Holding

In the absence of proof of the alleged statement and given the petitioner's lack of locus standi, the contempt petition is not maintainable and no suo moto notice will be issued.

Summary

The DIG of Police, S.A. Khan, filed a contempt petition seeking suo moto proceedings against Chief Minister Ch. Bhajan Lal, alleging that a press statement made by the latter interfered with pending corruption proceedings before the Supreme Court. The petition also contained interlocutory applications for punishment, setting aside the DIG's suspension, and an early hearing date. The Court examined whether the petition was maintainable, focusing on the lack of independent proof of the alleged statement, the DIG's lack of locus standi, and the fact that the FIR against Bhajan Lal had already been quashed and no stay was in force. Relying on the principle that newspaper reports constitute hearsay and are inadmissible without corroboration, the Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving the contemptuous act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the contempt petition and the interlocutory applications, ordering costs.

Issues considered

Whether a contempt petition is maintainable when the alleged contemptuous statement is based solely on a newspaper report without independent evidence.
Whether the DIG of Police has locus standi to file a contempt petition in a matter where he is not a party or investigating officer.
Whether the alleged statement, if made, interfered with pending judicial proceedings given that the FIR had been quashed and no stay was in effect.
Whether the Supreme Court can issue a suo moto notice for contempt in the absence of proven contemptuous conduct.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 3
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 78(2), s. 81
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 161, s. 165
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947s. 5(2), s. 5A(1)

Subjects

contempt of courtsuo moto jurisdictionlocus standihearsay evidencenewspaper reportcriminal contemptcorruption investigationevidence admissibility

Judgment

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A
v.
CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC.

DECEMBER 18, 1992

(S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] B

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 3-Contempt of Court-Suo
moto notice-Issuance of-Statement offacts appearing in Press report-f'roof
of-Necessity for.

The petitioner/applicant, a DIG of Police of the appellant-State,
c
filed a contempt petition before this Court requesting to initiate suo
moto proceeding for criminal contempt allegedly committed by the
respondent/contemner, and to issue notice for the .same and punish him
adequately. He also filed two Interlocutory applications praying for
awarding adequate punishment to the respondent for committing ag- D
gravated contempt of the Authority of this Court by seeking to punish
the petitioner (applicllnt) for assisting the Court through the advocates
appearing for the State and setting aside the order of suspension of the
petitioner/applicant and also for faxing an early date of hearing of the
contempt application and the application for direction filed by the E
applicant earlier.

The applicant stated that the respondent in order to create a bias in
his favour and prejudice that he was innocent of the charge of amassing
wealth by illegal and corrupt means, had issued public statements so that
this Court did not take the serious charges of corruption against him F
seriously, and issued a statement touching upon the proceedings pending
before this Court, which amounted to gross criminal contempt of the
Court.

On behalf of the State, it was contended that the petition was not
maintainable for the reasons : (1) the petitioner was neither the investigat· G
ing officer in the case registered against the respondent nor he was a party
to that criminal proceedings; (2) that the statement attributed to the
respondent could not be said to have interfered with the proceedings, then
pending before this Court, since on that day the First Information Report
had already been quashed by the High Court and there was no stay of the H
735
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A order. of the High Court passed by this Court; (3) that in any case , there
was no material on record apart from the newspaper report to show .that
this statement was made by the respon~ent; (4) that the petitioner was not
competent to file this contempt petition because be was not a party to the
proceedings.

B On behalf of the respondent the very maintainability of the petition
by the applicant was questioned on the ground that the press statement
without proof of the contents found therein was inadmissible in law. It was
contended that the statemeni of fact contained in a newspaper report was
merely here say and, therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of
C proof by evidence aliunde, that there was no proof that the alleged con.:
temptuous statement was in fact made. by the Chief Minister, as it ap-
peared in the Press note, that it was only for the applicant to satisfy the
court by adducing acceptable evidence that the statemeut offact contained
in the report was true and that it called for issued of suo moto notice.

D Dismissing the Contempt Petition and the Interlocutory Applica-
tions, this Coart.

