Dismissed

Suresh Rajeshwar and Anr. v. Raj Thackeray and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2006CONP/23/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed an application for criminal contempt against Raj Thackeray for alleged remarks threatening lawyers. The Court found the press reports contradictory and the intent unclear, relying on the Dr. Farooq Abdullah precedent regarding failure of proof.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed, and no cognizance was taken of criminal contempt against the respondent.

Suresh Rajeshwar and Anr. Vs Raj… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 23 OF 2006 1. Suresh Rajeshwar and anr. ..Petitioners Vs. 1. Raj Thackeray and ors. ..Respondents Mr. P.A. Sebastian with Smt. Maharukh Adenwala for petitioners. Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Mr.Archit Jayakar i/by M/s. Khaitan & Jayakar for respondent No.1. Ms. P.H. Kantharia, APP for respondent no.2. Mr. Vinayak Shete for respondent no.3. Mr. Sanjay Udeshi for respondent no.4. Mr. Rajeev Pandey with Mr. Punekar for respondent no.5. Mr. Sumit Deshpande for respondent no.6.

¶3

CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ.

¶4

Date of Reserve : November 30, 2006.

¶5

Date of Pronouncement: December 06, 2006.

¶6

P.C.:

¶7

1.		This Contempt Peti	tion arises from	the alleged
speech	made	by Mr.	Raj	Thackeray,	the President	of
Maharashtra		Navnirman	Sena, a	newly	formed	political
party	in	Maharashtra,	on	16/7/2006 at	Shivaji	Park,
Mumbai.		The said	political	party had	called a	public
meeting	on	16/7/2006	to pay	homage	(Shradhanjali)	to

¶8

:2:

¶9

the	victims	of loc	al train	bomb	blast		occurred	on
11/7/2006	in	Mumbai	and to	share	the	grief	of	the
victims’	family	members.	It	is	all	eged	that	the
respondent	no.1	Mr.	Raj	Thackeray	in	his	speech	in
the	said p	ublic meet	ing w	arned	the		lawyers	from
defending	the	accused	involved	in	the	M	umbai	train
bomb	blast	on 11/7/2	006 that	his	pa	rty	would	organise
protests	and	demonstrations	against	such		law	yers	and
make	it	difficult for	them	to m	ove	around	the	city.
It is	claimed	that t	hese st	atements	of	r	espondent	no.1

¶10

were widely reported by the print and electronic

¶11

media.

¶12

2.	Petitioner no.1	is a practising	lawyer	and
also	the Vice Presi	dent of	the	Indian Association	of
People’s	Lawyers (IAPL)	and	the	petitioner no.2 who	is
also	an Advocate,	is	Gen	eral Secretary of	the
Committee	for the	Protec	tion	of Democratic	Rights
(CPDR).	IAPL	is	affilia	ted to Inte	rnational
Association	of Peopl	e’s Law	yers	which has	its
headquarters	at Utrecht,	Netherla	nds.	It works,	inter
alia,	for the independ	ence of	the	lawyers to take	up
cases	without bein	g intimida	ted	and blackmailed	by

¶13

:3:

¶14

vested	interests.	CPDR was formed post-emergency in
1977	and it w	orks for civil liberties and democratic
rights,	of which	independence of the judiciary is an
important	element.	Both the petitioners are enrolled
with	the Bar Co	uncil of Maharashtra and Goa. They
claim	that the	speech of the respondent no.1 in the
public	meeting held	on 16/7/2006 was widely circulated
in	some of th	e leading newspapers both Marathi and
English	and publish	ed from Mumbai. These newspapers
are,	(1) The Tim	es of India, (2) The Indian Express,
(3)	Free Press	Journal, (4) DNA, (5) The Hindustan
Times	and (6)	Loksatta. The respective newspaper
cuttings	have ben	annexed to the petition memo and it
is	submitted that	the said speech of Mr.Raj Thackeray
amounted	to criminal	contempt as defined under Section
2(c)	of the Conte	mpt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act for
short).	As per	the petitioners the reported speech of
Mr.Raj	Thackeray at	Shivaji Park which is one of the
largest	maidans of	Mumbai came at a time when the
atmosphere	is cha	rged with emotions and passions
against	those who	are responsible for the train bomb
blast	on 11/7/2006	and the sentiments expressed by him
in his	capacity as	one of the prominent leaders having
a mas	s base of	young and impressionable followers will

