Holding

The respondents were held guilty of criminal contempt for making a deliberate false statement in an affidavit, and each was fined Rs. 2,500 (with default imprisonment of one month).

Summary

The Supreme Court heard a contempt petition filed by Murray & Co. against Ashok K.R. Newatia and others after the respondents filed an affidavit in a transfer petition falsely claiming that the petitioner had not sold or dealt with the disputed immovable property, contrary to the facts. The Court examined whether such a deliberate false statement made under oath amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and whether it substantially interfered with the due course of justice under Section 13. It held that the false positive assertion in the affidavit was a deliberate act of contempt, that the advantage gained was immaterial to liability, and that an unconditional apology did not exonerate the contemnor. Consequently, the respondents were found guilty of contempt and each was fined Rs. 2,500, with a default imprisonment of one month. The contempt petition was disposed in favour of the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether a false statement made in an affidavit before the Supreme Court constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether the false statement substantially interferes with the due course of justice within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act.
Whether an unconditional apology can absolve the contemnor of liability.
What quantum of punishment is appropriate for the contempt committed.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 129
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 13, s. 2(c)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 193

Subjects

contempt of courtfalse affidavitSection 2(c)Section 13due course of justicepunishmentfineSupreme Courtlitigationapology

Judgment

.,,,

MURRAY AND CO. A
v.
ASHOK KR. NEWATIA AND ANR.

JA.Nl.JAR Y 25, 2000

(G.B. PATIANAIK AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.[ B

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:

Contempt petition-Arose as a result of the litigation spirit of the
parties-Merits of-Held : This, by itself, should not affect the merits of the C
contentions raised.

Section 2(c)-False statement on oath--Contemnor deliberately made
a false statement on oath before the Supreme Court-Held : Amounts to
contempt of court.
D
Section 2(c}--Oiminal contemprAdministration of justice-lnter-
ference with-field : Whether or not a person has obtained a definite ad-
vantage in making a false statement is immaterial in deciding whether the
person has committed contempt of court-However, it is a relevant factor for
imposing tile quanrum of punishment. E
Section 2(c) and 13-f'unishmen~'Due course of justice"-lnter-
ference with-Scope of-Held : Substantial interference is necessary before
imposition of punishment.

Section 2(c) and 13--Punishment-Quantum of-Held: Depends upon
F
particular facts and circumstances of each individual case-No generalised
guidelines can be laid down-However, accepted nonn is: more serious the
violation, more severe is the punishment.

Section 13-f'unishment -Positive assertion offact deliberately made G
in an affidavit before the Supreme Court knowing it to be false with a view
to gaining a possible advantage-{Jnconditional apology tendered-Held :
This, by itself, would not exonerate the contemnor-ln the circumstances of
the case, imposition of fine of Rs. 2,500 on each contemnor would sub-serve
the ends of justice. H
367
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.
A Words and Phrases :

"Due course of justice"-Meaning of-In the context of S.13 of the
Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

The petitioner and the respondents initiated proceedings both at
B Calcutta and at Kanpur and obtained diverse orders including an order
of injunction from the High Court restraining the respondents from
transferring or alienating or encumbering or dealing with immovable
properties without the leave of the High Court.

The respondents, however', moved this Court f11r transfer of the
C originnl suit from Calcutta to Kanpur in which an npplicatio:i for clnrificn·
tion was filed by the petitioner and it is in connection them--;ith that the
respondents had averred in the petition of objection verified by an nffidavit
to the following effect :·

D "................ it is further incorrect to say that the petitioner in any
manner has committed disobedience of the order passed by the C1111rt or
sold away the property or in any manner tatting any steps to sell the
property. The cc::itentions to the contrary are false and fictiti1111s .........".

The above statement was stated to be a deliberate falsehood and the
E said false statecent v1as made 'l>'l'llntonJy as the respo::idl!nts !mw1 that the
pn1perty was sold long pri11r fuereto.

The FtitiGnc-, tL"a'Cfore, r.!M tb prese:it ro;:tc:.:Jpt Jetltio:l hdo:re
this Court and notice \1'ZS issued to the mipond:e::its for t<Tona assertio:i
of fucts pertaining to the sale of immovable property i::i the afildavlt. T"nere
F \tas no plea of justification and the Advocate appearing for the respon·
dents, without any reservation whats11ever, pleade4 u:iconditionnl npol113Y
before this Coort.