HELD: 1.1. No evidence has been let in proof of the statement of
facts contained in the newspaper report. The absence of any denial by the
E respondent will not absolve the applicant from discharging his obligation
of proving the statement of facts as appeared in the Press report. There-
fore, in the absence of required legal proof, the Court will not be justified
in issuing a suo moto notice for contempt of court. [748-B,C]

1.2. When the alleged statement was made, the entire proceedings
F inclusive of investigation culminating from the registration of the FIR
against the respondent had been quashed by the High Court and no stay
has been granted by this Court and the petitioner was not a party to the
proceedings. [748-D]

1.3. A perusal of the news item does not spell out any reference to
G the case of corruption or its proceeding pending before this Court. In the
alleged contemptuous statement only the view of the reporteris mentioned
as if the respondent had perhaps been provoked about the proceedings of
the case before the Supreme Court. In fact, the Civil Appeal itself has been
disposed of subsequently and one of the Interlocutory applications is filed
H in the main Civil Appeal after its disposal, even though Contempt Petition
STATE OF HARYANA v. CH. BHAJAN LAL [l'ANDIAN, .T.] 737

has been tiled before the disposal of the case. There is, therefore, no A
reason much less compelling reasons to issue .suo moto notice to the
respondent for contempt of court. (748-E,F]

In Re. P.C. Sen, (1969) 2 SCR 649; Samant N. Balakrishna Etc. v.
George Fernandez and Ors. Etc., (1969] 3 SCR 603 and Laxmi Raj Shetty
and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1988) 3 SCR 706 at 735, referred to. B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition No. 7 of
1989.

WITH
c
I.A Nos. 1 & 2 In Civil Appeal No. 5412 of 1990.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.1988 of the Punjab and
Haryana High in Civil Writ Petition No. 9172 of 1987.

Kapil Sibal, K. Parasaran, R.K. Garg, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Indu D
Goswami, Mahabir Singh and S. Srinivasan for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. RATNAVEL P ANDIAN, J. Contempt Petition No. 7 of 1989 is filed
by Shri S.A. Khan, DIG of Police requesting the Court to initiate suo moto E
proceeding for criminal contempt allegedly committed by the respon-
dent/contemner, Ch. Bhajan Lal and to issue notice for the same and
punish him adequately.

I.A. No.1/91 in C.A. No. 5412/90 was filed by the applicant Sbri S.A.
Khan for the following prayers:
F

"(1) award adequate punishment to the respondent Shri
Bhajan Lal for committing aggravated contempt of the
Authority of this Hon'ble Court by seeking to punish the
petitioner (applicant) for assisting the Court through the G
advocates appearing for the State of Haryana;

(2) set aside the order of suspension of the applicant
herein; and also

(3) pass such other and further order or orders as this H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Hon'ble Court may deem. fit and proper."

I.A. No. 2/91 in C.A. No. 5412/90 was filed by the applicant Shri S.A.
Khan seeking the following prayers:

"(a) set aside the suspension order dated 5.7.91 and fix an
B early date of hearing of the contempt application No. 2743
of 1989 and the application for direction filed by the
applicant earlier.

{b) pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case for which act the
c petitioner most respectfully prays this Hon'ble Court."

