# ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM v. L.K. TRIPATHI AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2009] 6 S.C.R. 583
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-04-01
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 31435 of 2007
- **Bench:** B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/all-india-anna-dravida-munnetra-kazhagam-v-l-k-tripathi-and-others-25880
- **Pages:** 49

## Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
s. 2(b) - Civil contempt - Order of Supreme Court
restraining political parties from proceeding with the call for
bandh in State - Allegation of willful disobedience of
B
c
·.-.
directions by Chief Secretary of State and other officers -
0
Held: Cannot per se be held guilty of contempt - Language
of restraint order unambiguous - Prohibitive injunction was
explicitly directed against political parties and not against
government officials - No directions issued to them to take
specific steps with regard to calf for bandh - No evidence
E
produced to show that transport services did not operate at
all due to action of government officials - More so, they took
.. all necessary steps for preventing any disruption of public
services and inconvenience to general public - Constitution
'-
of India, 1950 - Article 129.
s. 2(b) - Civil contempt- Call for bandh in State - Order
of Supreme Court restraining political parties from calling for
bandh - Pursuant thereto, withdrawal of bandh by Chief
Minister -
Allegation that CM guilty of contempt as
F
Government did not issue written instructions to officers for
G
maintaining essential services and normal public life and his
party workers coerced people to close commercial and
business establishments - Held: Not sustainable - Except
newspaper reports no material to show that CM directly or
583
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{2009] 6 S.C.R.
A indirectly encouraged party members to enforce call for
bandh.
s. 2(c) - Criminal contempt - A/legation that Union
Minister made unwarranted remarks to scandalize judiciary
8 in general and order of Supreme Court restraining bandh in
general - Held: Charges cannot be framed against him - No
legally admissible evidence produced to prove the contents
of speech allegedly made by the Minister - Material
produced was only in form of zerox copies of newspapers and
C tape edited version of speech telecasted on T. V.
Evidence - Tape reordered version - Admissibility of.
The question which arose for consideration in these
contempt petitions are whether respondent no. 1 to 5
o willfully disobeyed order dated 30.09.2007 passed by this
Court in SLP and thereby made themselves liable to be
proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India and
whether respondent no. 6 is guilty of criminal contempt
E within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act.
Dismissing the contempt petitions, the Court
;
HELD: 1.1. The language of the order by this Court
_,,
restraining the political parties from proceeding with the
F call for bandh in the State of Tamil Na du on 1.10.2007
pursuant to resolution dated 24.9.2007 or any other day,
is unambiguous. The prohibitive injunction contained
therein was explicitly directed against the political parties
and not against respondent nos. 1 to 3. The Court did not
G direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to act in any particular
manner or take certain specific steps to meet the
challenge likely to be posed by implementation of the call
given by Democratic Progressive Alliance. This was so
because the Court could not have presumed that the
H restraint order passed by it would be disregarded or
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 585
v. L.K. TRIPATHI AND ORS .
..
...
flouted by the political parties. Therefore, respondent A
nos.1 to 3 cannot, per se, be held guilty of disobeying
or violating the Court's order dated 30.09.2007 and
punished for committing contempt of court as defined in
s. 2(b) of the 1971 Act. [Para 27] [617-A-C]
1.2. The petitioners did not place on record any B
evidence to show that despite restraint order passed by
~
the Court on 30.9.2007, the political parties constituting
t·
Democratic Progressive Alliance resorted to strike or
bandh. They have not even disputed that after coming c
to know about the Court's order, respondent no.4 made
a statement at 1.30 p.m. withdrawing resolution dated
24.9.2007 which contained a call for cessation of work
on 1.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,917 of 93,985. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39917 for what follows._

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 583
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM
A
v.
L.K. TRIPATHI AND OTHERS
(Contempt Petition (C) No. 262 of 2007)
IN
SLP (C) No. 18879 of 2007
APRIL 1, 2009
[B.N. AGRAWAL AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
s. 2(b) - Civil contempt - Order of Supreme Court
restraining political parties from proceeding with the call for
bandh in State - Allegation of willful disobedience of
B
c
·.-.
directions by Chief Secretary of State and other officers -
0
Held: Cannot per se be held guilty of contempt - Language
of restraint order unambiguous - Prohibitive injunction was
explicitly directed against political parties and not against
government officials - No directions issued to them to take
specific steps with regard to calf for bandh - No evidence
E
produced to show that transport services did not operate at
all due to action of government officials - More so, they took
.. all necessary steps for preventing any disruption of public
services and inconvenience to general public - Constitution
'-
of India, 1950 - Article 129.
s. 2(b) - Civil contempt- Call for bandh in State - Order
of Supreme Court restraining political parties from calling for
bandh - Pursuant thereto, withdrawal of bandh by Chief
Minister -
Allegation that CM guilty of contempt as
F
Government did not issue written instructions to officers for
G
maintaining essential services and normal public life and his
party workers coerced people to close commercial and
business establishments - Held: Not sustainable - Except
newspaper reports no material to show that CM directly or
583
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{2009] 6 S.C.R.