The question that arose before this Court wns wbeC!.<er the said false
G statement made by the respondent in the afildavlt, i:n fact, l11Wirn!d the
authority of ilie Court or there \;as any obstruction to the administration
of justice by tbis Court brbiging it v.ithin the purview of Sectillll 2(c)(iii)
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and in the event the answer to the
above issue is in the affirmctive, then and in that event to what result?

H Disposing of the petition, this Court
MURRAY & CO. v. AK. NEWATIA 369

HELD : 1. Contempt petition is the result of the litigation spirit 11f A
the parties and an attempt to score over each 11ther. Bnt that by itself,
hov.·:ver, would not prompt this Court to come to a conclusion as regards
the merits of the contentions raised in the matter. [374-G]

2. The right to inflict punishment for contempt 11f court in terms of B
the Contempt of Co11rts Act, 1971 on the Law Courts has been for the
purposes of ensuring the rule of law and orderly administration of justice.
Tite purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity
of the Courts of Law since the image of such majesty in the minds of the
~op!e c1mnot be led to be dist11md. The respect and authority c11m-
manded by Courts 11f Low are the grwtest guarantee to an ordinary citiun C
and the entire democratic fabric of the s11ciety will crumble down if the
resp:!Cl for the jodiciary is undermined. It is true thnt the jodiciary ,,;n be
judged by the people for what the judiciary does, but in the event of any
indulgence ·which even Cl\n remotely be termed to afiect the majesty of law,
the society is bound to l11s:i confidence and faith in the judiciary and the D
law courts thus, t:ould forfeit the trust and confidence of the people in
general. (375-A-C]

3. Hypersensitiveness 11:11 the part of the law Courts, if it does n11t
111>struct 11r imp<!de the course of justice, as scch cannot In npprecinted
but imgelk sil~ct! on tbe pru1 11f n Judge is clso not expocted vis-e-vis oo E
i11frnctio11 II~ the mzjestry llf IDW. This is a SJ?:)C!:.!I j11risdiction c11n!i:=d
011 the law cocrts to punish im ofie::dl!l" for bis ccmte::::iptim-.:s ce::c!::ct UT
ebstruction to the majesty of Inw. To violnte the ordu of the cocrt 11r to
obstruct er tend to obstruct is a qnasi criminal e!Tence imd as sccb the
cocrts, in thl! matter 11f awnrd 11f punishment, ought to be rather caotim~s F
in its approach even if the court Is othernise satisfied as to act or conduct
of the pi:rty. The approach of the Court is thus difierent in the matter of
imposition of pamishment against n contemnor - the same bei03 tomlly
dependeilt 011 the facts nod circumstances of each individual case. No
generalised guidelines can be had nor a set of general principles in the
melter of awurd of punishment can be formulated. Tite Court ::Dust other- G
l<ise corne to a c11ncl11sion that on facts the acts tantamount to obstructi11n
of justice "ll!ch, if allol'i'2d, woold even permente into our society - it is only
then that this power ought to be exercised. [379-D-F]

4.1. While it is true that the statement made in the affidavit has ~n H
'"'•.,.

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) 1 S.C.R.
A introduced as and by way of a de11iial but the r11ct remains thut such a
statement has in ract been made in an affidavit lnrore ilils Court. The
litigant public ougl1t to be extr~mely careful and cautio::ls in tlte matter or·
malting statements bifore Courts of Lin;. 'Vlnether, ho':'i'ever, the respon-
dents have obtained a definite advantage or not is wholly immaterial in
B the matter of c11mmission of offence under tl::e Act, though the sume would
be a relevunt factor in the context oC punishment to be imposed against a
co11temnor. (379-G]

4.2. Having a conspectus of the wltole issue and the facts it must be
held that the respondents cannot escape the liability of being held guilty of
C contempt by reason of a definite and delibernte false statement. Thi: state-
ment on oath is a fabricated one and contrary to the facts and there exists
no extenuating circut:istance to come to any other co::iclusions. (380-B-C]

Afzal v. State of Haryana, [1995) Supp. 2 SCC 3118; Rita Markand v.
D Surjit Singh Arora, [1996) 6 SCC 14 and Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Associa-
tion v. State of Assam, [1996) 9 SCC 74, ~ield inapp!icable.