IA Nos. 1 and 2 were filed on 12.8.1991 and 21.8.1991 respectively.
It may be noted that the Contempt Petition No. 7/89 was filed in September
1989 in S.L.P. (C) No. 14014/88.
D
Even before giving the brief facts which have given rise to the filing
of this Contempt Petition, we would like to mention that a confusion is
created in the contempt proceeding, by wrongly mentioning it as ··contempt
Petition No. 2743/89' instead of IA. No. 1/91 in all the follow up affiliated
proceedings. 'No. 2743/89' is the number assigned to the Civil Miscel-
E laneous Petition filed in SLP (C) No. 14014/88 which was subsequently
registered as Civil Appeal No. 5412/90. The said CMP No. 2743/89 was
fded by the State of Haryana and others praying for the deletion of the
name of Ch. Devi Lal, Chief Minister of Haryana from the array of parties
and dispensation of the fding of a formal affidavit in support of that
F application. It was not at all a Contempt Petition. It transpires from the ·
original records that I.A. No. 1/91 dated 12.8.91 has been filed in Civil
Appeal No. 5412/90 for awarding adequate punishment to the respondent L
'
for committing aggravated contempt of court. In the affidavit filed accom-
panying the petition also it is mentioned as I.A. No. 1/91 in Civil Appeal
No. 5412/90, but in the main petition containing the averments, it has been
G wrongly pientioned as Contempt Petition No. 2743/89 in Civil Appeal No.
5412/90. The mentioning of the number '2743/89' to the Contempt Petition
is patently wrong. Unfortunately, this mistake has been carried out
throughout the subsequent proceedings, namely, in the counter affidavit,
the reply affidavit, the rejoinder and so on. Even at the threshold when we
H wanted to have a clarification as to how two Contempt Petitions, namely,
SfATE OF HARYANA v. CH. BHAJAN LAL (PANDIAN, J.) 739

Contempt Petition 'No. 2743/89' (sic) I.A. No. 1/89 and Contempt Petition A
No. 7/89 have happened to be filed, no satisfactory explanation has been
offered and the puzzle remained unanswered. It may be pointed out that
I.A. Nos. 1/91 and 2/91 were filed in Civil Appeal No. 5412/90 praying, (1)
for initiating contempt proceedings against Ch. Bhajan Lal; and (2) for
setting aside the suspension order dated 5.7.1991 passed as against Shri B
S.A. Khan respectively. But in both the applications, the facts and the
prayers are inextricably mixed up. Therefore, we have culled out the facts
with some difficulty by separating them and then have narrated the aver-
ments with reference to each proceeding.

On 12.11.1987 one Dharam Pal presented a complaint before Ch. C
Devi Lal, who was then the Chief Minister of Haryana making serious
allegations against Ch. Bhajan Lal who was then the Union Minister for
Environment and Forests, Govt. of India alleging that Ch. Bhajan Lal had
accumulated huge properties worth crores of rupees disproportionate to
his known sources of income in the names of his family members, relations D
and persons close to him by misusing his power and position and also
undervaluing the market price and that all those transactions are benarni
in character. On the basis of the above allegations, a case was registered
in Sadar Police Station under Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947. Even
when the investigation was in the threshold, Ch. Bhajan Lal filed a Writ E
Petition No. 9172/87 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the first information report
and also a writ of prohibition restraining the State of Haryana and the
investigating officials from further proceeding with the investigation. The
High Court of Punjab and Haryana before which the Writ Petition was F
filed granted exparte stay which was thereafter made absolute. After
hearing the parties to the Writ Petition, the High Court concluded that the
allegations made in the FIR did not constitute a cognizable offence for
commencing the lawful investigation and granted the relief as prayed for
and mulcted the fifth respondent therein, namely, Dharam Pal, the com-
plainant with the costs of the writ petition. On being aggrieved by the G
judgment of the High Court, the State of Haryana and others preferred
SLP (Civil) No. 14014/88 which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 5412/90
on grant of leave. This. Court by its judgment dated 21st Nov~ber, 1990
to which both of us were parties set aside the:". judgment of the High Court
and allowed the appeal in the following terms: H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A "We set aside the judgment of the High Court quashing the
First Information Report as not being legally and factually
sustainable in law for the reasons aforementioned, but,
however, we quash the commencement as well as the entire
investigation, if any, so far done for the reasons given by us
in the instant judgment on the ground that the third appel-
B lant (SHO) is not clothed with valid legal authority to take
up the investigation and proceed with the same within the
meaning of Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act as indicated in this judgment. Further we set aside the
order of the High Court awarding costs with a direction
c that the said costs is payable to the first respondent (Ch.
Bhaj~ Lal) by the second respondent (Dharam Pal).

In the result; the appeal is disposed of accordingly but
at the same time giving liberty to the State Government
to direct an investigation afresh, if it so desires, through
D ·a competent Police Officer empowered with valid legal
authority in strict compliance with Section 5A(1) of the
Act as indicated supra. No order as to costs."

