Contempt — Criminal contempt — Publication imputing improper motives to judiciary — Ingredients. — A publication which scandalises the Court or imputes improper motives to Judges can satisfy the ingredients of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The circular issued by the contemnor contained statements defeating public confidence in the judicial process and therefore prima facie attracted Section 2(c) and Section 12 of the Contempt Act.
-
Contempt — Proceedings — Show-cause and apology — Statutory discretion to remit. — Section 12(1) of the Contempt Act contemplates both punishment and remission. The proviso and Explanation thereto entitle the Court, if satisfied that an apology is bona fide, to discharge the contemnor or remit the punishment even after conviction. An apology shall not be rejected merely because it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.
-
Contempt — Acceptance of apology — Judicial approach. — Where the contemnor promptly appears on the show-cause, tenders an explanation and an unconditional apology at the earliest stage, the Court must examine the bona fides of the apology before proceeding to punish. If there is no material to show the apology lacks sincerity, the statutory discretion to remit should ordinarily be exercised in favour of mercy.
-
Contempt — Precedents — Ratio decidendi must be applied to materially similar facts. — Decisions holding that criticism imputing improper motives is not fair criticism (e.g., Rajendra Sail; D.C. Saxena; Roshan Lal Ahuja; Perspective Publications) must be applied with regard to their factual matrices. Observations in prior judgments which turn on particular facts do not constitute an inexorable ratio applicable in different circumstances.
-
Contempt — Remission warranted where apology is genuine on facts. — Where the contemnor promptly explains circumstances, accepts error, tenders an unqualified apology and there is no material to demonstrate bad faith, the ends of justice may be met by remitting the sentence imposed by the High Court rather than enforcing short custodial sentence and fine.
-
Result. — Conviction may stand where publication amounts to contempt, but exercise of discretion under Section 12(1) to remit punishment is appropriate where apology is bona fide and there is no material to impugn its genuineness.
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
Statutory balance between vindication of judicial dignity and mercy: Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with its proviso and Explanation, creates a statutory balance: the judiciary retains power to punish conduct that scandalises the court, but also retains a discretion to remit punishment where the contemnor tendered a bona fide apology. The apology’s sincerity is the touchstone for exercising the remedial discretion.
-
Duty to scrutinise apology, not to reject mechanically: When an apology is tendered in response to a show-cause notice, the Court must inquire into its bona fides and not reject it simply because the impugned publication satisfied the ingredients of contempt. If the contemnor promptly appears, explains circumstances and makes an unqualified apology, and there is no material showing mala fides, the Court should ordinarily consider remission of the sentence.
-
Application of precedent requires factual parity: The applicability of earlier decisions which refused to accept apologies or which treated similar publications as unforgivable must be tested against their factual matrices. Isolated observations in prior rulings are not binding where the facts differ materially; only the ratio decidendi extracted from comparable factual situations binds.
-
Remission consistent with judicial prudence and public interest: Mercy and the power to remit are instruments of judicial prudence. Where apology is genuine, remission furthers the interests of justice while preventing the contempt jurisdiction from becoming an instrument to silence criticism rather than to uphold the rule of law.