5. Punishment In one matter cannot In the guiding factor for punish-
ment in another. Punishme11t has a co-relatia11 with fucts 1md i11 each case
\'"ihi:re punishment is imp11sed, the st:me mul>t be ilie resultant effect of the
E acts complained of - more serious th'e vio!utiwc, r.ior~ scvi::r~ is the p::i:..iis!1-
cent - m1d tfwt !tas l:~n the accept..-d no:-a11, in =tteni tholl:3h, I::a;·•.:vt:,
\.'ithin t:te prescdlred lit:iits. [300-Dl

6.1. Section 13 of thi: Act postulutes no penishmeat for c11.ite::::j11:mus
F coaduct in certain cases und the lanl!,'llllge csed therein se1:ms to b: t<ith
utmost care and cautioa. It is not enollgh thut tbere s!io111ld b:.! s11:::ie teclmi-
cal contempt of collrt b111t it must be shown triat ttie 11ct of conte;::Jpt 1>ould
otherwise substantially interfere witli the dt::e course of justice \lldch hlls
been eq11111ted with "dui administratioa 11f justice". [31l0-E-:;']

G 6.2. Tine \'lords 'due course of justice' us~d in Section 13 are l;·ider in
scope tb110 the '\'iords 'due course 11f aay judicilll proceedings or amcinistra- .,
tion of justice' used in sub-clause (ii) or (iii) ofSection 2(c). Ilzrlinc reunrd
to Sections 2(c) and 13 it is clear that the statllte puts an obligatioll oll to
the court to assess the situation itself as regards the factum of acy inter-
H rerence witb the cours~ of justice or ciue process of law. (381-E; 382-D]
MURRAY &CO. v. AK NEWATIA 371

Rachapudi Subbo Rao v. Advocate Genera~ Andhra Pradesh, [1981) A
2 SCC 577, relied Olll.

legal Remembrancer v. Matilal Ghose, ILR 41Cal173, referred to.

Attorney General v. Times Newspapers ltd., (1973) 3 All ER 54,
referred to.
B

7.1. While it is true that contextual racts do not depict of drawinr; any
advantanc or even any attempt to gain any advantage through the statement
as made in the affidavit noted herein before, but there is no dispute as such
on the factorn of a false and fabricated statement findine its phl.ce in the c
abidnvit. The statement cannot be termed to be a mere denial tl111ufth
rcl!::cted in the mildnvit as such. Positive assertion of a fuct in an afiidavit
!mown to II;: false cannot just be ign11red. It is a deliberate act. It is not
possible to accept the contentillll of the respondent that the statement has
b:?tn made witl111ut realising the purp11rt of the same. It is not a mere denial D
of fact but a positive assertion and as such made with definite intent to pass
ofi a falsity and if possible to gain advantage. This practice of having a false
statement incorp11:rated in an afiidavit liled before a court should alwnys be
deprecated ecd the same is hereby rec11rded. The fact that the depo111ent has
in fnct afilnm:d a false affidavit before this Court is rather serious in
m:turc 1md thueby rendered himself guilty of contempt of this Court as E
n11ticed here!n k?fore. This Court \1011ld be failing in its duties, if the matter
in question is not dealt l'iith In a manner .Proper and effective for mnin·
tc:?ioncc of maj:sty of Courts as otbemise the Law Courts would lose their
eiiiCllcy to the litie:mt public. [3U2-E-HJ

7.2. In the above perspective it is expedient to rec11rd tliat by mere F
tend:iring of unco111dition11l apol03Y to this Court would not exonerate the
contemnor in the contextual facts, but having regard to the nature of the
act 11f contempt, it is deemed fit to impose a fine of Rs. 2,500 each so as to
sub-serve the ends 11! justice against the respondent-contemnors in default
11f p!lyment of d1ich they (e11ch of then) \'iill suffer simple impris11nm~111t G
f11:- c::i: :nonth. The fine shall be pcid to the Lq:lll Service Authority of this
Court viz. the Sup~me Court Leg!ll Services C11mmittee. [383-A·B]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (C) No.
378 of 1998. H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) 1 S.C.R.

A In

Transfer Petition (C) No. 745 of 1993.

Under Article 129 of the Constitution of India.