A indirectly encouraged party members to enforce call for
bandh.
s. 2(c) - Criminal contempt - A/legation that Union
Minister made unwarranted remarks to scandalize judiciary
8 in general and order of Supreme Court restraining bandh in
general - Held: Charges cannot be framed against him - No
legally admissible evidence produced to prove the contents
of speech allegedly made by the Minister - Material
produced was only in form of zerox copies of newspapers and
C tape edited version of speech telecasted on T. V.
Evidence - Tape reordered version - Admissibility of.
The question which arose for consideration in these
contempt petitions are whether respondent no. 1 to 5
o willfully disobeyed order dated 30.09.2007 passed by this
Court in SLP and thereby made themselves liable to be
proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India and
whether respondent no. 6 is guilty of criminal contempt
E within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act.
Dismissing the contempt petitions, the Court
;
HELD: 1.1. The language of the order by this Court
_,,
restraining the political parties from proceeding with the
F call for bandh in the State of Tamil Na du on 1.10.2007
pursuant to resolution dated 24.9.2007 or any other day,
is unambiguous. The prohibitive injunction contained
therein was explicitly directed against the political parties
and not against respondent nos. 1 to 3. The Court did not
G direct respondent nos. 1 to 3 to act in any particular
manner or take certain specific steps to meet the
challenge likely to be posed by implementation of the call
given by Democratic Progressive Alliance. This was so
because the Court could not have presumed that the
H restraint order passed by it would be disregarded or
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 585
v. L.K. TRIPATHI AND ORS .
..
...
flouted by the political parties. Therefore, respondent A
nos.1 to 3 cannot, per se, be held guilty of disobeying
or violating the Court's order dated 30.09.2007 and
punished for committing contempt of court as defined in
s. 2(b) of the 1971 Act. [Para 27] [617-A-C]
1.2. The petitioners did not place on record any B
evidence to show that despite restraint order passed by
~
the Court on 30.9.2007, the political parties constituting
t·
Democratic Progressive Alliance resorted to strike or
bandh. They have not even disputed that after coming c
to know about the Court's order, respondent no.4 made
a statement at 1.30 p.m. withdrawing resolution dated
24.9.2007 which contained a call for cessation of work
on 1.10.2007. If, despite statement of respondent no.4,
which was made known to the public, the shops and
·t
business establishments remained closed and the D
private transport operators did not consider it proper to
operate their services on 1.10.2007, respondent nos.1 to
3 cannot be held to have deliberately disobeyed the
Court's order. [Para 29] [618-C-E]
E
1.3. The only material produced by the petitioner
against respondent no.6 in Contempt Petition is in the
•
form of zerox copies of newspapers and tape of the
...
edited version of speech which is said to have been
telecast on Jaya T.V. on 1.10.2007 and 2.10.2007. The
respondent no.6 claimed that the newspapers reported
F
something by putting in his mouth which he did not
speak; and that what was telecast on Jaya T.V. was the
doctored version of his speech. The petitioners were
duty bound to produce some primary evidence to prove
G
the contents of the speech made by respondent no.6
scandalizing judiciary in general and this Court's order
dated 30.09.07 in particular. Thus, no charge can be
framed against respondent no. 6 with reference to
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A
section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 because
the petitioners did not produce any legally admissible
evidence to prove the contents of the speech allegedly
made by the respondent. [Paras 31 and 42) [619-C-E, 631B-C]
8
Mohd. Aslam v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 442; A.
Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras (1970) 1 SCC 443; Azhar
Ali Khan v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(1984) 3 SCC 549; Hoshiar Singh v. Gurbachan Singh 1962
C (Supp) 3 SCR 127; T.N. Godavannan Thirumulpad v. Ashok
Khot (2006) 5 SCC 1; Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose
1953 SCR 215 and E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T.
Narayanan. Nambiar (1970) 2 SCC 325, held inapplicable.
Ram Singh and Ors. v. Col. Ram Singh 1985 (Supp)
D SCC 611; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan
Ramdass Mehra and Ors. (1976) 2 SCC 17; Mrityunjoy Das
and another v. Sayed Hasibur Rahman and others (2001) 3
SCC 739; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati and another (2001)
7 SCC 530; Anil Ratan Sarkar and others v. Hirak Ghosh and
E Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 21; Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v.
F
G
H
Dharam Godha and Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 1; Delhi
Development Authority v. Skipper Construction (1995) 3 SCC
507 and Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and
Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 569, referred to.
M. v. Home Officer (1993) 3 All ER 537; Re,
Bramblevale Ltd. (1969) 3 All ER 1062; William G. Cooper,
Members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock v. John
Aaron 358 US1 : 3 L Ed 2d 5 : 78 S Ct 1401 (1958), referred
to.
