# 5 1 2 IN THE MA TIER OF: RUSTOM CAW ASJEE COOPER v. UNION OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [1971] 1 S.C.R. 512
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-05-05
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatu.!..Lah, CJ .. J. c SHAH, K. s. HEGDE, AN. G1wvrn A N. RAY, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/5-1-2-in-the-ma-tier-of-rustom-caw-asjee-cooper-v-union-of-india-5090
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Co11te111pt of Co11rt-Criricis111 of Court Judgn1ent-Lin1itaiiou 011.
At a puhlic meeting held a few days after the decision of this (~ourt
on the constitution"\l validity of the Banking Companies (Acquisition of
Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969, K, a Minister in the Central
Government, wa"S reported by newspapers to have made certain critical
remarks which, two petitioners be'fore the Court contended constituted a
serious contempt of this Court.
The petitioners swore an affidavit in
suppon of their, petition based on the newspapers reports.
As the Court
considered that some of the alleged observations, priina facil', exceeded
the bounds of legitimate criticism, a notice to show cause \Vas issued to
K.
Jn reply K filed an affidavit denying the main allegations and contending that he has been misreported.
Jn support of his O'vvn affidavit.
three other affidavits \\'ere filed by persons present at the public meeting.
Although an application was niade for summoning the reporters present
at the public meeting, the Court did not consider it necessary to prolong:
the hearing of the case as on the material be'fore the Court there was
nothing to contradict the affidavi1s
\\'hich denied
the accuracy of
the
newspaper reports.
However. while closing the case, the Court observed :
While fair and temperate criticism ~f this Court or any other court
even if strong, may not be actionable, attributing improper motives. or tend·
Ing to bring judges or courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing
directly or indirectly the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of
'"'hich notice inust and will be taken. -Respect is expected not only from
those to whom the judgment o'f the Court is acceptable
but also from
those to whom it is repugnant.
Those 'vvho
err in their criticism by in·
dulging in vilification of the institution of Courts administration of ju~ticc
1:1nd the instruments through
\~•hich the administration acts. should take
heed *'or they wiil act at their own ,r.eril. [516 B]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Wr:l Petition No. 300 of 1969.
M. C. Chag/a. N. A. Palkhivala, B. Datta, J. B. Dad(,chanji,
O C Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the applicants.
H. R. Gokhale and S. B. Wad, for the respondent.

## Text

5 1 2
IN THE MA TIER OF:
RUSTOM CAW ASJEE COOPER
v.
UNION OF INDIA
May 5, 1970
[M. HIDAYATU.!..LAH, CJ .. J. c SHAH, K. s. HEGDE, AN. G1wvrn
A N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
Co11te111pt of Co11rt-Criricis111 of Court Judgn1ent-Lin1itaiiou 011.
At a puhlic meeting held a few days after the decision of this (~ourt
on the constitution"\l validity of the Banking Companies (Acquisition of
Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969, K, a Minister in the Central
Government, wa"S reported by newspapers to have made certain critical
remarks which, two petitioners be'fore the Court contended constituted a
serious contempt of this Court.
The petitioners swore an affidavit in
suppon of their, petition based on the newspapers reports.
As the Court
considered that some of the alleged observations, priina facil', exceeded
the bounds of legitimate criticism, a notice to show cause \Vas issued to
K.
Jn reply K filed an affidavit denying the main allegations and contending that he has been misreported.
Jn support of his O'vvn affidavit.
three other affidavits \\'ere filed by persons present at the public meeting.
Although an application was niade for summoning the reporters present
at the public meeting, the Court did not consider it necessary to prolong:
the hearing of the case as on the material be'fore the Court there was
nothing to contradict the affidavi1s
\\'hich denied
the accuracy of
the
newspaper reports.
However. while closing the case, the Court observed :
While fair and temperate criticism ~f this Court or any other court
even if strong, may not be actionable, attributing improper motives. or tend·
Ing to bring judges or courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing
directly or indirectly the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of
'"'hich notice inust and will be taken. -Respect is expected not only from
those to whom the judgment o'f the Court is acceptable
but also from
those to whom it is repugnant.