While this Civil Appeal was pending before this Court, Ch. Bhajan
E Lal is stated to have made a statement touching the proceeding which was
then pending in SLP (Civil) No. i4014/88. The substance of the statement
was reported in the Indian Express dated 30th July, 1989, the copy of which
is annexed as Annexure ''A" with this Contempt Petition. The relevant
portion of the Press statement which according to the applicant, Shri Khan,
amounts to contempt of court is reproduced hereunder:
F
"He alleged that the Deputy Inspector General ofPolice here,
who considered himself a big officer, was implicating his
people in false cases. He vowed to make him rob-his nose
on the ground, where the meeting was being held, for forgive-
ness. Mr. Bhajan Lal had perhaps been provoked by the
G
reports that the said officer was distributing copies of two
magazines, both sister publications in Hindi and English;
which carried stories about the cases of corruption going
on against him in the Supreme Court."

H According to the applicant, he in his official capacity, was supervising
STATE OF HARYANA v. CH. BHAJAN LAL [PANDIAN, J.) 741

the investigation of the case registered against Ch. Bhajan Lal and was A
attending this Court (Supreme Court) assisting the Advocate General of
Haryana whenever the SLP was fixed for hearing and that his active
participation in the proceedings has caused intolerable annoyance to Ch.
Bhajan Lal. The applicant further states that Ch. Bhajan Lal "in order to
create a bias in his favour, and prejudice the public that he was innocent B
of the charge of amassing wealth by illegal and corrupt means, has issued
public statements so that this Hon'ble Court does not take the. serious
charges of corruption against him seriously." The above statement accord-
ing to the applicant amounts to gross criminal contempt of the court. In
addition to the above, the following averments are made in the Contempt
Petition: C
"That the respondent Ch. Bhajan Lal who wants by hook .
or crook to thwart the proceedings of this court to ensure
no investigation takes places, is adopting the coercive and
threatening measures, in interfering with the proceedings
of this Court in the above said case". D
(Vide para 7 of the Contempt Petition)

"The matter is sub-judice before this Hon'ble Court. The
applicant is not in a position and will not be able to under-
E
take the investigation according to law if the gross con-
tempt committed by respondent Shri Bhajan Lal goes
unpunished. It will reduce the law enforcement agencies
to a laughing stock. Ch. Bhajan Lal is obviously actuated.
with an intention to intimidate those who dare to speak the
truth exposing his abuse of power to amass wealth in the F
background of his admittedly humble beginning in life."

(Vide para 9 of the Contempt Petition)

"That the act of intimidation and blackmail unbecoming of
member of the Central Government Ch. Bhajan Lal has G
committed the gross criminal contempt of this Hon'ble
Court with an intention to interfere in the Administration
of Justice."

(Vide para 10 of the Contempt Petition) H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A It is pertinent to note that leave was granted in SLP (Civil) No.
14014/88 only on 21.11.1990. In other words, on the. date when the alleged
contemptuous statement was made on 30th July 1989 leave had not been
granted, but the matter was heard at th~ stage of SLP itself. A reading of
the statement which we have reproduced above only the underlined poition
can be said to be contemptuous, if at all it is stated so, and the rest of it
B is the view of the reporter of that news item.

One Shri Gian Singh, Under Secretary, Home, Haryana has filed his
counter affidavit on behalf of the State in the Contempt Petition stating
that the said application is not maintainable "since Shri Khan has no locus
C standi, ·inasmuch as he was not a party to the present proceedings either
in his personal or official capacity." It is further stated that "Shri Khan has
exhibited his personal animosity against the first Respondent by holding a
Press Conference on 20.9.1991". A photo copy of the Press statement is
annexed to this counter.

D Ch. Bhajan Lal though has not filed any separate affidavit in the
contempt application No. 7 of 1989, he has filed an affidavit in 'Contempt
Petition No. 2743/89', (sic IA. No. 1 of 1991). Ch. Bhajan Lal has replied
in his -counter affidavit, meeting the allegations, made in I.A. No. 1/91 i.e.
the application for initiating the contempt proceedings as hereunder:
E
"Having been in political life for a long period of time, 1
am aware of my responsibilities and would never make any
public utterances with the intent of either scandalising the
Court, or of lowering the authority of the Court, or of
m
interfering, either directly or indirectly the due course
F of any judicial proceedings, or interfering with, either
directly or indirectly, or obstructing, in any manner, the
administration of justice."