¶15

:4:

¶16

lead	to a	n explosive situation where lawyers	may	not
dare	to	defend the accused arrested and	charged	for
the	train	bomb blast. This may lead to	a	situation
where	lawyers,	who in the course of carryin	g out	their
professional		duty of defending the bomb	blast	accused
may	be	branded and labelled "anti-	national"	and
"unpatriotic	".	The petitioners further claim	that	the
speech	of	respondent no.1 will intimidate	lawyers	and
deter	them	from appearing for these accu	sed.	The
lawyers	play	an indispensable role	in	the
administrati	on	of justice without whose	par	ticipation,
the	criminal	justice system would not be	able	to
function	and	dispense justice, when it is one	of	the
cardinal	prin	ciples of the Indian crim	inal	justice
system	that	the accused is presumed to	be	innocent
until	proved	guilty. Article 22 of the	C	onstitution
guarantees	to	every accused the right	to	be
represented	by	a lawyer of his choice and	Article	21
of	the	Constitution guarantees a right of	fair	and
free	trial	to every accused. Any attempt	to	prevent
lawyers	from	performing their duties	amounts	to
criminal	con	tempt. The respondent no.1 ha	s the	power
and	means	to carry out the threats set out	in	his
speech	and	if such threats are carried out,	it	would

¶17

:5:

¶18

undermine	the authority of	the	courts	and	lead to a
blatant	violation of the rule	of	law.		The supremacy
of law	and judiciary in		carrying	o	ut its legal
function	is being eroded by	an	extra	lega	l and extra
constitutional	factor and t	he s	peech	is	aimed at
lowering	the authority and	dignity	of	the	courts and
to obstruct	the rule of law	as	well	as	to interfere in
the ad	ministration of	just	ice.		The petitioners,
therefore,	claim that there	is	a	c	ase for the
respondent	no.1 being com	mitted	to	crimi	nal contempt
within the	meaning of Section	2(c)	of	the	Act. Before
approaching	this court they	had	appr	oached	the learned
Advocate	General, Government	of	Mahara	shtra,	who has

¶19

granted them consent under Section 15 of the Act on

¶20

31/7/2006.

¶21

Along with the petition memo, the petitioners

¶22

have	annexed	the newspapers		cuttings	of all	the	above
mentioned	six	newspapers,	but	initially	none	of	the
newspapers	through	their Editors		were	impleaded	as	the
respondents	a	nd, therefore,	we	had	allowed	am	endments
consequent	to	which the		Editors	of o	nly	four
newspapers,	nam	ely, (1) The		Hindustan	Times,	(2)	DNA,

¶23

:6:

¶24

(3)	Free	Press Journal and		(4)	Loksatt	a cam	e to	be
impleaded	as	respondent nos.3		to	6	and	the pe	titioners
chose	not	to implead t	he	Edit	ors of	the	other	two
newspapers	, na	mely, (1) The	Ti	mes	of	India	and (2)	The
Indian	Express.	Vide our		order	dated	5/10	/2006 we	had
issued	show-ca	use notice to		respond	ent	no.1	and at	the
same	time	notices were issue	d	to	resp	ondent	nos.3 t	o 6
to	file	their reply re	ga	rding	the	authe	nticity of	the
news	publ	ished in each		of	the	respectiv	e ne	wspapers
regarding		the statements ma	de	by	the	res	pondent	no.1
and	which	were alleged	to	be	contem	ptuous.	All	the
four	news	papers’ Editors		have	filed		their	replies,

¶25

supported by the affidavit of the respective news

¶26

reporter/correspondent.