Those 'vvho
err in their criticism by in·
dulging in vilification of the institution of Courts administration of ju~ticc
1:1nd the instruments through
\~•hich the administration acts. should take
heed *'or they wiil act at their own ,r.eril. [516 B]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Wr:l Petition No. 300 of 1969.
M. C. Chag/a. N. A. Palkhivala, B. Datta, J. B. Dad(,chanji,
O C Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the applicants.
H. R. Gokhale and S. B. Wad, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, C.J.
This petition is an off-shoot of the decision of this Court on the constitutional validity of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act, being
Act 22 of 1969. By a majority of ten Judges against one, this
A
6
c
D
E
F
G
H
IN THE MATTER OF COOPER v. UNION (Hida;yatul/ah, CJ.) 51 J
A
Court declared the Act to be unconstitutional.
The decision of
B
the Court was given on February 10, 1970.
·
On February 13, 1970 a meering was organised by the Blitz
National Forum at Vithalbhai !>"ate! House at Delhi. It was pre-
>ided over by Mr. Mohan Kum_armanglam, an advocate of this
Court.
According to the news items published the next day in
the Hindustan Times, the Times of India and the Patriot, a number of persons spoke about the Act and the decision of this Court
upon it. Among the speakers were Mr. R. ,!(. Khadilkar, Minister
in the Ministry of Finance, Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Mr. Kumarman·
glam, Mr. Prabhatkar, Mr. S. M. Joshi, M.P., Mr. Bhupesh Gupta
c
M.P. and Mr. V. K. Krishna Menon M.P. These speakers criti·
cised the decision.
Mr. R. K. Khadilkar, the Hindustan -Times
reported, said that such decisions 'do not enhance the prestige of
the Judiciary', that such acts on the part of the highest Court 'will
only encourage Naxalites who have rejected constitutional means
to bring about socialism' and that the judgment would be treated
D
with 'more and more contempt by ordinary people'. He observed
that the situation would be rectified by Parliament because ten
Judges 'sitting in an ivory towe.:' could not sit over the verdict of
Parliament which represented the people.
The Times of India
report said that Mr. Khadilkar said that 'Government would soon
bring forward an amending measure to offset the dangerous implications for social progress of the community of the Supreme
E_
Court judgment in the Bank Nationalisation case', that if necessary
the issue whether Parliament or the Supreme Court was the final
arbiter of the people's will should be referred to the people and
a mandate taken from them, and quoted Pandit Nehru that it was
never the intention of the Constitution to make the Supreme Court
'the third house of correction". "I:he Patriot reported that 'attempts
F
G
to utilize community savings lying in banks for the \\(?~0 re of the
common
man have been blocked by the judiciary', that
"!;e
Supreme Court could not be acc;epted as the third chamber of
-legislature ';that he did not 'want to threaten the judiciary' but
Parlian1ent would have 'to take steps to respect the ~dings of the
people for stabilizing democracy'.
Mr'. Khadilkar also wished
that the judiciary would take note 'of the changing situation and
helped to transform the society for the benefit of the common
man.' The three reports also describe<l what the other speakers
had said at the meeting.
On February 26, 1970, two petitioners (Mr. Krishna
Rao
Kaushik M.P. and Lt. Col. H. R. Pasricha) swore an information
based on the newspaper reports (with copies annexed) that a
H
serious contempt of this Court was committed by Mr. R. K. Khadilkar inasmuch as his speech had a clear tendency to affect the
dignity and prestige of this Court and there was danger of grave
13 Sup. cr;10-4
I 514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. [1971] l S.C.R.
mischief in the administration of justice and the confidence of the
whole cominunity in the administration of justice was bound to
be undermined.
Two affidavits sworn in support were based on
the newspaper reports.
As some of the alleged observations, particularly those reported
in the Hindustan Times, prima facie exceeded the bounds of legitimate criticism, a notice was issued to Mr. Khadilkar to show
cause why action should not be taken against him. In reply Mr.
Khadilkar filed an affidavit denying the main allegations. He stated
in his affidavit as follows :
"I am a firm believer in the independence of .iudiciary as an integral part 'of our democratic polity. I am
in entire agreement with the sentiment expressed in para
1 of the petition, viz. that the dignity of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court must be maintained and the administration of justice should not be allowed to be undermined
in this country.· I have a deep faith in the social and
economic objectives of our Constitution as enshrined in
the Directive Principles of the Constitution and {he democratic and corn;titutional methods of achieving them.