(Vide para 1 in his affidavit sworn on 6th December, 1991)
G "The statements attributed to me in the Application for
Contempt are based on newspaper reports which ar~ mere
'hearsay' and cannot in law be relied upon for the purposes
of initiating such proceedings.

H Even if it be assumed that the statements attributed to me

•·
STATE OF HARYANA v. CH. BHATAN LAL [PANDIAN, J.] 743

were so made, it was never with the intent of committing A
any criminal contempt by either scandalising the Court, or
tending to interfere with the course of judicial proceedings,
or interfering or tending to interfere with, or obstructing,
or tending to 9bstruct, the administration of justice."

(Vide para 3) B

"I am filing this Affida'l<it to obviate any doubts which may
have arisen in the minds of this Hon'ble Court on the basis
of the statements contained in the Application, or any
doubts that may have arisen in the mind of the applicant, C
that I have any personal ill-will or malice against him. I
consider it appropriate to place on record my lack of ill-will
or malice. This should suffice and lead this Hon'ble Court
to believe that the applicant in making the said Application
must have done so on the erroneous impression that the
deponent was ill-disposed towards him.• D
(Vide para 5)

"..................If in the event, this Hon'ble Court chooses to
issue notice to me despite' the present Affidavit, I reserve
liberty at that stage to make my submissions in respect of
E
the specific allegations made.''

(Vide para 6)

Mr. Khan has filed an affidavit in reply to that of Ch. Bhajan Lal F
stating that Ch. Bhajan Lal has not denied the statement reported in the
Press and that his statement that he vowed to make him rub his nose on
the ground amounts to a threat to crush the applicant for assisting the
Advocate General of Haryana in SLP (C) No. 14014/88 before the
Supreme Court against Ch. Bhajan Lal and it is a gross interference with
the administration of justice and that this arrogance act of intimidation and G
terrorization merits severest punishment. It is further stated that the serious
investigation conducted has been reduced to a farce by "purchasing the
complainant Dharam Pal, rewarding him with Chairmanship of Khadi
Board, procuring final reports alleged to be made on 18th June, 1991 in
order to be sworn as Chief Minister on June, 23." H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992J SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A All the senior counsel, namely, Mr. R.K. Garg, appearing for the
applicant, Shri Khan and Mr. Kapil Sibal appearing for the State of Haryanjl
and Mr., K. Parasaran .appearing for Ch. Bhajan Lal articulated their
arguments with all seriousness, occasionally punctuated with political over-
tones. According to Mr. Garg, the very fact that Ch. Bhajan Lal does not
deny the truth of the statement published in the Indian Express itself is
B sufficient to hold that Ch. Bhajan Lal by making such a statement has
scandalised the Court or lowered its authority or interfered either directly
or indirectly in the due course of the judicial proceedings or obstructed the
administration ofjustice. In this context, he referred to the proceedings of
SLP (Civil) No. 14014/88, the active participation of Mr. Khan in assisting
C the Advocate General of Haryana before this Court and the passing of the
suspension order on 5.7.1991, i.e. immediately after Ch. Bhajan Lal was
sworn as Chief Minister on 23rd June, 1991 and seriously urged that all the
above factors would establish that Ch. Bhajan Lal made the contemptuous
statement only with reference to the proceedings which was then.pending
D before this Court and, therefore, this is a fit case in which this Court should
exercise its inherent power in issuing suo moto notice to the contemner,
namely, Ch. Bhajan Lal and to adequately punish him.