¶27

Let us reproduce the alleged threats given by

¶28

the respondent no.1 in his public speech on 16/7/2006

¶29

and as reported in the four newspapers :-

¶30

(a) Loksatta -

¶31

:7:

¶32

(b) Free Press Journal -

¶33

"Raj was addressing a condolence meeting

¶34

organised by the party for the blast victims

¶35

at Dadar. He also warned the advocates against holding the briefs for the accused saying that his party would make it difficult

¶36

for such advocates to move around in the

¶37

city."

¶38

¶39

"We will thrash the advocate who takes up the case for the accused in the recent bomb blast

¶40

case."

¶41

The Hindustand Times - dated 2/8/2006

¶42

"Raj also challenged lawyers who want to file

¶43

a contempt petition against him because he has

¶44

threatened to physically harm anyone defending

¶45

:8:

¶46

the blasts accused:"Will they also fight cases

¶47

for those misbehaving with their mothers and

¶48

daughters?"

¶49

(d) DNA -

¶50

	"Maharashtra Navnirman Sena	president	Raj
Thackeray	has appealed to the law	yers	taking
up	the brief for bomb blast accused	to	"heed
the	call of		ethics".
	"How dare they take terrori	sts as	their
clients?	Have they no sense of	nati	onalism?
If	they are taking up their cases,	I	think
they	are equally culpable," Raj	said,	while
launching	the youth wing of the	party	at
Ravindra	Natya Mandir on Tuesday.	Stung	by
the	reported move by some lawyers	to haul	him
for co	ntempt, Raj said he stood by	what he	had
said	earlier. "Lawyers should	not	counsel
those	who have indulged in an	ti-national	acts.
And	if they want to drag me to	court,	let
them.	I will face it." He asked	"Would	they
have	taken up their own kin in	the	blasts?"

¶51

:9:

¶52

.	As	for as the public speech	of 16/7/2	006 at
Shivaji	Park	is concerned,	the	petitio	ners	rely	upon
the	following	three	news	papers	r	eports,	namely,
Loksatta,	Free	Press Journal	an	d th	e	Hindustan	Times.
As	per the	petitioners, the	respo	ndent	no.1	again	on
1/8/2006,	while	launching		Mahar	ashtra		Navnirman
Vidyarthi	Sena,	a student	wing	of	his	party	had
reiterated hi	s threats which we	re reported, amongst

¶53

other, in DNA and Hindustan Times on 2/8/2006.

¶54

5.		The	respondent no.1 Mr. Raj	Thackeray has, in
response		to	the show-cause	notice,	appeared	before us
and	filed	his	reply. At	the outset,	he has	tendered
his sincere	and uncon	ditional	apology to this court in

¶55

the following words:-

¶56

	"At		th	e	outset, I	sincerely	and
unconditi	onally		ap	ologise	to	this	Hon’ble
Court,	if	what		I	allegedly said	and/or did	has
in	any	way		preve	nted this Hon’ble	Court	from
the		admini	str	ation	and/or the	dispensation	of
justice		and		I	therefore express	my	apologies

¶57

:10:

¶58

to this Hon’ble Court. I say that, I have utmost respect and regards for this Hon’ble Court. As a citizen of India, I believe in the Rule of Law and the paramount position of the Courts of Justice and the administration of justice".

¶59

. While dealing with the newspapers reports

¶60

regarding his speech at Shivaji Park in the public meeting on 16/7/2006, he has stated that his speech has been grossly misinterpreted by the press reports and pointed out that none of the four press reports match each other and each one of them states that he

¶61

said something different. While clarifying his

¶62

position, he states in his reply,

¶63

"...In any event, what was said and what was intended by me was that my Party would stage demonstrations against Lawyers who did accept the brief of the Accused in the said Bomb Blasts, which demonstrations, any Person is entitled to convene."

