Holding

A motion for criminal contempt filed without the prior written consent of the Attorney General/Solicitor General is incompetent and cannot be salvaged by later consent; the contempt petition must be dismissed.

Summary

The State of Kerala filed a contempt petition against M.S. Mani and others for publishing a newspaper column that allegedly scandalised senior advocates and undermined the dignity of the Supreme Court. The petition was filed on 17 May 1999, but the required prior written consent of the Attorney General/Solicitor General under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was obtained only on 11 May 2000. The Court examined whether a motion for criminal contempt made without such prior consent is maintainable and whether subsequent consent can cure the defect. It held that prior consent is mandatory and not a mere formality; a motion filed without it is incompetent and cannot be revived by later consent. Consequently, the contempt notice was discharged and the petition dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a contempt petition filed under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is maintainable without prior written consent of the Attorney General/Solicitor General.
Whether subsequent obtaining of such consent can cure the initial procedural defect.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 15(1)(b), s. 15(3)

Subjects

criminal contemptSection 15Attorney General consentmaintainabilitySupreme Court dignityprocedural defect

Judgment

A ST ATE OF KERALA
11.

M.S. MANI AND ORS.

B
SEPTEMBER 6, 2001

[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRl AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]
-
Contempt of Courts Act, I 971 :

Ss. I 5(/)(b) and (3), Explanation-Criminal contempt other than a
C contempt referred to u/s. I 4-Cognizance of-Consent of 'Advocate General'-
Purpose of-Consent obtained after filing of contempt petition-Effect of-
Contempt petition filed by State Government in Supreme Court on I 7. 5. I 999-
Allegation that dignity and authority of Supreme Court undermined by
respondents-Consent of Attorney General obtained on I /.5.2000-
D Preliminary objection by respondents as regards to maintainability ofcontempt
petition since consent of Attorney General/Solicitor General was not obtained
before filing the contempt petition-Held, for a valid motion to take action
under s.l 5, compliance with the provisions of s.I 5 is mandatory-The motion
to take action against respondents u/s. I 5 was not made with the consent
of Attorney General or Solicitor General and, therefore, is incompetent-
E Subsequent obtaining of the consent does not cure the initial defect so as to
.:onvert the incompetent motion into a maintainable petition-Contempt
notice discharged-Contempt df Court Act, I 98 I (U.K.)-S. 7.

Conscientious Group v. Mohammed Yunus and Ors.. [1987] 3 SCC 89
and P.N. Duda v. P. Shivshanker and Ors.. (1988] 3 SCC 167, relied on.
F
B.K. Misra v. Chief Justice Orissa High Court, AIR (1974) Orissa 1:
Shri Harish Chandra Mishra and Ors. v. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.Ali
Ahmed, AIR (1986) Patna 85 and Vishwanath v. E.S. Venkataramiah and
Ors.. (1990) Crl. J. 2179, (Bombay), approved.

G Barrie & Lowe-The Law of Contempt, 3rd Edn. P.481 (Note 14),
referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (c) No:280
of 1999.

H 622
STATE v. M.S. MANI 623
IN A

- Civil Appeal No. 1466 of2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.98 of the Kerala High Court
in W.A. No. 343 of 1997.
B
K.R. Sasiprabhu for the Petitioner.

K. Sukumaran, E.M.S. Anam and Fazlin Anam for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This Contempt Petition is filed by the State of Kerala complaining that
c
the dignity and authority of the Apex Court are undermined by the respondents
by publishing a three column news on the front page of the newspaper. "The
Kerala Kaumudi" on May 5, 1999. In the said column the alleged contemnor
imputed scandalous, malicious vilificatory, defamatory and libellous criticism
against Shri K.N. Bhat, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court, Shri M.K. D
Damodaran, Advocate General of Kerala State and Shri G. Prakash, standing
counsel for the State of Kerala, in the manner of conduct of C.A. No. 1466
of 2000 in this Court.

This Court issued notice on the Contempt Petiiion on August 9, 1999.
The respondents having entered appearance raised a preliminary objection E
that the Contempt Petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as consent of the
learned Attorney General/Solicitor General under Section 15 of the Contempt
of Courts Act, was not obtained before filing the contempt petition. The
learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that the consent
contemplated by sub-section (I) of Section 15 of the Act has been obtained F
on May 11, 2000 and submitted that the petition would, therefore, be
maintainable.

