# In re ASWINI KUMAR GROSE AND ANOTHER v. ARABINDA BOSE AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 215
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1952-10-30
- **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan, MuKHEHJEA. DAs, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, Bhagwati
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/in-re-aswini-kumar-grose-and-another-v-arabinda-bose-and-another-124
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Contempt of Court-Article imputing ?notives to jwlges-Gross
ran.tempt-Apology-Practice of Supreme Coitrt.
It is not the practice of the Supreme Court to issue a rule for
contempt of Court except in very grave and serious cases and it is
never over-sensitive to public criticism; but when there is danger
of grave mischief being done in the matter of administration of
justice, the animadversion will not be ignored and viewed with
placid equanimity.
A leading article in the " Times of India" on .the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Aswini K1tmar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose and
Another ( [1953] S.C.R. 1) contained the following statements: "the
fact of the· matter is that in the higher legal latitudes in Delhi the
dual system was regarded as obsolete and anomalous ......... There
is a tell-tale note at the top of the rules framed by the Supreme
Court for enrolment of advocates and agents to the effect that the
::tulm1 were subject to revision and the Judges had under consideration a proposal for abolishing the dual system ......... To achieve a
dubious or even a laudable purpose by straining the law is hardly
Bos1 J.
195!3
2i6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
1952
edifying.
Politics and policies have no place in the pure region of
the law and Courts of law would servo the country and the ConstiIn re The Editor, tution better by discarding all extraneous considerations and unPrinter and
comwomisingly observing divine detachment ......... ". In proceedPublisher of ings for contempt of Court: Held, that if the articles had merely
''The Ti1nes of preached to Courts of law a sermon of divine detachment no objec_India ".
tion could be taken, but in attributing improper motives to the
· judges, the article not only transgressed the limits of fair and
bona fide criticism but had a clear tendency to affect the dignity
and prestige of the Court and it was therefore a gross contempt of
court.
If an impression is created in the minds of the public that the
judges of the highest court in the land act on extraneous considerations in deciding cases the confidence of the whole community in
the administration of justice is bound to be undermined and no
greater mischief than that can possibly be.imagined.
[In view· of the unconditional apology tendered by the Editor,
Printer and Publisher and the undertaking given by them to give
wide publicity to their regret, the proceedings were dropped.]
·
Andrew Paul v. Attorney-General of Trinidad (A.LR. 1936
P.O. 141) referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 160 of 1952.
Contempt of Court proceedings against the Editor,
Printer and Publisher of the "Times of India"
(Daily), Bombay and Delhi, for publishing a leading
article in their paper of October 30, 1952, entitled
" A Disturbing Decision".
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (P. A.
Mehta, with him) (amicus curiae).
N. C. Chatterjee (Nur-ud-Din Ahmad and A. K,
Dutt, with him) for the contemners.
1952.
December 12. 'fhe Order of the Court was
delivered by
MAHAJAN J.-In its issue of the 30th October,
1952, the "'.I.
1imes of India", a daily newspaper publisb'ed in Bombay and New Delhi, a leading article
was published under the beading "A disturbing decision".
The burden of it was that in a singularly
oblique and infelicitous manner the Supreme Court
bad by a majority decision tolled the knell of the
much maligned dual system prevailing in the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts by holding that the
-+
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
217
right to practise in any High Court conferred on
1902
advocates of the Supreme Court, made the rules in r
-
f
·
h
H' h C
· t
· ·
d
n re The Editor
orce m t ose
1g
our s reqmrmg a vacates
P . 1
d '
appearing on the Original Side to be instructe!l. by
p;;~se;e:'~1
attorneys inapplicable to them.
The article con- "The Times of
eluded with the fol(owing passage:-
India".
" The fact of the matter appears to be that in the
Maha,ian J.
higher legal latitudes at New Delhi and elsewh~re, the
dual system is regarded as obsolete and anoJ

## Text

" -
-
/
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
215
1952
another de ten u was released by another Bench of this
Court in circumstances which, according to her, are
very similar.
We are unable to allow this as her
::::~~::
petition has already been rejected on the merits. -She
v.
/
was only allowed to appear on constitutional points. State of Bombay
We understand that in the other petition this fact
and Others.
was not brought to the notice of the Court.
'rhe application is dismissed.
Application dismissed.
Agent for the respondents: G. H. Raiadhyaksha.
,.
In re 'rHE EDITOR, PRINTER AND
PUBLISHER OF
" 'rHE TIMES OF INDIA "
and
In re ASWINI KUMAR GROSE AND ANOTHER
v.
ARABINDA BOSE AND ANOTHER.
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHEHJEA. DAs,
CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR and BHAGWATI JJ.]
Contempt of Court-Article imputing ?notives to jwlges-Gross
ran.tempt-Apology-Practice of Supreme Coitrt.
It is not the practice of the Supreme Court to issue a rule for
contempt of Court except in very grave and serious cases and it is
never over-sensitive to public criticism; but when there is danger
of grave mischief being done in the matter of administration of
justice, the animadversion will not be ignored and viewed with
placid equanimity.
A leading article in the " Times of India" on .the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Aswini K1tmar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose and
Another ( [1953] S.C.R. 1) contained the following statements: "the
fact of the· matter is that in the higher legal latitudes in Delhi the
dual system was regarded as obsolete and anomalous ......... There
is a tell-tale note at the top of the rules framed by the Supreme
Court for enrolment of advocates and agents to the effect that the
::tulm1 were subject to revision and the Judges had under consideration a proposal for abolishing the dual system ......... To achieve a
dubious or even a laudable purpose by straining the law is hardly
Bos1 J.