¶64

:11:

¶65

He	further clarifies that his sta	tement	was not	to
hamper	the administration of j	ustice	but was	inspired
by	a moral and social conscience	and	it was to	appeal
to	the citizens of Mumbai to	realise	that the	persons
being	defended could be the pe	rsons	who have	caused
the	death of more than 200	innoce	nt citizens	and,
therefore,	to urge citizens to	realise	the gravit	y of
the	situation, he has emphasised	his	right to	express
his	feelings and/or opinion as	regards	what he	felt
about	the Bomb Blasts and has	clarif	ied that he	never
meant	to suggest that the	lawyers	are an	ti-national
and	his statement in the public	meeti	ng on	16/7/2006
was	only an outburst of what he	felt	as a citizen	of
Mumbai	and nothing more. Re	garding	his speech	of
1/8/2006	he denies the veracity	and	appropriateness	of
the	said newspapers reports	and	prays for	the
respective	respondents to be put		to strict	proof

¶66

thereof. He claims that his speech of 1/8/2006 was as

¶67

under:-

¶68

"if any of the said Lawyers family members

¶69

were injured in the Bomb Blasts or had died

¶70

therein, then would they have appeared, and

¶71

therefore did it not matter and/or did it not

¶72

:12:

¶73

make a difference that almost 200 families

¶74

were affected by the Bomb Blasts and how could

¶75

the Lawyers accept such briefs, on a Moral Basis and how it did not appeal to their

¶76

Conscience."

¶77

. The respondent no.1 thus admits that in his

¶78

speech on	16/7/2006 he had	stated	that	his		party	would
stage	demonstration against l	awyers	who	wo	uld		accept
the brief	of the accused in	the	Mumbai	Bo	mb	Blasts	and
he cla	ims that any person	is	entitled	to		convene	such
demonstrations.	He further	admi	ts that	i	n	his	speech
of 1/8/	2006 he questioned		the		mor	ality	and
consciousness	of the lawyers	who	accept	the		brief	of
Mumbai	Bomb Blast accused	in	the abo	ve	quo	ted	words
and as	per him the said	statem	ents do	not		amount	to
criminal	contempt of court	as	defined	u	nder		Section
2(c) of	the Act. To	con	clude	his		reply,	the
respondent	no.1 alleges that	the	petition			has	been
filed on	the basis of d	istorted	newsp	aper		reports	and,
therefore,	the entire bed-r	ock	of	the		pe	titioners’
case is	misplaced since it	is	not base	d	on	the	actual
statements	made by him,	but	on	the		inter	pretation
thereof	by newspapers who	hav	e com	pletely		twisted	his

¶79

:13:

¶80

statements. H	e ha	s crav	ed le	ave to refer	to	and	rely
upon the	video	recordin	g of	his speech	on	1	/8/2006.
As per the	resp	ondent	no.1	his statements	w	ere	not
meant to inti	midate	any	person	but were	to	inspire	or
make the p	eople	realise	the	deeds of	terro	rist	and/or
anti-national persons	who	caus	ed	the death	of	over	200
citizens and	his	stateme	nt wa	s an express	ion	of	his
bond to his	country	and	countr	ymen and he	did	not	see
how his expr	ession	of	opi	nion would	dis	rupt	the
administration of		justice,	since	those	persons		who
were not m	oved	by his	expr	ession would	acce	pt	such
briefs. He	declares	tha	t	he is aware	a	bout	the
cardinal principle,		"an	accu	sed is	innocent		until
proved guilty",	and	he	is	not going	to	p	hysically

¶81

prevent from accepting brief but had appealed to their

¶82

moral conscience.