New Oxford Illustrated Dictionary 1980 Edn; Black's Law
Dictionary Vol.II 8th Edn; Stroud's Judicial Dictionary Vol.5
4th Edn; Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, referred to.
. '
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 587
v. L.K. TRIPATHI AND ORS .
.,
.;,·
Case Law Reference:
A
--
(1994) 6 sec 442
Held inapplicable.
Para 15, 41
(1993) 3 All ER 537
Referred to.
Para 15
(1970) 1 sec 443
Held inapplicable.
Para 15
B
(1984) 3 sec 549
Held inapplicable.
Para 15
.~
1962 (Supp)
~
3 SCR 127
Held inapplicable.
Para 15 ·
(2006) 5 sec 1
Held inapplicable.
Para 15
c
1953 SCR 215
Held inapplicable.
Para 15, 42
(1970) 2 sec 325
Held inapplicable.
Para 15, 42
(2003) 11 sec 1
Referred to
Para 24
D
....
(1995) 3 sec 507
Referred to.
Para 25
(1999) 1 sec 569
Referred to.
Para 26
1985 (Supp) sec 611 Referred to.
Para 32
E
(1976) 2 sec 11
Referred to.
Para 33
(1969) 3 All ER 1062
Referred to.
Para 34
"
(2001 > 3 sec 739
Referred to .
Para 35
...
(2001 > 1 sec 530
Referred to.
Para 36
F
(2002) 4 sec 21
Referred to.
Para 37
358 us 1
Referred to.
Para 38
(1994) 6 sec 442
Distinguished.
Para 41
G
L
-
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (c)
No. 262 of 2007,
IN
·'
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 6 S.C.R.
..
A
S.L.P. (C) No.18879 of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.09.2007 of the High
·•
Court of Judicature at Madras in M.P. No. 1 of 2007 in Writ
Petition No. 31435 of 2007.
B
WITH
Contempt Petition (c) No. 327 of 2007 in S.L.P. (c) No. 18879
'
of 2007.
..
c
S. Guru Krishna Kumar, Subramonium Prasad and Srikala
Gurukrishna Kumar for the Appellant.
In CP 327/2007 in person (N/P).
A. Mariarputham, M.N. Rao, R. Nedumaran, Promila and
D S. Thananjayan for the Respondents.
:"'
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Whether respondent Nos.1 to 5 have
willfully disobeyed order dated 30.9.2007 passed by this Court
E in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18879 of 2007 and thereby
made themselves liable to be proceeded against under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the 1971 Act') read
with Article 129 of the Constitution of India and whether
respondent No.6 is guilty of criminal contempt within the
~
F meaning of Section 2(c) of the 1971 Act are the questions
which arise for determination in this petition filed by All India
Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam through its Presidium
Chairman Shri E. Madhusudhanan.
G 2. Background facts:
~
2.1. In an apparent bid to pressμrize the Central
-
Government to expedite implementation of Sethu Samudram
Project, Democratic Progressive Alliance comprising Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam, Indian National Congress, Communist
,
H
,,
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 589
..
v. L.K. TRIPATHI AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
4'"
Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India and Pattali
A
Makkal Katchi, passed a resolution on 24.9.2007 to resort to
total cessation of work and closure of shops on 1.10.2007 and
to conduct a general meeting of the leaders of all parties on
30.9.2007 at Chennai. The relevant portions of the resolution
are extracted below:
8
" ... in order to make understand the fact that the support
_,.
..
of the people is only to implement the Sethu Samudram
Project expeditiously to the Central Government, it is
resolved to conduct total cessation of work and closure
of shops on the 1st of October, and to conduct a general c
meeting of the leaders of all parties on the 30th day of
September, at Chenn_ai."
2.2. The petitioner challenged the afore-mentioned
•
resolution in Writ Petition No.31435 of 2007 filed before
D
Madras High Court and prayed that the call given by the political
parties for organizing bandh in the State of Tamil Nadu either
on 1.10.2007 or any other day may be declared as violative of
Articles 19 and 21 and the Directive Principles of the State
Policy and fundamental duties embodied and enumerated in
E
the Constitution of India. Shri Subramanfa Swamy of Janta
Party, Shri K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy (founder
~
...
Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Social Workers Association,
Chennai) and Shri R. Balasubramanian also filed Writ Petition
Nos.31478, 31462 and 31631 of 2007 with similar prayers.
F
2.3. Along with the writ petition, the petiti0ner filed two
miscellaneous petitions with the prayer that a direction be
issued to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam represented by its
President M. Karunanidhi (Respondent No.4 in the contempt
4.-
petition) to deposit a sum of Rs.100 crore with the Chief G
...
Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu on or before 28.9.2007
which could be utilized to compensate the damage caused to
the general public and the five political parties be restrained
'
from proceeding with the call for bandh in the State in terms of
J
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A resolution dated 24.9.2007.