B S.S. Ray, Ms. Pinky Anand, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Geeta Luthra,
Arvind Kumar, Mrs. Laxmi Arvind, Ms. Sunita Yadav, N.P. Midha, C.S.
Ashri and R.A. Mishra for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c BANERJEE, J, Though judicial hypersensitiveness is not warranted
but angelic silence on the part of a Judge is also not expected vis-a-vis an
infraction of majesty of law. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been
engrafted in the Statute Book for the purpose of bringing in a feeling of
confidence of the people in general for due and proper administration of
D justice in the country. It is undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of
the Courts il!ld as such, it must be exercised with due care and caution and
in cases of larger interest for due administration of justice.

In this matter, this Court by its Order dated 7th September, 1998,
E issued notice to the respondents for wrong assertion of facts pertaining to
the sale of immovab!e property in an affidavit filed before this Court.

Incidentally, the affidavit spoken of earlier, was filed by Respondent
No. 1 in an interlocutory application (IA No. 1)94) in a Transfer Petition
being Civil No. 745/93, by way of an objection, on behalf of the respondent
F herein an application for clarification moved by the petitioners herein. The
factual backdrop not strictly relevant but is being noticed herein below for
the purposes of assessment of the situation in its proper perspective.

The litigation between the parties has a chequered career. Proceed-
ings both at Calcutta and at Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh have been initiated
G by the parties and diverse order$ were obtained including an order of
injunction passed on 14th May, 1993 by the Calcutta High Court restraining
the respondents herein from transferring or alienating or encumbering or
dealing with immovable properties standing in the names as mentioned in
paragraph 34 of the Petition (the High Court Petition) without the leave
H of the Calcutta High Court.
MURRAY & CO. v. AK. NEWATIA[BANERTEE,J.) 373

The factual matrix further depict that the respondents herein, how- A
ever moved this Court for transfer of the original suit from Calcutta to
Kanpur in which an application for clarification was filed by the petitioners
herein and it is in connection therewith that the respondents have averred
in the petition of objection verified by an affidavit on 9th February, 1994
to the following effect.
B
".........it is further incorrect to say that the petitioner in any manner
has committed disobedience of the order passed by the Court or
sold away the property or in any manner talcing any steps to sell
the property. The contentions to the contrary are false and fic-
I
titious......... " C
c

This statement is stated to be a deliberate falsehood and the said
false statement was ma.de wantonly as the respondent knew that the
property was sold long prior thereto.

Mr. Ray, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing in support of the D
petition for contempt contended that the statement as above cannot but be
termed to be a motivated falsehood and thus has to be dealt with utmost
seriousness as otherwise it will not be possible for any Court to administer
justice in the true sense of the term and to the satisfaction of those who
approach the Courts with a firm hope that the truth will ultimately prevail. E
Mr. Ray contended that anyone who takes recourse to fraud or falsehood
deflects the Courts of judicial proceedings and amounts to interference
with the administration of justice. Before however, adverting to the con-
tentions raised as above, it will be worthwhile to note the order as passed
in the transfer petition by this Court on 1st October, 1993. The order is set
out as below : F
\
I "This petition is to seek transfer of OS 166/93 titled Ajanta Services
\
~ Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. V. Murray and Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. pending in
the Calcutta High Court. The aforesaid suit was said to have been
filed on May 12, 1993. Before hand Murray & Co. and a few others
had filed suit No. 649/93 in the Court of Civil Judge, Nagar Kanpur, G
seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants
restraining them from acting as Directors of the plaintiff company,
i.e. Murray & Co. and also from selling the properties of the
company situated at Calcutta and Kanpur and of their personal
properties in any manner and from operating the bank accounts H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2CXXJ) 1 S.C.R.
A in India and also from making any settlement on behalf of the
company in matters pending in the Courts. Besides, a decree for
mandatory injunction was also prayed for directing the defendants
to hand over all the papers and documents regarding the affairs
of the company in their possession to the plaintiff company and
Ashok Kumar Nevatia, the second plaintiff, at Kanpur. The suit at
B Calcutta is in the nature of a cross-suit filed by the some
shareholders seeking almost the identical relief against the defen-
dants who are Directors of the company. It appears that two rival
groups in the company are engaged in this continuous litigation
trying to score over each others. It is seen that not only is the suit
c filed in Kanpur earlier in time but the registered office of the
company is also at Kanpur. We are told at the Bar the income-tax
returns of the company are also filed at Kanpur. It goes without
saying that the two suits otherwise deserve to be decided by one
and the same Court. For what has been said earlier, the balance
of convenience also suggests that the Court at Kanpur should be
D
the most convenient Court to try these two suits. Therefore, we
allow this transfer petition and direct that the file of OS 166/93
titledAjanca Service P. Ltd. & Ors. v.Mumzy & Co. P. Ltd. pending
in the Calcutta High Court be transferred to the file of the Civil
Judge, Nagar Kanpur so that the same is tried along with the suit
E No. 649/93 Mumzy & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Co. v. Madan/al Poddar &
Ors.. Transfer Petition is allowed accordingly."