Indeed, by oath of office, I am duty bound to uphold
these objectives of our Constitution."
Jn reply to the specific charge of making statements tending to
vilify the\ Judges and to bring the administration of justice into
hatred and contempt, Mr. Khadilkar denied having made the statement attributed to him by the Patriot 'that attempts to utilize community savings in the banks for the welfare of the common man
had been blocked by the judiciary' and the statements attributed
;to him by the Hindustan Times to the effect that-
"(a) The majority decision in the Bank case "did not
enhance the prestige of the Judiciary".
(b) Supreme Court judgment would be treated with
"more and more contempt by ordinary people".
(c) The judiciarv had persistently failed to interpret
the Constitution and remained static.
(d) Ten Judges sitting in ivory tower could not sit
in judgment over verdict of Parliament which represented the people."
.He asserted that he had said :
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
". . . "no aspersions should be cast on the judiciary
H
and even though the decision had far-reaching consequences.
I pointed out, that the judgment was cautiously word.ed and the learned Judges had not challenged
IN THE MATTER OF COOPER\'. UNION (Hidayatullah, C.J.) 515
I\
the authority of Pa.rliament to bring forward a measure
of nationalisation".
n
c
0
••
G
H
He claimed to have added :
"No desire to cast aspersions on the judiciary and
would very much like to see its prestige remained high
and its image untarnished. We cannot, however, avoid
pointing out wherein according to us the decision is erroneous primarily by reason of its consequences for attempts at social reform."
He explained what he had said by recalling his speech.
It is not
necessary to quote his version.
He complained that the newspapers had picked out ideas but put them in their own words and
that it was not always possible to contradict the newspapers. He
expressed his views on the instituton of property as a fundamental
right to which it is not necessary to refer here. He concluded by
saying-
-
"I may also state that in my comments on the Bank
Judgment, no improper motives were attached to the
Hon'ble Judges.
There. was no malice either against
the Hon 'ble Judges or the institution of Supreme Court,
the independence of which I honestly cherish."
In support of his own affidavit, Mr. Khadilkar exhibited affidavits
from Messrs. Mohan Kumarmangalam, A. S. R. Chari and S. M.
Joshi.
In these affidavits (which are insissima verba) support was
given to the denials of Mr. Khadilkar.
At an earlier hearing, the petitioners promised to file affidavit$
of reporters etc. presen.t at the meeting.
At the reslimed hearing
no affidavits were filed on the ground that the journalists following their code of conduct did not wish to file any material unasked
and request was, therefore, made to summon them in the interest
of justice. We did not think it necessary to prolong the hearing
· of the case as on the material before us there was nothing to contradict the affidavits which deny the accuracy of the newspaper reports.
We accordingly closed the case for orders.
There is no doubt that the Court like any other institution
does not enjoy immunity from fair criticism:- This Court does not
claim to be always right although it does not spare any effort to be
right according to the best of the ability, knowledge and judgment
of the Judges. They do not think themselves in JYlSsession of all
truth or hold that wherever others differ from them, it is so far
erro;. No one is more conscious of his limitations and fallibility
tha1'l a Judge but because. of his training and the assistance he gets
from learned counsel he is apt to avoid mistakes more than others.
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
Further the supremacy of a legislature under a written ConstituA
tion is only within what is in its power but what is within its power
and what is not, when any specific act is challenged, it is for the
courts to say. If that were realised much of the misunderstanding
would be avoided and the organs of Government would function
truly in their own spheres.
We are constrained to say also that
while fair and temperate criticism of this Court or any other Court·
e.
even if strong, may be actionable, attributing improper motives,
or tending to bring Jud~s or courts into hatred and contempt or
obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of Courts
is serious contempt of w_hich notice must and will be taken. Respect is expected not only from those to whom the judgment of the
Court is acceptable but also from those to whom it is repugnant.
Those who· err in their criticism by indulging in vilification of the
institution of Courts, administration of justice and the instruments
through which the administration acts, should take heed for they
will act dt their own peril.
We think this will be enough cautior
to persons embarking__ on the path of criticism. With ,these word>
we order the papers to be filed.
R. l( P. S.
c