2.4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the High Court
admitted the writ petitions and issued the following directions
to the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, District
8 Collectors and other officers of the State:
c
D
E
F
"(i)
To ensure that no political party, organization,
association, group or individual can, by organizing
'bandh/ hartal' or by force or intimidate, stop or
interfere with the road and rail traffic or free
movement of the citizens in the State of Tamil Nadu
on the day of 'Bandh' i.e. 01.10.2007.
(ii)
To ensure that the public transport in the State
including the Civil Aviation run smoothly on the day
of the 'Bandh' i.e. 1.10.2007.
(iii)
To take appropriate action against the person(s)
indulging in stoppage or interference with the road
and rail traffic or free movement of the citizens in
the State of Tamil Nadu.
(iv)
Chief Secretary to the Government shall issue a
Press Note to the Print Media and also the
Electronic Media on 29/30.9.2007 informing about
the preparation made by the Police to deal with the
'Bandh' and to make people secured."
2.5. Feeling dissatisfied with the High Court's order, the
petitioner filed S.L.P. (C) No.18879 of 2007 in this Court. The
same was heard on 30.9.2007. The counsel representing
respondent nos.1 to 3, who volunteered to appear, also made
G their submissions.
After considering the respective
submissions, this Court passed a detailed order, the relevant
portions of which are reproduced below:
"From a bare perusal of the aforesaid decision, it would
H
; ..
-t.
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 591
v. L.K. TRIPATHI AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
be clear that neither anybody can give a call for Bandh nor A
the same can be enforced. The High Court, in the present
case, has recorded a, prima facie, finding that, in the
present case, the call was given for Bandh and not strike/
hartal.
B
Ordinarily, High Court as well as this Court refrains from
passing an interim order the effect of which would be
granting the main relief. But in cases where a party
approaches court without loss of time, there are no laches
on its part, it is not possible to give notices to all the
necessary parties and hear them because of paucity of C
time and in case interim order is not passed in a case like
the present o.ne, which, prima facie, in the opinion of court
is concluded by judgment of this court, the
main case
would become infructuous, different considerations would
arise and appropriate interim order should be passed. In
D
the present case, apart from the State of Tamil Nadu, out
of the political parties, namely, Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam, Indian National Congress, Communist Party of
India (Marxist), Communist Party of India and Pattali
Makkal Katchi, only Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam has
E
appeared before us, whom we have heard at length.
After taking into consideration the entire matter, prima
facie, we are also of the view that the call given by the
aforesaid political parties is a call for Bandh and not strike/
F
Hartal. Accordingly, we have no option but to issue notices
to the non-appearing respondents and pass interim order.
Issue notice.
Until further orders, Respondent Nos.3 to 7 are restrained
G
from proceeding with the call for Bandh in the State of
Tamil Nadu on 1st October, 2007 pursuant to resolution
dated 24th September, 2007 or any other day."
2.6. Even before filing of writ petition by the petitioner, the
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A then Chief Secretary of the State -
Shri L.K. Tripathi
(respondent no.1 herein) directed that the concerned officers
be asked to take steps necessary for maintaining essential
services and for providing protection to important offices and
establishments apart from markets and business places. The
B instructions given by the Chief Secrdary were circulated vide
telefax No.SR.11/50641/2007 dated 27.9.2007, the relevant
portions of which are extracted below:-
c
D
"1.
Essential
services
like
Telephone
and
Telecommunication, water supply, milk distribution,
power supply, fire services, newspapers, hospitals,
shall be ensured to function and protection given.
2.
Provide adequate protection to vital installations
such as power stations/grids, sub-stations,
important Government buildings, telecommunicc:tion
and bridges, oil installations, railway bridges, etc.
3.
Arrange open line patrol with immediate effect.
4.
Arrange for regular supply of milk and other
E
essentials.
F
G
H
5.
Provide adequate protection to the High Court and
other Courts.
6.
Action to be taken against anti-social elements and
persons indulging in acts of violence and
vandalism.
7.
A visible police presence shall be maintained
throughout the city.
8.
A visible bandobast outside railway stations, bus
depots, main roads, main junctions, hospitals,
courts, schools and colleges will be maintained.
9.
Necessary protection to market and business
1
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 593
v L.K. TRIPATHI AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
places shall be given.
10.
All police control rooms will be fully activated to
follow up incident to take proper stern and timely
action.
A
11.
Ensure that the 'Hartal' passes off peacefully.
B
12.
Collectors may requisition and spare other
department vehicles if required by the District
Superintendent of Police.
c
Any incident of law and order and other matters of
significance should be informed to Chief
Secretary's
Control
Room
Telephone
Nos.26571388 and 26570372, followed by FAX25677128. Bi-hourly report commencing from 0600
hours on 01.10.2007 about the 'Hartal' should be
D
given to Chief Secretary's Control Room even if
there is no incident. First Report should commence
from 0600 hours on 01.10.2007."
