ!Mll COURT RBl>OilTS [1984) 2 s.c.a.

A outburst of an uninformed person. Considering the high position
which Chief Ministers occupy in the public life of our country, their
words and deeds .have to be presumed to be intended. The defence
that what was said or done was not intended is not open to persons
occupying high public offices. The formal expression of regard for
the courts under the pressure of a contempt notice becomes a mere
B escape if speeches and writings betray defiance of judicial authority
and constitute an exhortation to the public to disregard orders
passed by courts. But, the Chief Minister denies to have made the
utterances, as stoutly as the editor asserts that the reports of the
speeches published in bis newspaper are true. There is word against
word, and no preponderating circumstance which, objectively,
c compels the acceptance of the word of one in preference to the word
of the other. We have two responsible persons before us who pursue
honourable professions : one is the Chief Minister of a State and
the other is the editor of a newspaper. Both cannot be true in their
contentions before us. Ono of them bas clearly violated the law
D of contempt. If the Chief Minister .said what is alleged, be is in
)-
contempt. If he has not, the editor has committed contempt by
publishing a false report of a scurrilous speech that was never made.
In face of denial by one and an assertion by the other without more,
it is difficult to decide who is righ(. On one hand is the tendency
to ridicule the system of justice and malign those who administer it.
On the other is the propensity of the fourth estate for some little .
E sensation and its political inv·Jlvement. When political considerations
pollute the stream of life, sifting truth from falsehood becomes a
formidable and forbidding task In these circumstances, we are
unable to record a positive finding that the allegation that the Chief
Minister made the particular statements is proved beyond a reasona-
ble doubt. What is involved in this petition is criminal contempt
F and, therefore, it is necessary to apply that partic~lar standard of
proof.
There is one circumstance which puts us on our guard in
acc!'pting the contempt petition. That circumstance is that though,
during the course of arguments, it was stated at the Bar on behalf
G of the petitioners that the learned Judges of the Jammu & Kashmir
High Court were present at one of the functions and that they
walked out of the meeting on hearing the 'abusive' language used by
the Chief Minister, no attempt was made to establish the truth of
that assertion. A walk-out by Judges of the High Court during the
speech of the Chief Minister or soon after he ended it, would have
lent considerable weight to the allegation that the statements made
H by the Chief Minister were open to grave object ion.
M.R. PARASHAR v. FAROOQ ABDULLAH (Chandrachud, C.J.) 765

But we record the finding of 'not guilty' with a caveat. It is A
f· not for us to advi•e a chosen representative of the people as to how
he should conduct his public affairs and what precautions he sl)ould
take in order to protect himself from similar allegations in future.
But, it causes us some surprise that there is on official record what-
soever of the speeches made by the Chief Minister at the two

,.
functions. He was invited' at those functions .in his capacity as the B
Chief Minister. And, admittedly, he spoke at those functions.
'
With the little knowledge that we have of these matters, we suppose
that when a Chief Minister makes a formal speech, an official record
of the speech is generally available. If he speaks from a prepared
text, that forms the record of what he spoke. But, whether he speaks
from a text or speaks extempore, it is unlikely, in the times iu which
c
we live, that a speech made by a Chief Minister on a formal occasion
will not be taken down or tape-recorded. Tapes have become a
part of our life, public and private, sometimes to the point of
annoyance. In times when mechanical gadgets have become the
order of the day and 'taping', aspccially, h_as become a common
practice, it is surprising that no one taped or took down the speeches D
of a person as important as the Chief Minister. No written record,
kept contemporaneously or prepared soon after, is cited to contra-
dict the allegation that the Chief Minister scandalized the Courts
and assailed.the characler of Judges. As we said, it is not for us to
advise any one, least of all those who, in the discharge of their
onerous responsibilities, liave their own select group of advisers. E
But, we cannot restrain the observation that it is so much safer for
persons who have to make frequent public appearances to have their
utterances duly put on paper, before of soon after the event. For
those who have nothing to conceal or fear, that is a prudent course
of action. For the rest, a constant friction with the law of contempt
is inevitable. The former will lay their cards on the table and be F
cleared.. The latter have to live in the hope that the rigorous
standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' will act as their
saviour. The latter course of conduct leaves much to be desired
from the point of view of men of honour. Courts are not astute to
resort to their power to punish any one for criminal contempt. But
G
that reluctnance should not be overtaxed.

The reluctance of courts to resort to the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act springs from their r.egard for the rule of
law .. The role of a p'osecutor is incompatible with the role of a
judge. In matters involving allegations of criminal contempt of
Court, these roles are combined and the Court has to act both as a
H
766 SUPRIIME COURT REORTS [1984] 2 s.c.a.
A
prosecutor and as a judge. True, that it acts in order to uphold the
authority of law and not in defence of this or that particular judge.
But an order punishing a person for such contempt is likely to create
the impression, more so in the mind of lay observers, that the judges
have acted in defeuce of themselves. Courts do not like to create
B such an impression even unwittingly. Secondly, the right of free
speech is an important right of the citizen, in the exercise of which
he is .entitled to bring to the notice of the public at large the
infirmities from which any institution snffers, including institutions
which administer justice. Indeed, the right to offer healthy and
constructive criticism which is fair iu spirit must be left unimpaired
c in the interest of public institutions themselves. Critics are instru-
ments of reforms, not those actuated by malice but those who are
iuspired by the spirit of public weal. Bona fide criticism of any
system or institution is aimed at inducing the administrators ofthat
system or institution to look inwards and improve its public image.
Courts do not like to assume the posture that they are above
0 criticism and ·that their functioning needs no improvement. But it
is necessary to make it clear that thongh law does not restrain the
expression of disapprobation aga/nst what is done in or by courts of
law, the .liberty of free expression is not to be confounded with a
licence to make unfounded allegations of corruption against the
judiciary. The abuse of the liberty of free speech and expression
E carries the case nearer the law of contempt.

We would also like to remind those who criticise the judiciary
that it has no. forum from which to defend itself. The legislature
can act in defence of itself from the floor of the House. It enjoys
privileges which are beyond the reach of law. The ·executive is all
F powerful and has ample resourses and media at its command to
explain its actions and, if need be, to counter-attack. Those who
attack the judiciary must remember that they are attacking an institu-
tion which· is indispensable for. the survival of the rule of law but
which has no means of defending itself. In the very nature of things,
it cannot engage itself in an open war, nor indulge in releasing
G contradictions. The sword of justice is in the hands of the Goddess
of Justice, not in the hands of mortal judges. Therefore, Judges
must receive the due protection of law from unfounded attacks on
their character.

The Chief Minister has stated in his affidavit that be spoke
extempore. We arc ilot on that. In the first place, extempore
H speeehes confer 110 greater immunity 011 the speaker than the
M.R. PARASHAR v. FAROOQ ABDULLAH (Chandrachud, C.J.) 767

speeches made from prepared texts. Secondly, extempore speeches A
are not to be made without the application of a careful mind. That
is not the definition of an extempore speech. Thirdly, more the
extempore, greater the need to keep a written record of the spoken
word. In the written record lies the safety of the public speaker,
though not, perhaps, the benefit of posterity.
B
Jn the result, we dismiss the contempt petition.

P.B.H. Petition dismissed.