Holding

The Court held that the apology was a mere device, not genuine, and the contemner's subsequent scurrilous writings amounted to serious contempt of court justifying imprisonment.

Summary

The National Textile Workers' Union filed a contempt petition against journalist P.M. Kumaraswamy (alias Kailaimannan) for publishing articles alleging corruption by four Madras High Court judges. The Supreme Court directed him to tender a written apology to the Court and the judges and to publish it on the front pages of his two journals. Although he submitted an apology to the Court, he subsequently published further articles refusing to apologise to the judges and threatening to go to jail, thereby breaching his undertaking. The Court held that the apology was a mere device lacking genuine repentance and that the later publications constituted a fresh and serious contempt. Consequently, the Court convicted the contemner under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sentencing him to three months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000.

Issues considered

Whether the apology tendered to the Supreme Court was genuine and sufficient to discharge the contempt.
Whether the subsequent publications after the apology amounted to a fresh contempt of court.
Whether the contempt committed was of a serious nature warranting imprisonment.
Whether the claim of acting under undisclosed principals constitutes an extenuating circumstance.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12

Subjects

contempt of courtjudicial independenceapologydefamation of judgesfreedom of speechserious contemptpunishment

Judgment

I~

NATIONAL TEXTILE WORKERS' UNION
....
A
v.

P. R. RAMAKRISHNAN & OTHERS
..
May 5, 1983
B
(Y. V. CHANDP,ACHUD, C. J., V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND
r
A. VARADA!WAN JJ.]

Conten1pt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 12-Contemner made serious al/1-
gations of corruption against Judges of High Court-Agreed to apologies-But
c resiled and pubjished scurrilous writings- Whether should be punished.

The contemner, a jotirnalist, was ch3.rged with committing conten1pt ·of
court for publishing in his journals articles that certain judgments given by
four Judges of the High Court proceeded from corrµpt motives. At the end of
the hearing of the contempt petition in this Court he was given a choice to
D subll1it apologies to this Court as well as to each of the four Judges.of the
High Court and if he chose to do so he should publish them on the fron·t page
of his papers. He submitted an apology to this Court; but within 10 days
thereafter he published an article purporting to give a gist of the proceedings
...
of this Court in the contempt petition stating that this Court told him that
''if you tender apoJogy we will consider. Under the circumstances I agreed
for tendering apology". Later he came out with a front •page article that his
E "conscience did not permit him to tender apologies to each of the four Judges
and that he had decided to go to jail rather than tendifr apology to them'\

HELD : The conduct and writings of the contemner constitute serious
·interference with the administration of justice, since his sole object in givina
F publicity to the defamatory allegatiOns against the Judges Was to deter them
from deciding cases against him or against those in whom he is apparently
interested. The apoltigy tendered by him was an eye wash, a make-belief, and
cannot be accepted. In fact, there was no 3.pology to accept be~ause he had
resiled from it. Indeed he w·as Penitent for having apologised to the High Court
Judges Whose character he had assailed without the semblance-of sincerity of
G purpose or purity of means. He was not penitent for his conduct. [17 E-G]

The apology tendered by the contemnet to this Court was a mere device;
to escape punishment for his culpable conduct. He had committed a breach
of the undertaking given by h,im to this Court that he would not make similat
H charges against Judges and that he would publish his apology in the two jour..
nals. Far from carrying out that undertaking he had ventured into another bout
of scurrilous writings against the Hi&:h Court Judges. [16 D"'E]
TEXTILE w.u. v. P.R. RAMAKRJSHNAN (Cha11drachud, C.J.) 13

From the tenor of his articles and his conduct it w3s apparent that he
was 4nspircd by some others working from behind the cur'tain. But the fact A
that the contemner was writing at the behest of undisclosed principals is not
an extenuating circumstance,

Very often, contemners are so contemptible that it is useless to take
serious notice of their conduct but it is necCssary to take action in this case
because nothing else would stop a systematic campaign of vilification against B
the defenceless Judges of the High Court. [18 B]
l
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Civil Misc. Petition No. 24899 of
1982. ,
. (For Contempt of Court) c
In
'
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9661 of 1981.
D
From the Judgment and Order· dated the 30 September, 1981
of the Madras High Court at Madras in O.S.A. No. 148 of 1981
arising in Company Petition No. 30 of 1981.

G. Vasant Pai, 0. C Mathur, S. Sukumaran and D. N. Mishra
with him for the petitioner.
E

S. K. Jain and S. Ramaswamy for the Contemner.

P. M. Kumaraswamy@ Kai/aimannan was pre~ent in person.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHANDRACHUD, C.J. While special leave petition No. 9661 of
198'1 (Nationa/Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrislman) was
being argued before a five Judge Bench on September 8, 1982, Shri •G
G. Vasantha Pai, who was appearing on behalf of the respondents,

- drew the aitention of the Court to certain statements which had
appeared in the Press under the name of one P. M. Kumaraswamy
alias Kailaimannan. On a petition presented by Shn Pai on behalf
of one R. Baba Chandresekhar under the Contempt of Courts Act, H
197 J, the Court issued a notice to P. Kumaraswamy asking liim to
show cause why he.sh9ul\\ not be committed for committin~ contempt
of Court,
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19S3] ~ s.c.R ..