2.7. On coming to know of this Court's order through
E
electronic media, respondent No.1 directed that telephonic
instructions be given to all the Collectors to convene meetings
with the respective Superintendents of Police for ensuring that
law and order and public tranquility are maintained.
2.8. The Court's order was officially communicated to
respondent no.1 on the same day i.e., 30.9.2007 at about
10.30 p.m. by fax. The latter immediately forwarded the same
F
to respondent no.2 for taking necessary action. In turn,
respondent No.2 directed the concerned police officers that
steps should be taken for facilitating unobstructed movement
G
of public transport and maintenance of essential services like
water and electricity supply, milk distribution, telephone and
telecommunication service, fire service, hospitals and
protection be given to Central Government offices, courts, bus
stands, railway stations, banks, market places, shops, industrial
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
~ ..
A establishments, etc. These directions were conveyed to Zonal
Inspector Generals of Police and Commissioners of Police by
-~
Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) vide fax
dated 1.10.2007 which was sent between 11.28 p.m. on
30.9.2007 and 6.30 a.m. on 1.10.2007. The contents of that
8
fax are reproduced below:-
Date 30.09.2007
..
"From
J.
c
ADGP (L&O)
Chennai -4.
To
All Zonal IGPs
D
and COPs
All unit officers are instructed to strictly follow the
following instructions,
1.
The Depots Managers of the State Transport
E
Corporation will decide about running the buses
subject to availability of crew. Sufficient Bandobust
must be provided to all Bus Depots under their
jurisdiction.
• ••
F
2.
Anyone who obstructs the movement of Public
transport should be picked up.
3.
Bandobust should be provided to all essential
services like Hospital, Electricity, Offices, Bus
G
stands and railway stations etc.
)
4.
Bandobust must be provided to all Central
Government offices, Courts and Banks.
5.
Beats and Patrol should be provided to all market
H
places, shops and industrial establishments.
..
•
....
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 595
v. L.K. TRIPATHI AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
6.
All anti-social elements should be picked up.
A
7.
Sufficient Bandobust arrangements should be
provided at the places where Hunger strike is
scheduled to be held.
Sd/- D.S.P.C.O.S.R.
B
For ADGP (L&O)
Chennai-4
30.9.2007
C.No.D1/17566/IGP/NZ/2007 DATED 1.10.2007
c
COPY COMMUNICATED TO ALL SsP. AND DlsG. IN
NORTH ZONE AND ARE REQUESTED TO TAKE
NECESSARY ACTION AND REPORT COMPLIANCE.
\
Sd/-
1.10.2007
For IGP/NZ/CNl-16"
D
2.9. The Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department
also sent fax No.SR.11/5064-5/2007 dated 1.10.2007 to all the
District Collectors at 11.25 a.m. requiring them to send hourly
reports to the Chief Secretary's Control Room regarding the
E
law and order situation, movement, transport, functioning of
essential services, functioning of schools and colleges, opening
of shops, hotels and other public utilities, attendance in
"
Government offices etc .
3. On 3.10.2007, the petitioner filed this petition under
F
Article 129 of the Constitution of lndi.a read with the 1971 Act
and prayed that the respondents be punished for violation and
disobedience of the Court's order dated 30.9.2007. The
gravamen of the petitioner's allegation is that in complete
disregard of the restraint order passed by this Court, the
G
concerned political parties including Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagahl enforced the bandh in the entire State by ensuring
that buses owned by the State Transport Corporation are kept
off the road and shops and other business establishments
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A remain closed; that 45,000 private buses were also not allowed
to ply on that day; that shops and other business establishments
were forcibly closed by the cadres of Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam party and that the State machinery did not take any
action to ensure functioning of public transport system and
I
B opening of the shops etc. It is also the petitioner's case that
even though 50,000 employees of the State Transport
Corporation came forward to carry out their duties but they were
prevented from entering the b.us depots by the Depot Managers,
Supervisor, etc. on the instructions of higher authorities and
C even the main gates of many bus terminals were closed and
locked. To substantiate these allegations, the petitioner has
placed on record the photographs collectively marked as
Annexure P-5 and the telegrams which are said to have been
sent by Shri K.K. Madeswaran, C. Sengottaiyan and M.A.
0 Paneerselvam to Tamil Nadu State Road Transport
Corporation, representation made by A.J. Selvaraj, Anna Trade
Union Secretary, Radhapuram Taluk. In paragraph 14 of the
Contempt Petition, it has been averred that several workers of
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party moved in various vantage
areas of the State with deadly and lethal weapons to ensure
E that no business or commercial activity was done on 1.10.2007
and whoever opened the shop was forced to down the shutters.
It has been further averred that in Chennai, a restaurant at
Arterial Mount Road was attacked and looted and many other
shops and restaurants were ransacked and eatables were
F thrown out and bottles were broken, but the police remained
mute spectators.