In view of the above contention, it may be useful to read the relevant
provisions of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
G
"15. Cognizance or criminal contempt in other cases:- (I) 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
H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A (b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Adovcate-
General, or

****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
-
B '(3) Every motion or reference made under this Section shall specify
the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

Exp/anation:-ln this section, the expression "Advocate-General"
means-

c (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;

D (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."

A perusal of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (I) of Section 15 makes
it clear that in the case of Criminal Contempt the Supreme Court or the High
E Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the
Advocate General or a motion of any other person with the consent in writing
of the Advocate General. There is no controversy that the contempt alleged
is within the meaning of criminal contempt under clause (c) of Section 2 of
the Act. From clause (b) of sub-section (I) of Section 15 it is manifest that
F a motion made by any person other than the Advocate General must be with
the prior consent in writing of the Advocate General. An analogous provision
is to be found in Section 7 of the English Contempt of Courts Act, 1981.

The expression 'Advocate General' is defined in the Explanation to
Section 15 of the Act. Clause (a) of the Explanation says that for the purpose
G of Section 15 in relation to the Supreme Court the expression 'Advocate
General' would mean the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. Explanations
(b) and (c) are not relevant for our purpose. Thus, it is clear that if any person
other than the Attorney General/Solicitor General makes motion before the
Supreme Court for taking action in regard to a criminal contempt, the motion
must be accompanied with the consent in writing of the 'Attorney General/
H Solicitor General. In this case, admittedly, the motion was not accompanied
STATE v. M.S. MANI 625
by the consent in writing of the Attorney General/Solicitor General. A
The requirement of consent of the Advocate General/Attorney General/
Solicitor General where any person other than the said law officers makes
motion in the case of a criminal contempt in a High Court or Supreme Court,
as the case may be, is not a mere formality, it has a salutary purpose. The
said law officers being the highest law officers at the level of the State/Centre B
as also the officers of the Courts are vitally interested in the purity of the
administration of justice and in preserving the dignity of the Courts. They are
expected to examine whether the averments in the proposed motion of a
criminal contempt are made vindicating public interest or personal vendetta
and accord or decline consent postulated in the said provisions. Further
cases found to be vexatious, malicious or motivated by personal vendetta and C
not in public interest will get filtered at that level. If a motion of criminal
contempt in the High Court/Supreme Court is not accompanied by the written
consent of the aforementioned law officers, the very purpose of the requirement
of prior consent will be frustrated. For a valid motion compliance with the
requirements of Section 15 of the Act is mandatory. A motion under Section
15 not in conformity with the provisions of Section 15, is not maintainable. D
[See: Conscientious Group v. Mohammed Yunus and Ors., [1987] 3 SCC 89
and P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 167]. In this view
of the matter, law has been correctly laid down by the Orissa High Court in
B.K. Misra v. Chief Justice, Orissa High Court, AIR (1974) Orissa I, The
Patna High Court in Shri Harish. Chandra Mishra and Ors. v. The Hon 'ble
Mr. Justice S. Ali Ahmed, AIR (1986) Patna 65 and the Bombay High Court E
in Vishwanath v. E.S. Venkatarmiah and Ors., (1990) Crl. L.J. 2179 Bombay.
We may also note here that non-compliance of Section 7 of the English
Contempt of Court Act, 1981, referred to above, was held to be fatal to the
action. [Borrie and Lowe-The Law of Contempt, 3rd Edn., P. 481 (Note 14)].
Here, the Contempt Petition was filed on May 17, 1999 and the consent F
of the learned Attorney General was obtained on May 11, 2000. It is, however,
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now Section 15 has
been complied with. We are unable to accede to this contention. The fact
remains that the motion to take action against the respondents under Section
15 was not made with the consent of the learned Attorney General or Solicitor
General and therefore is incompetent. Subsequent obtaining of the consent, G
in our view, does not cure the initial defect so as to convert the incompetent
motion into a maintainable petition.
For the above reasons we discharge the contempt notice and dismiss
this Contempt Petition.
RP. Contempt Petition dismissed. H