Needless to record here that the cforification was sought for by the
petitioner herein by way of an interlocutory application only after the
F passing of the order as above.

This Court itself thus recognised the litigations spirit of the parties
and an attempt to score over each other Obviously, this application for
contempt is also no exception to that - but that by itself, however, would
not prompt this Court to come to a conclusion as regards the merits of the
G contentions raised in the matter. The issue, therefore, before this Court is
as to whether the statement as above has, in fact, lowered the authority of
the Court or there is any obstruction to the administration of justice by this
Court bringing it within the purview of Section 2(c)(iii) of the Act of 1971
and in the event the answer to the above issue is in the affirmative, then
H and in that event to what result.
MURRAY & CO. v. AK. NEW AHA :BANERJEE, J.j 375

The right to inflict punishment for contempt of court in terms of the A
Act of 1971 on to the law Courts has been for the purposes of ensuring the
rule of law and orderly administration of justice. The purpose of contempt
jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law since
the image of such a majesty in the minds of the people cannot be led to
be distorted. The respect and authority commanded by Courts of Law are
the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the entin: democratic
B
fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect for the judiciary is
undermined. It is true that the Judiciary will be judged by the people for
what the judiciary does, but in the event of any indulgence which even can
remotely be termed to affect the majesty of law, the society is bound to
lose confidence and faith in the judiciary and the law courts thus, would C
forfeit the trust and confidence of the people in general.

Mr. Ray placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in the
cause of Afzal v. State of Haryana, (1995] Supp. 2 SCC 388, wherein this
Court observed :
D
"It cannot be lightly brushed aside and the tendency to file f\ilse
affidavits or fabricated documents or forgery of the document and
placing them as part of the record of the Court are matters of
grave md serious concern."

This observation, however, ought to be read in the facts of the matter
E
under consideration in Afzal's case. The Judgement itself starts with the
following observation :

'The facts in these cases bring to focus the mixed blend of efficacy
of pragmatic procedure under Section 32; absolute disregard for F
truth; rank indiscipline among the so-called disciplit1ed police
force, despite scientific advancement persistence of crude methods
of investigation; depraved conduct of the official to forge signa-
tures of higher official and the complicity of persons who moved
this Court in callous compromise with the officials to speak con-
trary to the facts placed before the Court. A practicing advocate G
is no exception. He had sworn to an affidavit but had not even the
slightest hesitation to make a somersault and deny his averments
made in the sworn affidavit filed in this Court. These disturbing
trends cause not only a deep anguish to this Court of the degenera-
tion in the moral and official conduct but also make it difficult to H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.

A place absolute reliance on affidavit evidence placed on record."

This Court further in paragraph 7 of the report observed :

"7. The report of the District Judge exposes the so-called dis-
ciplined police officials are rank undisciplined not only audacious
B enough to forge the signature of respondent- Superintendent of
Police but also have no compunction to justify that no forgery was
committed. The affidavit of Ahlawat dated 5.9.93, his evidence
before the District Judge and the report of the latter do establish
that the signature of Ahlawat was forged on the affidavit dated
c 30.9.93 and it is a "crude forgery which needs thorough investiga-
tion and deterrent action. "

The punishment inflicted in the matter in issue inAfzal's case (supra)
however would appear from paragraph 33 of the judgment wherein Ramas-
D wamy, J. directed the punishment to be inflicted on to the contemnors in
the manner as below :