In support of these averments, the petitioner
placed on record copies of various newspapers. In paragraph
23, a reference has been made to the speech allegedly made
by respondent No.6, Shri T.R. Balu, Union Minister for Shipping
G and Surface Transport, at the venue of the hunger strike on
1.10.2007 and it has been averred that the same was calculated ·
to scandalize judiciary in general and order dated 30.9.2007
in particular./ The relevant portions of the speech allegedly
made by respondent no.6, which is said to have been published
H in the newspapers and also telecast on the television channels
...
J_
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 597
v. L.K. TRIPATHI AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
are extracted below:-
A
"If we want to conduct a Bandh in a democratic manner to
ensure speedy implementation of this Project, the Supreme
Court is injuncting the same. Are judgments being
delivered correctly in the Courts? If that is so, why are
8
higher courts granting stay of orders of lower Courts?
If judges are not making mistakes why are there conflicting
judgments? Today there are many complaints against
many judges. Corruption charges are appearing everyday.
What does that mean? If they were upright yesterday, does
C
it mean that they are not upright now? When was a sitting
ever held on a Sunday? Unprecedented things are taking
place.
We are expressing our feelings. How many complaints are
0
received against judges? There is provision in law for
impeachment of sitting judges. The MPs' sitting here
should also think about it. Nothing wrong about it. Our
MPs, including the ministers should know about it.
Everyone including the ministers can sign it."
4. In paragraph 7 of the reply affidavit filed by him,
respondent no.1 has averred that after telecast of the news
about the restraint order passed by the Court, telephonic
instructions were issued to the District Collectors to maintain
E
law and order and public peace. In para 8 of the affidavit,
F
respondent no.1 has averred that immediately on receipt of the
Court's order, a copy thereof was sent to respondent no.2 with
suitable instructions to take necessary action and within the
available time the police force was mobilized and bandobust
was provided to all vital installations, State and Central
G
Government offices, educational institutions, Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation depots, bus stands, railway stations,
airports, markets, places of worship, hospitals, important
junctions, business areas and other places where people used ,
to congregate and bandobust was also provided to the
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 6 S.C.R.
A industrial establishments for their smooth functioning and
pickets were posted at all sensitive places to avert law and
order problems. According to respondent No.1, effective
patrols and mobiles were organized for ensuring free flow of
traffic in the State and open line patrols were deputed for
8 keeping watch on the railway tracks; all the courts including the
Madras High Court were given sufficient protection; vehicle
checks were organized to prevent the movement of anti-social
elements and trou.ble mongers and rowdy elements were
detained under preventive measures. Respondent No.1 has
C claimed that on 1.10.2007 all the Courts functioned normally
and movement of trains and other essential services were
maintained without any obstruction.
As regards transport
services., respondent no.1 has averred that less number of
Government transport services operated in the early morning
0 but with the passage of time around 2749 routes were made
operational.
5. In his affidavit, respondent no.2, Shri P. Rajendran, has
detailed the steps taken for ensuring presence of police at
various important places for maintaining law and order and
E movement of transport services. He has denied that workers
of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party had forcibly closed
business establishments and shops by wielding lethal and
deadly weapons for the purpose of conveying threats to the
public.
F
6. In his affidavit, respondent no.3 - Shri Debendranath
Sarangi has given an account of the steps taken for ensuring
normal operation of State Transport Services. In paragraphs
11 of the affidavit, respondent no.3 has averred that senior
officers, i.e., Branch Managers and Divisional Managers of
G various State Transport Undertakings were instructed to ensure
normal operation of buses on 1.10.2007. Respondent No.3 has
then averred that the officers were on duty on 1.10.2007 and
adequate police bandobust was provided at the Depots, but
most of the crew did not turn up in the morning on 1.10.2007
H
....
...
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 599
v. L.K. TRIPATHI AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
and even those who came did not enter the Depot premises,
A
did not sign the duty chart and dispersed after holding
demonstration in front of the Depots; that the Branch Managers
and Divisional Managers made efforts to operate the bus
services with the help of available crew and with the passage
of time the number of services substantially increased.
B
Respondent No.3 has denied that the Drivers and Conductors
were prevented from carrying out their duties or that the
conductors did not issue tickets or that the main gates of bus
terminals were closed and locked. He has also denied receipt
of any representation or telegram. In para 15 of the affidavit,
C
respondent No.3 has referred to the call given by the trade
unions to abstain from work in the wake of decision taken by
the political parties and averred that even though the latter
withdrew the call for cessation of work, there was no
corresponding response from the trade unions due to paucity
0
of time and also due to the fact that most of the workers had
left for outside places taking advantage of the impending strike
and two days' holidays. Respondent No.3 has also stated that
the crew members who did not attend the duty on 01.10.2007
have not been paid the wages as per the policy "no work no
pay". Respondent No.3 has controverted the petitioner's
E
assertion that daily collection of the Transport Corporations is
over Rs.10 crores. According to him, the average collection
of-the Transport Corporations is Rs.7.5 crores per day, which
is reduced to half on any holiday and less than half in the event
of continuous holidays for 3-4 days. According to respondent
F
No.3, total collection on 1.10.2007 was Rs.483 lakhs. Lastly,
respondent no.3 has averred that in observance of the order
of this Court necessary instructions were given to Managing
Directors of all the State Transport Corporations to ply buses
and send reply by Fax.