¶83

6.		Mr.Su	resh		Raj	eshwar,		the	first
petitione	r-party-in		person		a	rgued	before	us	stating
that	the	re	ply	filed	by	the	respondent	no.1	suffers
from	falsities	and	it	is	a	twisted	term	only to	escape
from	the cl	utches	of		contempt	when	a	show-cause	notice
was	issued	to	him		and,	therefore,	the	reply should	be

¶84

:14:

¶85

discarded.	The d	emonstra	tions,	if	and	when	held
anywhere	in Mumbai	city	would	scare	or put	the	lawyer
community	under fe	ar	and	thereb	y disc	ouraging	or
preventing	any me	mber	of the	bar	from acc	epting	the
briefs	of such acc	used	even at	the	initial	stages	of
bail	application,	leave	alone	when	the ac	tual	trial
starts	after the	charge	-sheets	are	filed and	if	the
lawyers	are prevented	by	such	i	ntimidatory	tactics,	it
would b	e certainly an	act	by	the	respondent	no.1	which
would	prejudice or	interfere	or	tend	to	interfere	with
the due	course of	any	judicial	proc	eedings or	it	would
interfere	or tend	to	interfere	with	or	obstruct	or

¶86

tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any

¶87

other manner.

¶88

Section 2(c) of the Act reads as under:-

¶89

"2. Definitions,- In this Act, unless the

¶90

context otherwise requires,-

¶91

:15:

¶92

(whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-

¶93

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or

¶94

lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any

¶95

court; or

¶96

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to

¶97

interfere with, the due course of any judicial

¶98

proceeding; or

¶99

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with,

¶100

or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the

¶101

administration of justice in any other

¶102

manner."

¶103

The	responde	nt no.1 ha	s also placed	reliance on the
provisions	of	Section 3(2)	of the	Act and the
explanation		thereunder in	support of	the preliminary
point	that	this petition	is premature	since when the
alleged	cont	emptuous speech	was made	on 16/7/2006 at
Shivaji	P	ark, the char	ge-sheet in	the matter relating

¶104

:16:

¶105

had not been filed by the police. Section 3(2) and

¶106

the explanation to the said section read as under:-

¶107

	"3.Innocent publication	and	distribution of
matter	not contempt-		(1) .......
	(2) Notwithstanding anything	to	the contrary
contained	in this Act or any	other	law for the
time	being in force, the	publicat	ion of any
such	matter as is mentioned	in	sub-section (1)
in	connection with any	civil	or criminal
proceeding	which is not pending	at	the time of
publication	shall not be	deemed	to constitute
contempt	of		court.
	Explanation.- For the	purpos	es of this
section,	a judicial	pro	ceeding -
	(a) is said to be pending - (A) ......

¶108

(B) in the case of a criminal

¶109

:17:

¶110

proceeding		under the	Code of Criminal
Procedure,		1898 (5 of	1898), or any
other		law	-
	(i)	where it relates	to the commission
of	an	offence, when	the charge-sheet
or cha	llan	is filed, or	when the court
issues	sum	mons or warrant,	as the case
may	be,	against the	accused, and
	(ii)	in any other ca	se, when the court
takes	co	gnizance of t	he matter to
which		the proceeding	relates, and
	in	the case of a	civil or criminal
proceedings	,	shall be	deemed to
continue		to be pending	until it is
heard		and finally decid	ed, that is to
say,	in	a case where	an appeal or
revision		is competent,	until the
appeal		or revision is	heard and
finally	dec	ided or, where	no appeal or
revision		is preferred,	until the
period		of limitation	prescribed for

¶111

:18:

¶112

such appeal or revision has expired;

¶113

(b) which has been heard and finally decided

¶114

shall not be deemed to be pending merely by

¶115

reason of the fact that proceedings for the execution of the decree, order or sentence

¶116

passed therein are pending."