Thereafter, the Contempt Petition came up for hearing before
us on various dates. On some of those dates the contemner asked
for adjournment on the ground of his illness while on some dates he _
remained absent. On one occasion, he was absent without informing -
the Court as to the reasons of hiS absence. At long last, the con-
tempt petition was heard at some length on March 30, 1983. On a
motion made by Shri S. K. Jain. Advocate, on behalf of the con-
B
temner, the latter was permitted to argue his case in person, in
Tamil. Another Advocate whom the contemner had engaged, Shri S.
Ramaswamy, translated the contemnor's argumenUn to English for
our benefit. One of us, namely, Varadarajan, J., of course knows
Tamil. We reserved our Judgment on that date and directed that the
c matter be listed for Judgment on April 26, 1983. We observed that
-the contemner may, if so advised, tender a written apology to this
Court as also to each of the four Learned Judges of the Madras
High Court against whom· he had made unfounded allegatiol).s,
namely, Justice Gokulakrishnan, Justice Ramanujam, · Justice V.
Ramaswami and Justice S])unmugham. We directed that the apo-
logies be tendered in writing, if at all, by April 7, 1983 and be pub-
- lished ·on the front page of the two so-called newspapers, 'Interna-
tional Chronicle' and 'Sigappu Nada', which the contemner
conducts. ,..
E The contemncr submitted a written apology to this C_ourt on .
March 30, itself, to the following effect :

"I state that I understand that my- writings created
an impression in the mind of this Hon'ble Court that the
articles are contemptuous in nature. I am therefore sub,
milting my sincere and honest apology to this Hon'ble
Court and also to Mr. •.Justice Gokulakrishnan, Mr.
Justice Ramanujam, Mr. Justice Shunmugham of the
Madras High Court and I am extremely sorry for writing
the impugned article.

I further undertake not to write anything against
the Madras High Court Judges in my journals 'Sigappu
Nada' and International Chronicle' in future. I also
undertake to publish the text of this affidavit in the above
H said two journals."

How hollow_ and unmeaning the apology was, is clear from the
fact that within 10 days after submitting the apoloSY to this Court,
TEXTILE w.u. v. P.R. RAMAKRISHNAN (Chandrachud, C.J.) 15

the contemner published an article in 'Sigappu Nada' on April II,
1983 purporting to give an account of what had transpired in this A
Court on Match 30, 1983. This .is what he says in the said issue
of bis journal :

"The Court told .me
B
We convict you to the maximum punishment of six
l months imprisonment and Rs. 1,000 fine; if you tender
apology, we will consider. Under the circumstances,
what can I do ? I agreed for tendering apology.

After this, they 'told me that I have to appear before c
each and every Judges about whom, I have written in my
paper and tender apology. Since, I have accepted for
the first apology, I have agreed for this also."

On April 14, 1983 the contemner came out with a front D
page article fa 'Sigappu Nada' in which he has stated as follows :

"Kailaimannan is ready to go to Jail

In the case filed against me in the Supreme Court,
Judgment is to be delivered on 26.4.1983. E

The Judgment has been announced already it has
been publfshed as ·news item in Newspapers. The Supreme
Court has ordered that I must go to four of the High .
Court Judges personally and tender apology. But my · F
conscience docs not permit me to tender apology to them.

I have decided to go to Jail, rather than tendering
apology to them.

But my case will make a new turn in India. I do G
not wish to say anything about it. now. My enemies are
jubilant that 'K ailaimannan' will be finished with this.
Sigappu Nada will not be pubiished hereafter.

H
Even if I go to Jail, Sigappu Nada will be publishe<I.
continuously. · ·
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) 3 s.c.R.

How can the corruption of a Judge be proved in the
Supreme Court. Only if C.B.I. enquiry is ordered on the
counter filed by me, truth will be known. For that,
Supreme Court has not done anything and_ it is the
highest Court.

I have written to the Secretary, Home Department;
B Central Government, seeking for permission to file
complaints against two Judges regarning corruption
c_harges.
.r
As soon as saction is given, I will file the case
C against the two Judges in Court and I will prove that
those corruption news published by me are true only.

If I do not prove those charges, it will not be con-
ducive to my self-respect."
D
The apology tendered by the contemner to this Court on
March 30 was thus . a mere device to escape punishment for his
culpable conduct. He has no real repentance for the wanton charges
of corruption made by him against the four Judges of the Madras
High Court. He has committed a breach of the undertaking given
E by him to this Court to the · effect that he will not make similar
charges against the Madras High Court Judges and that he will
publish his apology in the two journals. Far from carrying out that
undertaking, he has ventured into another bout of sGurrilous writings
against the High Court Judges. His pose now is of injured inno-
F cence. And, he warns that he will not apologise to those Judges and
that he· will persist in his campaign of vilification. Incidentally, he
never apologised to Justice V. Ramaswami, with or without contrition.