G
7. Respondent No.4, Shri M. Karunanidhi, has come up
with the plea that initially he was advised to adopt the counter
affidavits of respondent nos.1 and 2 and a statement to that
effect was made before the Court on 4.8.2008 by the advocate
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
A representing the State of Tamil Nadu but, later on, he decided
to file a separate counter affidavit. In paragraph 3 of the
affidavit, respondent no.4 has given the background in which
decision was taken by Democratic Progressive Alliance
comprising major political parties in Tamil Nadu to demonstrate
B their concern on the delay in implementation of Sethu
Samudram Project by observing cessation of work between 6
a.m. to 6 p.m. on 1.10.2007. Respondent No.4 has then
averred that on the basis of reports appearing in the TV news .
channels and after verifying the facts from counsel appearing
- c on behalf of respondent no.3 in the special leave petition, he
gave a call at about 1.30 p.m. for withdrawal of resolution dated
24.9.2007 and this was conveyed to the concerned political
parties. According to respondent no.3, instructions were given
to the government officials to carry out the Court's order and
ensure that the bandh did not take place on 1.10.2007 and the
D fast undertaken by political parties should not, in any way, affect
the general public or hinder their routine life. For the sake of
convenience, paragraph 7 of the affidavit of respondent no.4
is reproduced below:-
E
F
G
H
"7. The order passed by this Hon'ble Court was
communicated to the Chief Secretary to Government of
Tamil Nadu by FAX at 10.30 PM by the Registrar of this
Court on 30.09.2007. Even before the order was officially
communicated, it was flashed in the TV News channels.
After verifying with counsel at New Delhi and without waiting
for any fonmal communication from this Hon'ble Court, at
about 1.30 PM I immediately called for the withdrawal of
the resolution dated 24.09.2007 passed by the Democratic
Progressive Alliance for cessation of work. This was also
conveyed to all political parties, which vvere part{to the said
Resolution. However, Democratic Progressive Alliance
decided to hold a day long fast on 1st October, 2007 to
draw attention to the importance of the Sethu Samuthiram
Project and for early implementation of the same. I made
it clear at that time that the fast was not against the order
• ....
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 601
v. LK. TRIPATHI AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
•
~
~
of this Hon'ble Court. I annex an extract from the Hindu
A
,,
newspaper 1st October, 2007 reporting this (Annexure
-R1). I also gave instructions to Government officials to
carry out the order of this Hon'ble Court and to ensure that
the Bandh did not take place on 1st October, 2007, and
that the day long fast undertaken by political parties should
8
not in any way affect the general public or hinder their
routine life."
> ...
8. Respondent No.5 has taken the stand that at the time
of passing of order by this Court, he was in his constituency c
(Trichy) and on receipt of information about the Court's order,
he instructed respondent no.3 to take steps to maintain
normalcy in transport serv.ices on 1.10.2007. Respondent No.5
has also stated that he had been continuously monitoring the
operation of transport services from Trichy and also made
D
efforts to contact the trade unions and instructed them to direct
f
the workers to report for duty in view of withdrawal of call for
cessation of work given by Democratic Progressive Alliance.
9. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of affidavit dated 26th August,
2008 filed by him, respondent no.6 - Shri T.R. Baalu has
E
resorted to the rhetoric that he has highest respect for the
judiciary and he is a strong believer in the independence of the
judiciary. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, respondent no.6 has
•
made a mention of his electoral achievements and averred that
'#
the contempt petition has been filed with the sole object of F
tarnishing his political image in the State and position as
Minister in the Central Government. In paragraph 8, respondent
no.6 has alleged that by filing petition before this Court, the
petitioner which is the main opposition party in the State is try!ng
to indirectly achieve which it could not achieve in the political
G
...
arena. Respondent No.6 has then given his own interpretation
of the term bandh and averred that he did not participate in any
activity which can be described as a bandh. In paragraph 11
of the affidavit, respondent no.6 has averred that nothing in the
quoted speech constitutes participation in bandh or instigating
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
•
+- ,
A others to do so and whatever he said was legitimate exercise
'
of freedom of speech. In paragraph 12, respondent no.6 has
claimed that the newspaper report regarding his speech is not
accurate and words have been put in his mouth which were not
uttered by him.