195!3
2i6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
1952
edifying.
Politics and policies have no place in the pure region of
the law and Courts of law would servo the country and the ConstiIn re The Editor, tution better by discarding all extraneous considerations and unPrinter and
comwomisingly observing divine detachment ......... ". In proceedPublisher of ings for contempt of Court: Held, that if the articles had merely
''The Ti1nes of preached to Courts of law a sermon of divine detachment no objec_India ".
tion could be taken, but in attributing improper motives to the
· judges, the article not only transgressed the limits of fair and
bona fide criticism but had a clear tendency to affect the dignity
and prestige of the Court and it was therefore a gross contempt of
court.
If an impression is created in the minds of the public that the
judges of the highest court in the land act on extraneous considerations in deciding cases the confidence of the whole community in
the administration of justice is bound to be undermined and no
greater mischief than that can possibly be.imagined.
[In view· of the unconditional apology tendered by the Editor,
Printer and Publisher and the undertaking given by them to give
wide publicity to their regret, the proceedings were dropped.]
·
Andrew Paul v. Attorney-General of Trinidad (A.LR. 1936
P.O. 141) referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 160 of 1952.
Contempt of Court proceedings against the Editor,
Printer and Publisher of the "Times of India"
(Daily), Bombay and Delhi, for publishing a leading
article in their paper of October 30, 1952, entitled
" A Disturbing Decision".
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (P. A.
Mehta, with him) (amicus curiae).
N. C. Chatterjee (Nur-ud-Din Ahmad and A. K,
Dutt, with him) for the contemners.
1952.
December 12. 'fhe Order of the Court was
delivered by
MAHAJAN J.-In its issue of the 30th October,
1952, the "'.I.
1imes of India", a daily newspaper publisb'ed in Bombay and New Delhi, a leading article
was published under the beading "A disturbing decision".
The burden of it was that in a singularly
oblique and infelicitous manner the Supreme Court
bad by a majority decision tolled the knell of the
much maligned dual system prevailing in the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts by holding that the
-+
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
217
right to practise in any High Court conferred on
1902
advocates of the Supreme Court, made the rules in r
-
f
·
h
H' h C
· t
· ·
d
n re The Editor
orce m t ose
1g
our s reqmrmg a vacates
P . 1
d '
appearing on the Original Side to be instructe!l. by
p;;~se;e:'~1
attorneys inapplicable to them.
The article con- "The Times of
eluded with the fol(owing passage:-
India".
" The fact of the matter appears to be that in the
Maha,ian J.
higher legal latitudes at New Delhi and elsewh~re, the
dual system is regarded as obsolete and anoJhalous.
There is a tell-tale note at the top of the rules framed
by the Supreme Court for enrolment of advocates and
agents to the effect that the rules were subject to re·
vision and the judges had under consideration a proposal for abolishing the dual system.
Abolish it by
all means if the system has outgrown its usefulness
and is found incongruous in the new setting of a
democratic Constitution. But to achieve a dubious or
even a laudable purpose by straining the law is hardly
edifying.
Politics and policies have no place in the
pure region of the law; and courts.of law would serve
the country and the Constitution better by discarding
all extraneous considerations and uncompromisingly
observing divine detachment which is the glory of
law and the guarantee of justice."
.
No objection could have been taken to the article
had it merely preached to the courts of law the
sermon of divine detachment. But when it proceeded
to attribute improper motives to the judges, it not
only transgressed the limits of fair and bona fide
criticism but had a clear tendency to affect the
dignity and prestige of this Court.
The article in
qusst~on was thus a gross contempt of court. It is
obvious that if an impression is created in the minds
of the public that the judges in the highest court in
the laud act on extraneous considerations in deciding
cases, -the confidence of the whole community in the
administration of justice is bound to be undermined
and no greater mischief than that can possibly be
imagined. It was for this reason that the rule was
issued against the respondents.
-
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953j
J95a
We are happy to find that the Editor, Printer and
I
n;-
7 Ed"t
the Publisher of the paper in their respective affin re," '°''d "t. fil d.
h
d'
h
Printer and
av1 s
e m t ese procee mgs
ave frankly stated
p,.blisher of thau they now realize that iu the offending article
"The Times of they had exceeded the limits of legitimate criticism in
India''.
that words or expressions which can be construed as
casting reflection upon the court and constituting
Mahajan J. contempt had crept into it. They have expressed
sincere regret and have tendered unreserved and unqualified apology for this first lapse of theirs. We
would like to observe that it is not the practice of
this Court to issue such rules except in very grave
and serious cases and it is never over-sensitive to
public criticism; but when there is danger of grave
mischief being done in the matter of administration
of justice, the animadversion cannot be ignored·and
viewed with placid equanimity. In this matter we
are of the same opinion as was expressed by their
Lordships of the Privy Council in Andre Paiil v.
Attorney-General of Trinidad('), where they observed
as follows:-
" 'fhe path of criticism is a public WJ1Y: the
wrong-headed are permitted to err therein; provided
that members of the public abstain from imputing
improper motives to those taking part in the administration ·of justice, and are genuinely exercising a
right of criticism and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they
are immune.
Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she
must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful
even though outspoken comments of ordinary men."
In view of the unconditional apology tendered by
the respondents and the undertaking given by them
·to gi.ve wide publicity to_ their regret, we have decided to drop further proceedings and we accept the
apology and discharge the rule without any order as
to costs.
Ritle discharged.
Agent for the contenmers: Rajiiider Narain.
(!/A.LR. 1936 P.C. 141.
•