We do not propose to give publicity to the grossly defamatory
G allegations made by the contemner, by reproducing them in our
Judgment. The gist of those allegations is that. certain Judgments
given by the four Judges of the High Court proceeded from corrupt
motives. The contemner seems to think that he can deter the
Judges from discharging their duty by maligning them before the
H public, by alleging that their judgments. are influenced by corrupt
motives. The fact that the contemner has made allegations of
corruption against the four Judges is not denied by him and indeed,
be stated before us that he wanted an opportunity to establish thqsc
TEXTILE w.u. v. P.R. RAMAKRISHNAN (Chandrachud, C.J.) 17
,
allegations. If we were to grant him such an opportunity, that
would have aggravated the contempt. A reckless and malicious A
person like the contemner could have borrowed the support of some
disgruntled litigants of his own feather to aid and abet him. Even
then·, in order to test the bona/ides of the c.ontemner, we asked him
to furnish to us a list of the names . of persons, particuiarly advo·
cates, whose affidavits he proposed to file in support of the charges · B
of corruption ievelled by him against the High Court Judges .. He
did scribble a few names i.n our presence but that was the end of
the matter. He conveniently forgot-all about his tall claim that he
will be able to get the affidavits of even practising lawyers in support
of his case. Ids clear that the contemner was only trying to trick
the Court into believing that he is not a lone fighter in his demand C
for justise against the four dispensers of justice. No one cam'e
forward to support him. No one possibly could. He is not fighting
ill the cause of justice. He has become an enemy of .the Courts
because certain decisions given by them are not to his liking. "I
will leave you alone, if you decide in my favour. I will charge you D
of corruption if you dare to decide against me"-That sums up his
attitude to the Courts. Judges must tread their path of rectitude
uneterred by such threats. This Court is there to protect them from
scurrilous accusations prompted by malice.

The conduct and writings of the contemner constitute serious
interference with the administration of justice, since his sole object
in giving publicity to the defamatory allegations against the High
Court Judges is to deter them from deciding cases against him or
against those in whom he is apparently, interested. The ap_ology
tendered by him is an eye-wash, a inake·belief, and cannot be ....
accepted. In fact, there is no apology to ~ccept because he has
resiled from it. He is penitent for havhig apologised to the High
Court Judges whose character he has assailed without the semblance
of sincerity of purpose or purity of means. He is not penitent for
hiS conduct.
G
We are inclined to believe that the writings in the two journals
conducted by the contemner are inspired by some others .who are
·working from behind the curtain. They appear to have promoted
the contemner ti> speak.and write with such great venom. But the H
fact that the contemner is acting at the behest of undisclosed princi-
pals is not an extenuating circumst~nce. Indeed, many hirelings are
equally despicable, since they charge their price for blackmail. .
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS iJ983) 3 s.C.R.

We hold that the conduct of the contemner constitutes serious
A interference with the course of justice. He has. exhibited a dogged
determination to pursue the four Judges .of the High Court, come
what may. He is not sorry for his ways. .He is sorry that he was
even apparently sorry. Perhaps, having charged his price, he.has to
play to the tune of his masters. Very often, .contemners are so
. contemptible that it is useless to take any serious notice of their
B conduct. We are compelled to take action in . this case because
nothing else will stop this systematic campaign of vilification against
the defenceless Judges of the High Court.

As we were coming to the end of this Judgment, a communi-
c cation was received from before the contemner; which is filed by his
Advocate, Shri S.. K, Jain. That com"lunication contains an addi-
tional affidavit affirmed by the contemner at Madras on April 28,
1983. He says therein :

D "I wholeheartedly and sincerely tender my apologies
before this Hon'ble Court if this Hon'ble · Court feels that
I have commited contempt by my writings. I also under-
take that I will not write anything about the Hon'ble·
Judges of the High Court in my journals "Sigappu Nada.'
and International Chronicle" About the other two con-
E ditions, I would like to submit the following few lines
for the benevolent consideration and sympathetic ap-
proach of this Hon'ble Comt."

In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit he says that he is a freedom
F fighter, that he wa.s arrested during freedom movement at the early
age of 18 and that he was detained under MISA during the emer-
gency. "So prison life is not new to me". After .saying all this,
he has reiterated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that though he is
unable to justify his writings · and substantiate his allegations 'at
present', he was certain that he will be able to do so. He says that
G he has already addressed a letter to the Government qf India and
the Government of Tamilnadu for according sanction to prosecuie
"corrupt Judges for offences punishable under section 161 JPC and
the provisions of the Prevention of Corrnption Act". He winds up
the affidavit by saying that he believes that he will be able to prove
•·
H
that his writings contain the truth, Any commeµ( OJ1 this a!fidavit
is superfluous,
TBETILB w.u. v. P.R. llAMAKRISHNAN (Chandrachud, C.J.) 19 •

! For the reasons abovesaid, we convict the contemner under
section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentence him A
to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay .a fine of
Rs. 2,000. He shall be taken in custody forthwith. If he is suffering
from any physical ailment, care ought to be taken of the state of
his body. Those who have spurred him into this· kind of activity
will take the care of his mind.
B

P.B.R. Petition a/lowed.

,.

•