B
10. Arguments in the case were heard on 11.11.2008 and
concluded on
12.11.2008 qua the alleged contemnor nos.1
to 5. However, the case was adjourned to 10.12.2008 to enable
""" •
the petitioner to file additional affidavit in relation to respondent
c no.6 with liberty to the latter to file reply within two weeks. On
the next date, i.e., 10.12.2008, the Court considered an
application made on behalf of the petitioner for summoning the
tapes of the speech allegedly made by re.spondent no.6 on
1.10.2007 at Chennai and ordered issue of notice to the
D Resident Managers of Times Now Channel and Jaya T.V.
requiring them to produce the tapes and original chips of the
speech. Notices were also issued to Dhanya Rajendran and
M. Ramasubramanian (reporters) and Manish Dhanani, Y.
Jayaprakash and S. Ravikumar (camera persons of limes Now
E
Channel and Jaya T.V. respectively).
11. In response to the Court's notice, Shri M. Vasudev Rao,
authorised signatory of limes Global Broadcasting Company
Limited, which is running limes Now Channel, sent letter dated
;
16th January, 2009 stating therein that the company is unable
'
F to provide the original tapes and news clips of the speech
delivered by respondent no.6 because in terms of the Uplinking
and Downlinking Guidelines issued by the Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting, Government of India, the company
maintains a record of the contents uplinked and downlinked by
G its channel for a period of 90 days from the date of its telecast.
After taking note of that letter, the Court allowed further time to
~
the parties to file affidavits.
12. In furtherance of the liberty given by the Court, the
petitioner filed affidavits of S/Shri M. Ramasubramanian, S.
H Ravikumar and R. Thillai, who were working as Reporter,
-
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 603
v. L.K. TRIPATHI AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Assistant Camera Person and Senior Sub-Editor respectively
A
with Jaya T.Y. on 1.10.2007.
In his affidavit, Shri M.
Ramasubramanian has claimed that he was deputed to cover
the hunger strike organized by DMK and other allied parties
on 1.10.2007 in front of the State Guest House, Chepauk,
Chennai. He has then averred that he along with Shri
B
Ravikumar (camera person) and Shri Satish (camera assistant)
went to cover the events and that he was present at the venue
where respondent no.6 made speech and Ravikumar recorded
the speech which was in Tamil with sentences/phrases in
English. According to Ramasubramanian, speeches of c
respondent no.6, Shri D. Raja of C.P.I. and Shri K. Veeramani
of Dravida Kazhagam only were recorded and the original
tapes were handed over to Shri R. Thillai. According to Shri
S. Ravikumar, he accompanied by Shri Satish went to the venue
of the hunger strike and recorded the speeches made by three
0
persons and, thereafter, original tapes were handed over to
Shri R. Thillai. In his affidavit, Shri R. Thillai has stated that Jaya
T.V. shoots visuals on cameras using DY tapes and so far the
channel has not shifted to the digital format and whenever -
visuals are brought by the reporting team, the same are
ingested into the visual editing system called Avid and,
E
thereafter, the tapes are reused for recording other events.
Paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of the affidavit of Shri R. Thillai,
contain the following statements:
"d.
It may be noted that the original tapes on which the
F
visuals are recorded upon being ingested into the
avid system as aforesaid and after the necessary
visuals are taken, are re-used for recording other
subsequent events. In the process, the left out
visuals of a previous recording are erased since
G
new recordings are made over the same. The tapes
are re-cycled in this manner and not retained in view
of commercial and operational compulsions.
e.
Some of the original recordings are transferred on
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 6 S.C.R.
"
A
to separate DV tapes or DVDs for archival
1'-
purposes as for example, file shots of certain
important events so that they could be used for
future purposes. The news bulletins, as telecast
over the channel, are stored in the DVD format in
B
the library.
f.
That the protests organized by the DMK and its
allies on 1.10.2007 by way of the hunger strike at
...
Chennai was covered by the reporting team of Mr.
•
c
Ramasubramanian and Mr. S. Ravikumar and
Camera assistant Satish. They had handed over
to me the original tapes containing the events
recorded including the. speech made by Mr. T.R.
Baalu, Union Minister for Shipping and of certain
D
other speakers during the afternoon on 1.10.2007.
On my instructions, the news branch technicians
ingested the contents of the original tapes
containing the events covered including the speech
of Mr. T.R. Baalu, into the Avid system. From this,
I selected the portions in the speech of Mr. Baalu
E
which were most objectionable and found
appropriate to be telecast. Accordingly, the
portions were selected and telecast in the news
bulletin carried by the channel on 1.10.2007 at 7.30
.)
PM and on 2.10.2007 at 7.30 PM.
The portions
.. '
F
of the speech as telecast on the news bulletins
clearly show the speech made by Mr. T.R. Baalu
and the objectionable statements made by him, the
translations of which read as follows:
G
'~Judge is a judge till yesterday. Today there are
a/legations against him. Every day a list of
j
corruption charges are coming out from Delhi.
~
What does that mean? Is a person who was honest
till yesterday dishonest today? The nation has not
H
forgotten the fact that such people are also judges.
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM 605
•
v. L.K. TRIPATHI AND ORS. [G.S.