Accor~ to Mr. Kapil Sibal, this petjtion is not maintainable for
more than one reason, those being:
E
(1) Mr. SA. Khan was neither the investigating officer in
the case registered against Ch. Bhajan Lal nor he was
a party to that criminal proceedings;

(2) That the statement attributed to Ch. Bhajan Lal cannot
F be said to have interfered with the proceedings, then
pending before this Court, since· on that day (that is
30.7.1989) the First Information Report had already
·been quashed by the High Court and there was no
stay of the order of the High Court passed by this
Court.
G
(3) In any case, there is no material on record apart from
the newspaper report to show that this statement was
made by Ch. Bhajan Lal.

H (4) At any rate, the petitioner is not competent to file this
STATE OF HARYANA v. CH. BHAJAN LAL [PANDIAN, J.J 745

contempt petition because he was not a party to the A
proceedings.

Thereafter, Mr. Kapil Sibal drew our attention to a news item that
appeared in the issue of 'Times of India' dated 21.9.89 annexed to the
counter affidavit of Shri Gian Singh as Annexure "A". The said news item
reads that Shri Khan held a Press Conference on 21.9.89 at New Delhi on B
the strength of a sanction given to him by the then Haryana Government
in which he is reported to have said that "if the former Chief Minister of
Haryana, Mr. Bhajan Lal had not been given anticipatory bail by the High
Court, he would have been behind the bars" and that "he was conscious of
the consequences of meeting newsmen" and further said "I am ready for C
it." The. news item, in addition shows that Shri Khan referring to the
statement of Ch. Bhajan Lal that appeared in the issue of Indian Express
dated 30th July 1989 had said "Mr. Bhajan Lal perhaps provoked by the
report that be had distributed copies of the magazines which carried stories
about cases of corruption against the former Chief Minister."
D
Mr. Kapil Sibal after taking as through the entire report of the Press
Conference, made his incisive argument stating that it is only Shri Khan,
who is none other than a bureaucrat has made the scandalising remark
against Ch. Bhajan Lal who was then the Minister in the Central Cabinet
and that he had involved himself in picking up the gaunt-let and offering E
a verbal bout through the media. According to the learned counsel, if at
all any serious action is to be taken, it should be only against Shri Khan
for making such a statement of vilification but not against Ch. Bhajan Lal.

Mr. K. Parasaran also questioned the very maintainability of this
petition by Shri Khan on the ground that the press statement without proof F
of the contents found therein is inadmissible in law.

In support of their respective statements, they relied on a few
decisions of this Court which we will presently refer to.

Mr. Garg placed much reliance on the decision In Re. P.C. Sen, G
1969(2) SCR 649. In that casi:, the Chief Minister of West Bengal broadcast
a speech on the All India Radio seeking to justify the propriety of the West
Bengal Mille Product Order of 1965. In the course of that speech, the Chief
Mini!>ter made ~everal comments on controversial matters which were
pending for adjudication before the Court. The High Court issued a Rule H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A requiring the Chief Minister to show cause why he should not be com-
mitted for contempt of Court and after an inquiry, the High Court held
that the speech amounted to contempt of Court. An appeal was filed
before this Court challenging the order of the High Court submitting
inter-alia that the speech contained no direct reference to any pending
proceedings and the Chief Minister was under a duty to make the speech
B to instruct the public about the true state of affairs. But this Court while
rejecting the submission made the following observations:

"The law relating to contempt of Court is well settled. Any
act done or writing published which is calculated to bring
c a Court or a Judge into contempt, or to lower his authority,
or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful
process of the Court, is a contempt of Court: R. v. Gray,
1900 2 Q.B.D. 36 at p. 40. Contempt by speech or writing
may be by scandalising the Court itself, or by abusing
parties to actions, or by prejudicing mankind in favour of
D or against a party before the cause is heard. It is incumbent
upon courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from
being misrepresented, for prejudicing the mind of the
people against persons concerned as parties in causes
before the cause is finally heard has pernicious consequen-
E ces. Speech or writings misrepresenting the proceedings of
the Court or prejudicing the public for or against a party
or involving reflections on parties to a proceeding amount
to contempt. To make a speech tending to influence the
result of a pending trial, whether civil or criminal is a grave
contempt. Comments on pending proceedings, if emanat-
F
ing from the parties or their iawyers, are generally a more
ser~ous contempt then those coming from independent
sources."