''From the above discussion and conclusions the question is : what
punishment is to be imposed on Randhir Singh (ASI), Ishwar Singh
(SI) and M.S. Ahlawat (Superintendent of Police)? None of them
E made any candid admission nor tendered unqualified contrite
apology. Police officers, who are supposed to be the so-called
disciplined force, have deliberately fabricated false records placed
before this Court without any compunction. It is, therefore, of
utmost importance to curb this tendency, particularly, when they
F have the temerity to fabricate the records with false affidavit and
place the same before the highest Court of the land. Their
depravity of conduct is writ large. M.S. Ahlawat is unworthy to
hold any office of responsibility. Then:fore, Randhir Singh (ASI)
and Ishwar Singh (SI) shall be punishable under Section 193 IPC
G and accordingly they are convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months and six months
respectively. Ahlawat, the Superintendent of Police, is punishable
under Section 193 IPC. He also committed contempt of the
proceedings of this Court punishable under Article 129 of the
H Constitution. Accordingly, he is convicted and sentenced under
MURRAY & CO. v. AK NEWATIA [BANERJEE, J.] 377

Section 193 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of A
one year. He is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a term of six months under Article 129 of the
Constitution. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently,
Krishan Kumar, Head Constable is exonerated of the charge
under Section 193 IPC with warning to show exemplary conduct B
hereafter. His bail bonds are discharged.''

It is on the factual backdrop as above that Ramaswamy, J. speaking
for the Bench observed as above. The situations, however, are not as
critical or endangering in the present context. There is an order of injunc- C
tion passed by the Calcutta High Court which operate as a binding order
inter parties and while the operation of the order was in force, some
properties have been alienated, but in an affidavit affirmed before this
Court, there is an averment to the effect that no property has been
disposed of neither there is any intention even to sell or dispose of any of
the properties. Undoubtedly, if the factum of the sale deed as annexed to D
the petition for contempt is otherwise correct, there is thus a definite
averment which runs counter to the actual state of affairs - a serious matter
indeed. But probably not so serious, a matter, as was dealt with by this
Court inAfzal's case. As such the observations of this Court as above ought
not to be made use of in the facts of the matter under consideration. It E
depends upon facts o~ each individual case and this cannot have: univc:rsal
application in all possible situations. The decision thus lands no assistance
to Mr. Ray in the contextual facts.

Mr. Ray next relied upon the decision of this Court in Rita Markand F
v. Swjit Singh Arora, [1996) 6 SCC 14, wherein in paragraph 14 of the
report, this Court observed that there cannot be any manner of doubt that
by filing false affidavits, the respondent had not only made deliberate
attempts to impede the administration of justice but succeeded in his
attempt in delaying the delivery of possession, and by reason, therefore this G
Court held the respondc:nt guilty of criminal contempt of Court. This Court
however, while considering the issue of punishment, came to a conclusion
that not only the rc:spondent had made ddiberate attempt to impede:
administration of justice but succeeded in his attempt in delaying the
delivery of possession and as such this Court held the respondent guilty of H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.
A criminal contempt and observed as below as regards the question of
punishment ln paragraph 15 of the Report, this Court observed :

'Though the respondent had tendered unconditional apology
before the Court, the apology appeared to be not genuine and
bona fide for, in his e.ulier affidavit, he had also offered a similar
B unconditional apology but falsely reiterated that he had vacated
the pn;mises. The record, however, shows that following his arrest
pursuant to the non··bailable warrant issued by the Court, the
respondent was in custody for some days till he was released on
bail under orders of the Court. Considering this aspect of the
c matter and the fact that he hru. now handed over vacant possession
of the suit premises, it is not necessary to send him behind the bars
again by imposing substantiv..: sentence. At the same time, he
should be punished with fine not only for the wrong done by him
but also to deter others from filing such false affidavits. He is,
. therefore, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2CCO, in default of payment
D of which he will suffor simplt: imprisonment for one month. The
fine, if realised, shall be paid to the petitioner as compensation.
The rule is thus made absolute."

It, therefore, appears that this Court took a serious exception by
...
E reason of the peculiar facts of the matter in issue and particularly for the
reason that contemnor did in fact had taken an advantage. The case is thus <:_~

also distinguishable on facts and the same also does not lend any assistance
to the contentions raised.