¶117

It needs to be clarified at this stage itself

¶118

that	this petition does not deal with any al	legations
or	outbursts or threats or intimidations by	the
respondent	no.1 in connection with any civil	or
criminal	proceeding, is not in connection with	any
civil	or criminal proceeding pending at the time	of
publication	in the strict sense and the ex	planation
has	set out the meaning of "judicial pro	ceedings
pending".	It is the case of the petitioners that	the
speeches	made by the respondent no.1 would	scare,
intimidate	and/or keep the members of the bar	away
from	defending any of the accused at any	stage,
including	even at the stage of bail applications	when
they	are being presented before the Magistrate’s	court
and	thus obstruct or tends to obstruct	the

¶119

:19:

¶120

administration	o	f justice or prejudice or	interfer	e or
tends to	inte	rfere with the due course of	any	judicial
proceeding.		The petitioner no.1 submitted	that	the
commencement		of judicial proceeding is even	from	the
time a		person is arrested on suspicion	of	having
committed	o	r involved in the crime, a pen	dency	of the
criminal	proc	eeding begins immediately	after	his
production	w	ithin 24 hours of his arrest	before	the
Magistrate	for	remand. This issue is no	more	res
integra	in	view of a Division Bench judgmen	t of	this
court in		the case of Prabhakar Laxman	Mokashi	vs.
Sadanand	Trimbak	Yardi and ors. (1975 Cri	.L.J.	531).
The	said	decision of this court s	upports	the
contentions	of	the respondent no.1 on t	his	preliminary
point in	view	of the scheme of Section 3 of	the	Act in
its entiret	y.	There is force in the p	reliminary	issue

¶121

raised about the maintainability of the petition at

¶122

this stage, it being a premature petition.

¶123

However, we have proceeded to consider the

¶124

petitioners’		arguments	o	n mer	it as	well	and	we	have
noticed		at the	first	place	that	there	is	no	unanimity
in	the	press	reports	and	secondly	the	corr	ectness	of

¶125

:20:

¶126

the p	ress report has been challenged by the r	espondent
no.1.	He has stoutly denied to have uttered the	words
as	reported on 2/8/2006 or on 17/7/2006. The	Marathi
newspaper	Loksatta in its report on 17/7/2006	merely
stated	that the respondent no.1 had threatened	the
persons	accepting the briefs of the bomb blast	accused
that	they would not be allowed to move on the	roads,
whereas	the Free Press Journal report stated that	the
respondent	no.1 warned Advocates against holding	the
briefs	for the accused saying that his party	would
make	it difficult for such Advocates to move	around
the	city. Though these two reports are	almost
similar,	but the report of the Hindustand Times	goes
much	further. It reads attributing to the	threats
allegedly	given by the respondent no.1, "We	will
thrash	the advocate who takes up the case for	the
accused	in the recent bomb blasts case".	The
respondent	no.1 while denying that either	he
threatened	the advocate of thrashing him or his	party
would	make the advocate concerned difficult to	move
around	the city of Mumbai, he reiterated that he	did
say	that his party would stage demonstrations	against
the the M	lawyers who accept the briefs of the accused umbai Bomb Blast case. Thus there is	in a

¶127

:21:

¶128

contradiction		between	the	press	reports		and w	hat	the
respondent	no.1	claims	to	have	said	in	the	said	public
meeting	held	on	16/7/20	06.	Similar	is	the	case	in

¶129

respect of the press report covering his speech of

¶130

1/8/2006.

¶131

A some what similar situation was considered

¶132

by	the	a	pex	court in	the case	of	M.R.	Parash	ar	and
ors.	vs.		Dr.	Farooq	Abdullah	and	ors.	(AIR	1984	SC
615).		Dr.		Farooq A	bdullah as	the	Chief	Minist	er	of
Jammu		and	K	ashmir was	alleged	to	have	made	state	ments

¶133

which were reported as under in the newspaper (Daily

¶134

Kashmir Times dated 13/11/1982 and 23/11/1982) :-

¶135

	"Chief Minister	asks	engine	ers to	forcibly
occupy	club building,	as	it	would not	be
possible	for them to	evict	the	Amar Singh	Club
through	the normal	legal	process	and that	he
would	provide t	he n	ecessary	police	assistance
for th	at purpose, CM	says	he	will never	accept
courts’	stay orders,	justice	is	being	bought
in	the judicial	courts,	I wi	ll never	honour
these	stay orders	even	if	I am	hanged."