Relying on the above observation, Mr. Garg urged that Ch. Bhajan
G . Lal by his Press statement has not only threatened Shri Khan for implicat-
ing his people in criminal cases, but also has interfered with the due course
of justice or the lawful process of the court when the proceeding relating
to the case of corruption registered against him was pending before this
Court. According to Mr. Garg this Press statement clearly amounts to gross
H criminal contempt of court and therefore it is a proper case in which the
STATE OF HARYANA v. CH. BHAJAN LAL [PANDIAN, J.) 747

Court should exercise itS authority by issuing suo moto notice to Ch. Bhajan A
Lal and punish him adequately.

The bone of contention of Mr. Parasaran is that the statement of fact
contained in a newspaper report is merely hearsay and therefore inadmis-
sible in evidence in the absence of any proof by evidence aliunde. Accord-
ing to him, in the present case there is no proof that the alleged B
contemptuous statement was in fact made by the Chief Minister as it
appears in the Press note. According to him, it is only for the applicant to
satisfy the court by adducing acceptable evidence that the statement of fact
contained in the report is true and that it calls for issue of suo moto notice.
According to him, the decision in In Re: P.C. Sen cannot be availed of by C
the applicant because in that case, the .evidence was led before the Court
to prove that the offending speech was in fact broadcast by the Chief
Minister on the All India Radio, Calcutta Station. In support of his
submission that the news item cannot be the basis for initiating contempt
proceeding against the alleged maker of the statement, he relied upon a D
decision of this Court in Samant N. Balakrishna Etc. v. George Fernandez
and Ors. Etc., [1969] 3 SCR 603, wherein it has been held that news items
when published are garbled versions and cannot be regarded as proof of
what actually happened or was said without other acceptable evidence
through proper witnesses. He also drew our attention to the dictum laid
down by this Court in Laxmi Raj Shetty and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, E
[1988] 3 SCR 706 at 735, with regard to the admissibility of the news item
appearing in a Press report. The dictum reads thus:

"We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a new
item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence,
F
unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper
is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the
documents referred to in S. 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872
by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presump-
tion of genuineness attached under S. 81 of the Evidence
Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of G
the facts reported therein.

It is now well -settled that a statement of fact contained in
a newspaper is merely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible
in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement H

-
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact
reported."

In the present case, no evidence has been let in proof of the state-
ment of facts contained in the newspaper report. The absence of any denial
B by Ch. Bhajan Lal will not absolve the applicant from discharging his
obligation of proving the statement of facts as appeared in the Press report.
In fact, Ch. Bhajan Lal in his counter affidavit has taken a stand that the
statements attributed to him based on the newspaper report are mere
hearsay and cannot in law be relied upon for. the purpose of .initiating such
proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of required legal proof, the Court
C will not be justified in issuing a suo moto notice for contempt of court.

As Mr. Kapil Sibal has pointed out when this alleged statement was
made, the entire proceedings inclusive of investigation culminating from
D the registration of the FIR had been quashed by the High Court and no
stay has been granted by this Court and that the petitioner was not a party
to the proceeding.

A perusal of the news item does not spell out any reference to the
E case of corruption or its proceeding pending before this Court. In the
alleged contemptuous statement (Annexure 'A') only the view of the
reporter is mentioned as if Ch. Bhajan Lal Iiad perhaps been provoked
about the proceedings of the case before the Supreme Court. In fact, the
Civil Appeal .No. 5412/90 itself has been disposed of on 21st November,
· 1990 and I.A. No. 1/91 is filed in the above main Civil Appeal after its
· F disposa~ even though Contempt Petition No. 7/89 has been filed before the
disposal of the case. Be that as it may, as we do not see any reason much
less compelling reasons to issue suo moto notice to Ch. Bhajan Lal for
contempt of court for the reasons mentioned above, as we feel that this
;;petition is Hable to be dismissed. ·
o,:·; ..
In the result, I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1991 and Contempt Petition No. 7
of 1989 .are dismissed. No. costs.

N.P.V. Petition and applications dismissed.

•