Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 137 (MP)

O. P. Yadav v. Rajput Karni Sena

2018-02-02

S.K.SETH, SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. This contempt petition has been filed for the alleged disobedience of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 18.1.2018 and the order dated 23.01.2018 passed in WPS (C) No. 36/2018. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and perused the material available on record. 2. Contention of learned counsel of the applicant is that despite the orders passed by the Supreme Court, efforts are being made not to release and exhibit the picture "Padmavat" in the State of Madhya Pradesh and other States and for this purpose, he has placed reliance on various news items published in various news papers as well as in the memorandum, dated 18.1.2018. Office has raised a preliminary objection on the point of maintainability of the petition. 3. After going through the objection, in our considered opinion, this point is squarely covered by the decision reported in (2017) 2 SCC 314 : ( AIR 2017 SC 225 ) Vitusah Oberoi and others v. Court of its own Motion, wherein it has been held as under:- "The power to punish for contempt vested in a Court of record under Article 215 does not, however, extend to punishing for the contempt of a superior Court. Such a power has never been recognized as an attribute of a Court of record nor has the same been specifically conferred upon the High Courts under Article 215. A priori if the power to punish under Article 215 is limited to the contempt of High Court or Courts subordinate to the High Court, as appears to us to be the position, there was no way the High Court could justify invoking that power to punish for the contempt of a superior Court. That is particularly so when the superior Court's power to punish for its contempt has been in no uncertain terms recognized by Article 129 of the Constitution. The availability of the power under Article 129 and its plenitude is yet another reason why Article 215 could not have been intended to empower the High Court. If the Supreme Court does not, despite the availability of the power vested in it, invoke the same to punish for contempt of Supreme Court, the logic is simple. The availability of the power under Article 129 and its plenitude is yet another reason why Article 215 could not have been intended to empower the High Court. If the Supreme Court does not, despite the availability of the power vested in it, invoke the same to punish for contempt of Supreme Court, the logic is simple. If the Supreme Court does not despite availability of the power vested in it invoke the same to punish for its contempt, there is no question of a Court subordinate to the Supreme Court doing so." 4. Faced with this difficulty, learned counsel submitted that the contempt petition is maintainable under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. For ready reference, subsection (1) of Section 14, as is relevant, is reproduced herein below:- "14(1). When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall- (a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged; (b) afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge; (c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and (d) make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be just (sic). 5. We are afraid that Section 14 also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner because this power can be invoked when it is alleged or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged. 6. So far as various news items are concerned, suffice it to say, newspapers reports by themselves are not evidence for contempt. 6. So far as various news items are concerned, suffice it to say, newspapers reports by themselves are not evidence for contempt. These reports are only hearsay evidence. They have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper is well settled. (See JT 1994(1) SC 452): ( AIR 1994 SC 1733 ). In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the Contempt Petition is not maintainable, therefore, it is dismissed summarily without any notice to the other side.