¶136

:22:

¶137

. On receipt of the notice from the Supreme

¶138

Court	the	new	spapers		had	filed	thei	r affidavits
confirming		what	was	re	ported	in	the	respective
newspapers		was	as	per	the spe	ech made	by	Dr.Farooq
Abdullah,		whereas	t	he	affidavit	filed	by	Dr.Abdullah
unequivocally		denied		to	have	said an	ything	that was
reported	in	the	press.		While	recording	a	finding that
the	CM	was	not	guilty	of	criminal	contempt	within the

¶139

meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act, the Supreme Court

¶140

in para 7 stated as under:-

¶141

"7. 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 peroration as an ill-tempered 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 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 his newspaper are true. There is word against word, and no preponderating circumstance which,

¶142

:23:

¶143

objectively, 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. One of them has clearly violated the law of contempt. If the Chief Minister said what is alleged, he 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 right. 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 sensation and its political involvement. 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 reasonable doubt. What is involved in this petition is criminal contempt and, therefore, it is necessary to apply that particular standard of proof."

¶144

When the veracity of the statements alleged to

¶145

have	been	made	by	the respond	ent no.1		is	doubtful,
such	statements	do	not	make	a	case	for	taking
cognizance	for	co	mmitting	the	respond	ent	no.1	of
criminal	conte	mpt	in	the	instant		petition,	by

¶146

following the law laid down in Dr.Abdullah’s case

¶147

(Supra).

¶148

:24:

¶149

12.		Even otherwise, the respondent no.1 has
tendered		his unconditional and sincere apolo	gy		before
us.	He	has stated that he has utmost re	spect		and
regards	to	the courts of law and the rule of	law		as
well	as	the paramount position of the	courts		of
justice,	so	also the administration of justice.			He
has	also	unequivocally stated that he is not	goi	ng	to
physically	prev	ent any lawyer from accepting	brief		but
he had	only	appealed to their moral conscience.		H	e is
also	aware	that an accused is innocent until			proved
guilty.		We, therefore, have no doubts in		a	ccepting
the	apology	tendered by the respondent no.	1		being
sincere	and	bona fide. As per him in his s	peech		he
never	stated	that he would prevent lawy	ers		from
accepting	th	e brief of the accused in the bom	b		blast
case	but	he would protest against them and	in		his
reply	he	has clarified that he would not preve	nt		any
lawyer	from	accepting the brief of any of	the		accused
in the	M	umbai bomb blast cases. Mr.	Gupte		the
learned	Se	nior Counsel appearing for the		re	spondent
no.1,	who	was also present before us, clearly			stated
that no	me	mber of the bar would in any	wa	y	be

¶150

:25:

¶151

prevented		from	accepting	the brief of	any	of	the
accused	in	the	Mumbai	bomb blast	cases	and	the
respondent		no.1	never	intended to	inti	midate	or
threaten	any	member	of the	bar in his	public	speech	of
16/7/2006		and	1/8/2006.	We have no	hes	itation	in
accepting		the	apology	tendered by the	resp	ondent	no.1
and	he	is	sincere	in showing his	repen	tance	and

¶152

remorse with regards the statements he admitted to have made on 16/7/2006 and 1/8/2006.

¶153

13.		We are, there	fore, sat	isfied tha	t there is no
case	made	out	to	take	cognizance	for		committing	the
respondent		no.1	for	crimi	nal contempt		at	this	stage

¶154

and, therefore, this petition fails at the threshold.

¶155

The same is hereby dismissed.

¶156

(J.H. Bhatia, J.)

¶157

(B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Suresh Rajeshwar and Anr. v. Raj Thackeray and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Rajeshwar and Anr. v. Raj Thackeray and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kisan Ganpatrao Nimbalkar Vs Deepak Wadhwa,Parter , M/S. V.K. Associates and Ors.

Dr.Ambedkar Memorial Shikshan Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dhiraj Suryakant Jadhav Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Bhupendra Jagannath Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Krishna Dhondu Kijbile and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Devidas Sakharam Godge Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.