AMRIT NAHATAversusUNION OF INDIA

                                                                              561

                             AMRIT NAHATA
                                                                                     A
                                       v.

                            UNION OF INDIA

                                 May8, 1985
                                                                                     B
     (D.A. DESAI, V. BALAkRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.j

      Contempt of Court Act, 1971, section IS-Contempt petition-Withdrawal
wh~n permissible.


       The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in this Court for a declaration that     0
sections 3 and 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Rule 23 and 25 of the
Cinematograph (Censorship) Rules, 1958 were unconstitutional and invalid and
for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to certify his film 'Kissa
Kursee Ka' for unrestricted public exhibition. This Court directed delivery
within one week of the negatives and prints of the filn1 to the Governn1ent for
preserving the same in proper condition until the disposal of the Writ Petition.
The Court further directed that the film 'Kissa Kursee Ka' be screened to be
                                                                                     D
seen by five learned Judges to this Court. The film was not made available
for screening as directed.

       The Solicitor General of India moved Cri ruinal Misc. Petition re-
questing the Court to take action against the five persons na111ed in the petition
under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on che ground that they         E
were individually and severally guilty of wilful disobedience of the directions
and order of this Court with regard to the preservation of the negatives and the
prints of the film in proper condition until the disposal of the Writ Petition and
that they have interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and that
their conduct was intended and calculated to interfere with and obstruct the
administration of justice by causing the loss and disapperance of the film and
preventing this Court from effectively dealing with the Writ Petition pending        F
before 1t and judicaJly determining the issues arising therein.

       Another Criminal ~Use. Petition was also moved by the Solicitor
General inviting this Court to hold that the aforesaid five persons also appear
to have committed offences under section 120-B read with sections 19~ and 193
of the Indian Penal Code and it was ,expedient in the interest of justice to file    G
a criiminal complaint against them.

       In the meantin1e a substantive prosecution was launched against Shri
Vidya Charan Shukla and late Shri Sanjay Gandhi for various offences, which
ultin1ately ended in their acquittal.
                                                                                     H
     The hearing of the two Criminal Misc. Petitions was postponed by this
Court; ard after the acquittal of the two aforesaid persons a petition was filed
     562                     SUPRBM!l COURT RBPOll.TS           (198S) SUPPL. l.C.ll,

      by the Union of India for withdrawal of both the Criminal Misc. Petitions.
A
            Granting permission fol' withdrawal of petitions for initiatin1 contempt
      proceedings as well as for filing the Criminal Complaint,

             HELD 1. The petitioner who has moved an action for contempt is not
     entitled as a matter of right to withdraw the petition whenever it suits his
B    purpose. Once the act, which prilnafacie shows that contempt of the Court
     has been committed, is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court has to
     decide whether the contempt has been com111itted or not or whether it i:!I appro~
     priate to take action or to drop the proceeding~. The matter is primarily
     between the Court and the contemnor. [565 E·F]

             2. While considering the request for withdrawal of the proceedin11s
c    initiated for taking action for contempt of the Court, the Court would generally
     be guided by the broad facts of the case and more particularly whether respect
     for judicial process would be enhanced or dwindled by either granting or
     refusing to grant the request. There is a marked difference between a com·
     plaint made by an individual for wrong done to him and a petition moved
     before this Court inviting the Court to take notice of the fact that its contempt
     has been committed. The contempt is of the Court and not of tht individual.
D                                                                             [565 A·B]

            3. The power to cornn1it for contempt of Court has to be exercised with
     the greatest caution. Neither too sensitive attitude nor an easy escape from
     performing the harsh duty would help in maintaining respect and decorum for
     the judicial process. [565 DJ
E
            In the instant case the reasons which have weighed with tht Court to
     permit withdrawal of the petitions are: (i) failure to obey the interim order to
     preserve the film and to make the same available for exhibition as directed is
     referable to the writ petition filed by petitioner who himself at a latter date
     backod out and withdrew the petition and (ii) subsequently a full-fledged
     prosecution was launched which ended in conviction. The appeal was allowed
.F   and the accused acquitted holding that it was not proved to the satisfaction of
     the Court that the prints and negatives of the film were deliberately destroyed
     by the alleged contemnors. This is the finding of this Court which would have
     an impact on the petition for taking action for contempt on the allegation
     that the Court's order for preserving the prints and negatives of the film for
     screening was deliberately disobeyed. [565 H; 566 A-CJ
G
          CRIMINAL JuR1so1c1mN : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.
     8009 & 8010 of 1977.