F Similar is the situation in regard to the case of the Secretary,
Hailakandi Bar Association v. State of Assam & Anr., [1996] 9 SCC 74
when:in this C.-ourt held that the contemnor deliberately forwarded the
inaccurate report with a view to mislead the Court and thus thereby
interfered with the due course justice by attempting to obstruct this Court
from reaching to a correct conclusion.
G
Incidentally, in the matter undur consideration, there is no plea of
justification and the learned advocate appearing for the respondents
without any n:\ervation, whatsoever, pleaded unconditional apology before
this Court and it is on this perspective that this apology is to be considered
H as to wht:ther the same is otherwise proper and sufficient remedy in the
Ml!RRAY &CO. v. AK. NEWATlA[BA"lERJhE,J.j 379

matter under considt"ration. Undoubtedly, the matter is rather st:rious and A
there is not an iota of doubt as regards th.: falsity of the avermrnts by
reason of the pn:pondcrance of the documentary cvidenct:. But >incc the
matter is pending in the Civil Court, We are not expn:ssing any opinion
insofar as the document of sales is conccrm:d and as such further pruci:ed-
ing in the matter will havt to be only on the assumption of correctne~s and B
not on its falsity, though, however, wb1ect lo furthtr orders of the Civil
Court. But the fact remains as to whether this particular statement has in
any way impeded the course of justice by reason of which certain definite
advantage has been gained by the respondents. The transfor order has been
passed and it is only in connection with the clarification application that C
such a statement has been made in an affidavit. As noticed above, hyper-
sensitiveness on the part of the law Courts, if it docs not obstruct or impede
the course of justice, as such cannot be appreciated. This is a special
jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts to punish an offender for his
contemptuous conduct or obstruction to majesty of law. Needless to record D
that to violate the order of the court or to obstruct or tend to obstruct is
a quasi-criminal offence as such the courts, in the matter of award of
punishment ought to be rather cautious in its approach even if the court is
otherwise satisfied as to the act or conduct of the party. The approach of
the Court is thus different in the matter of imposition of punishment
against a contemnor - the same being totally dependent on the facts and E
circumstdllccs of each individual case. No generalis~d guidelim;; can be
had nor a set of gene1 al principles in the matter of award of punishment
can be formulated. The Court must otherwise come to a conclusion that
on facts the act tantamounts to obstruction of justice which, if allowed,
would even permeate into our society - it is only then that this power ought F
to be exercised. Wbifo, it is true tlllit the statement made in the affidavit
has been introduced as and by way of a denial but the fact remains such a
statement has in fact been made in an affidavit before this Court. Litigant
public ought to be extremely careful and cautious in the matter of making
statements before Courts of Law. Whether, however, the respondent has G
obtained a definite advantage or not is wholly immaterial in the matter of
commission of offence under the Act, though the same would be a relevant
factor in the context of punishment to be imposed against a contemnor. It
is on this score, the learned senior Advocate appearing for the respon-
dents, submitted that there cannot be any defence neither the respondents H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) 1 S.C.R.

A desires to put forth any excepting however, pleading unconditional apology
before the Court. This pleading of unconditional apology obviously is at
the instance of the respondents since Respondent No. 1 was present in the
Court.

Having a conspectus of the whole issue and the facts, we do feel it
B inclined to hold that the respondents cannot escape the liability of being
held guilty of contempt by reason of a definite and deliberate false state-
ment. The statement on oath is a fabricated one and contrary to the facts
and there exists no extenuating circumstances to come to any other con-
clusions than as above.
c As regards the question of punishment, be it noted that punishment
in one matter cannot be the guiding factor for punishment in another.
Punishment has a co-relation with facts and in each case where punishment
is imposed, the same must be rnsultant effect of the acts complained of -
more serious the violation, more severe is the punishment - and that has
D been the accepted norm, in matters though, however, within the prescribed
limits.

Incidentally, Section 13 of the Act of 1971 postulates no punishment
for contemptuous conduct on certain cases and the language used therein
E seems to be with utmost care and caution when it record~ that unless the ...
court is satisfied that contempt is of such a nature that the act complained
of substantially interferes with the due course of justice, question of any
punishment would not arise. It is not enough that there should be some
technical contempt of court, but it must be shown that the act of contempt
would otherwise substantially interfore with the due course of justice, which
F has been equated with "due administration of justice". Jenkins, CJ. in an
old Calcutta High Court decision 'in the case of Legal Remembrancer v.
Matilal Ghose & Ors., ILR 41 Calcutta 173 observed :

"Then this motion raises a question of high importance, which it
would not be right for me to pass by without remark. I allude to
....
G the question-what circumstances ordinarily justify recourse to this
summary process of contempt.