           In:- Writ Petition No. 595of1977.
JI
           (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

           Amrit N(lhati;i Petitioner-in-person (not Present).
                   AMRIT NAHATA v. UNION   (Desai, J.)            563

     L.N. Sinha, Att. General, R. Vasudevan, C.N. Murty,
Miss A. Subhashini, A .K. Srivastava, D. Bhandari and H.K. Puri for        A
the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     DESAI, J. The Union oflndia has moved this Court seeking              B
permission to withdraw Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 8009 &
8010/77 pending in this Court since 1977.


      Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8009 of 1977 was moved
by the Solicitor General of India requesting the court to take action      C
against the five persons whose names and addresses have been set
out in the petition u /s 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on
the ground that they were individually and severally guilty of wilful
disobedience to the directions and order of this Court with regard to
the preservation of the film 'Kissa Kursee Ka', negatives and the
prints in proper condition until the disposal of Writ Petition No.         D
595/77 and thereby they have interfered with the due course of
judicial proceedings and their conduct "as intended and calculated to
interfere with and obstruct the administration of justice by causing
the loss and disappearance of film 'Kissa Kursee Ka' with a view to
disabling and preventing this court from effectively dealing with the      E
 writ petition pending before it and judicially determining the issues
arising therein.


       Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8010/77 was also moved
 by the Solicitor General of Jr.dia inviting this Court to bold that       F
 prima facie five persons whose names and addresses have been set
 out in the petition appear to have committed offences under Sec.
 120·B read with Secs. 199 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code and it
 was expedient in the int~rest of justice to file a criminal complaint
 against them. Broadly, it was alleged that the averments made in the
 petition for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act when          G
 properly viewed would show that the persons mentioned in the
 petition prima facie appear to have entered into a conspiracy to
 intentionally give false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding
 as also fabricted evidence for the aforesaid purpose and intentionally    B
 made false statement and declaration which may in law he receivable
 in evidence and thereby committed offences under Secs. 193 and 199
 of the Indian Penal Code.
    S64                      SUPllBME COURT RIP9R1'1   [1985] SUPPL. s.c.ll.

           It may be mentioned that Shri Amrit Nahata had filed a writ
A   petition in this Court praying for a declaration that 3ecs. 3 and 6 of
    the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and Rule 23 and 25 of the Cinema.
    tograph (Censorship Rules), 1958 were unconstitutional invalid and
    for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents in the writ petition
    to certify his film 'Kissa Kursee Ka'· for unrestricted public
    exhibition. During the pendency of the writ petition this Court had
B   made an order on July 18, 1975 that the petitioner will deliver within
    one week from the date of the order, negative and prints, if any, of
    the film to the Government and the Government will preserve
    negatives and prints, if any, in proper condition until the disposal
    of the writ petition. During the course of the further pro·
c   ceedings on October 29, 1975, this Court made another order
    directing that the film 'Kissa Kursee Ka' be screened on November
    17, 1975 at 6 p.m. to be seen by five learned Judges of this Court.
    This order led to practically a game of hide and seek but ultimately
    the film was not made available for screening as directed by this
    Court.
D
           In the meantime a substantive prosecution was launched against
    Shri Vidya Charan Shukla, the then Minister of Information and
    Broadcasting, Government of India and late Shri Sanjay Gandhi
    for various offences. The case came up for trial before the learned
E   Sessions Judge who convicted both the accused for various
    offences and imposed several sentences on them. The matter was
    carried in appeal to the Delhi High Court. In the meantime on
    the enactment of Special Courts Act, 1979, a declaration u/s 5(1) of
    the Special Courts Act was made with the result that the appeal stood
    transferred to this Court. The two appeals were heard by this court
F   and the judgment is reported in V.C. Shukla v. Stare Delhi
    Administration('). This Court acquitted both the accused holdin11
    that the charge is not brought home to them.

           It may be mentioned that pending the prosecution before the
G   learned Sessions Judge, this Court postponed hearing of the petition
    for taking action for contempt as well as the petition for filing a
    criminal complaint against persons shown in both the petitions. After
    the decisions in the afore-mentioned two appeals, the present petition
    was filed requesting the Court to J,lert11it the Union oflndia to wjth·
    draw both the petitions.