It is not enough that there should be a technical contempt of
court : it must be shown that it was probable the publication would
H substantially interfere with the due administration of justice."
MURRAY & CO. v. AK. NEWA TIA [BANERJEE, J.] 381

In this context, reference may also be made to the observations of A
Lord Diplock in Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd., (1973) 3 All
ER 54 Lord Diplock observed :

"Since the Court's discretion in dealing with a motion for
committal is wide enough to entitle it to dismiss the motion with
B
costs despite the fact that a contempt has been committed, if it
thinks that the contempt was too venial to justify its being brought
to the attention of the Court at all, the distinction between conduct
which is within the general concept of 'contempt of court' and
conduct included within that general concept, which a court
regards as deserving of punishment in the particular circumstance c
of the case, is often blurred in the judgments in the reported cases.
The expression 'technical contempt' is a convenient expression
which has sometimes been used ,to describe conduct which falls
into the former but outside the latter category; and I agree with
my noble and learned friend, Lord Reid, that given conduct which D
presents a real risk as opposed to a mere possibility of interference
with due administration of justice this is at very least a technical
contempt."

- Substantial interference with the course of justice is the requirement
of the statute: for imposition of punishment. There is no manner of doubt
that the words 'due course of justice' used in Section 13 is wider in scope
E

than the words 'due course of any judicial proceeding or administration of
justice' used in sub-clause (ii) or (iii) of Section 2(c). In this context
reference may be made to the decision of this Court in R. Subba Rao's case
(Rachapudi Subba Rao v. Advocate Genera~ Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 2 SCC F
577. For proper appreciation of the intent of legislation, Section 13 as also
Section 2(c) are si::t out hen:inbelow. Section 13 reads as under :

"13. Contempts not punishable in certain cases- Notwithstand-
ing anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no
court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of G
court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature
that it substantially interfere, or tends substantially to interfere with
the due course of justice."

Section 2 (c) is noted as below: H
)

382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 1 S.C.R.
A 2. Definitions : In this Act, unless the context otherwise re-
quires;

© 'Criminal Contempt" means the publication (whether by words,
B spoken or written, or by signs, or by visibk representations, or otherwise)
of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which

(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of any couit; or

C (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due
course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) intt:rft:res or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to
obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."

D Statute thert:fore, puts an obligation on to the court to assess the
situation itself as regards the factum of any interference with the course of
justice or due process of law.

While it is true that contextual facts do not depict of drawing any

E
advantage or even any attempt to gain any advantage through the statement
as made in the affidavit noted hereinbefore, but there is no dispute as such
on the factum of a false and fabricated sta.tement finding its p1ace in the
-
affidavit. The statt:ment cannot be termed to be a mere denial though
reflected in the affidavit as such. Positive assertion of a fact in an affidavit
-
known to be false cannot just be ignored. It is a deliberate act. The learned
p Advocate appearing for the respondents, made a frailltic bid to contend
that the statement has been made without realising the purport of the same.
We are, however, not impressed with the submission and thus unable to
record our concurrence therewith. It is not a mere denial of fact but a
positive assertion and as such made with definite intent to pass off a falsity
~~
G and if possible to gain advantage. This practice of having a false statement
incorporated in an affidavit filed before a Court should always be depre-
cated and we do hereby record the same. The fact that the deponent has
in fact affirmed a false affidavit before this Court is rather serious in nature
and thereby rendered himself guilty of contempt of this Court as noticed
hereinbefore. This Court in our view, would be failing in its duties, if the
H matter in question is not dealt with in a manner proper and effective for
MURRAY & CO. v. AK. NEWATIA [BANERJEE, J.j 383

maintrnance of magesty of Courts as otherwise the Law Courts would lose A
its efficacy to the litigant public. It is in this perspective that we do feel it ·
expedient to record that by mere tendering of unconditional apology to this
Court would not exonerate the contemnor in the contextual facts but having
regard to the nature of the act of contempt, we do deem it fit to impose a
fine of Rs. 2,500 each so as to sub-serve the ends of justice against the
respondent-contcrnnors in default of payment of which they (each of them)
B
will suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The fine, be realised within
a period of four wc>e~ form the date of this order and shall bt paid to the
(Legal Service Authority of this Court) Suprtme Court Legal Services
Committee.

The Contempt Petition is disposed of, accordingly. No order as to
c
costs.

As regards the second petition for direction to the Central Bureau
of Investigation for examination of documents, we do not feel it inclined
to pass any order. As such, the said application stands rejected without any D
order for cost.

v.s.s. Petition disposed of.