          (1) [1980] 3 S.C.R. SOQ.
                      AMRIT NAHATA v. UNION (De3al, J.)                565
             While considering the request for withdrawal of the proceedings
    initiated for taking action for contempt of the Court, the Court           A
    would generally be guided by the broad facts of the case and more
    particularly whether respect for judicial process would be enhanced
    or dwindled by either granting or refusing to grant the request. There
    is a marked difference between a complaint made by an individual
    for wrong done to him and a petition moved before this court               B
    inviting the Court to take notice of the fact tha,t its contempt has
     been committed. The contempt is of the court and not of the indivi-
    dual. Therefore, Sec. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 confers
    power on this Court as well as on the High Court to take suo moto
    action or on a motion made by amongst others, the Solicitor General.
    It is for the court to determine whether the act complained of             c
    tending to scandalise the Court if viewed with certain severity with a
    view to punishing the person would in the larger interest of the
     society enhance respect for the judicial process, or too sensitive
    attitude in such matter may even become counter-productive. The
     power to commit for contempt of court has to be exercised with the
                                                                               D
    greatest caution. Neither to sensitive attitude nor an easy escape from
     performing the harsh duty would help in maintaining respect and
     decorum for the judicial process which is essential for establishing a
     Society based on rule of law. The Court is to steer clear between
     two extremes but it must be remembered that the petitioner who has
     moved for taking action in contempt is not entitled as a matter of        E
     right to withdraw the petition whenever it suits his purpose. Once the
     act, which prima facie shows that contempt of the court has been com-

-    mitted, is brought to the notice of the court it is the court which has
     to decide whether the contempt has been committed or not or whether
      it is appropriate to take action or at a latter date whether to drop
     the proceedings. The matter is primarily between the court and the        F
     contemnor. It is for this reason that while we are inclined to grant
     request for withdrawal of petitions we consider it proper to give few
     reasons why we consider it proper at this stage to permit withdrawal
     of the two petitions.
                                                                               G
          The first important aspect that has considerably influenced our
    thinking is that the failure to obey the interim order of this Court to
    preserve the film and negatives and prints of the film 'Kissa Kursee
    Ka' and to make the same available for exhibition as directed by this
    Court is referable to the writ petition filed by Amiri Nahata who          H
    himself at a later date backed out and withdrew the petition. But that
    566                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS         [198S) SUPPL. s.c.11..

    itself is a circumstance of innocuous character. Subsequently a fullll-
A   edged prosecution was launched inter a/ia alleging that the prints and
    negatives of film 'Kissa Kursee Ka, were deliberately destroyed with
    a view not to make them available for screening before the Court as
    directed by this Court. In this proceeding evidence was led on behalf
    of the prosecution and the case ended in a conviction. While allowing
    the appeal this Court acquitted the accused holding that it is not
B
    proved to the satisfaction of the court that the prints and negatives of
    the film 'Kissa Kursee Ka' were deliberately destroyed by the alleged
    contemnors. This is the finding recorded by a Bench of this Court.
    It will have an impact on the petition for taking action for contempt
    on the allegation that the court's order for preserving the prints and
c   negatives of the film for screening was deliberately disobeyed.
    Undoubtedly, the interim order had to be respected and obeyed. The
    defence canvassed was that the negatives and prints of the film got
    mixed up with other boxes and could not be traced and that defence
    appears to have found favour with a Bench of this Court. This is the
    most important aspect which has a considerable bearing on the
D   question whether two petitions should be proceeded with or not.

          We must frankly say that the judgment of this Court in the
    criminal case by itself is not decisive of the matter. Independent of
    it, we would have been required to examine whether at the date the
E   court made the order, there was any attempt at deliberately flouting
    the court's but that would be an attempt at flogging a carcus, and it
    would be merely delving deep into an unsavoury past not very con·
    ducive to judicial and judicious approach. And one of the alleged
    contemnors has met a tragic end.
F         We are keen to emphasise the fact that the change in climate
    has no relevance and it must be said in fairness to Mr. L.N. Sinha,
    the learned Attorney General of India who appeared at the hearing of
    these petitions that he even once did not refer to it.

G         Accordingly, having regard to all the aspects of the matters, we
    are of the opinion that the prayer for withdrawal of the two petitions
    should be granted. Both the petitions are disposed of as withdrawn.

    A.P.J.
H