M.V. Jayarajan vs High Court Of Kerala & Anr

Author- Shivangi Sinha,  SNDT Law School

CASE DETAILS

       i)            Judgement Cause Title / Case Name

M.V.Jayarajan vs High Court Of Kerala & Anr

     ii)            Case Number

Criminal no. of 2099 of 2011

   iii)            Judgement Date

January 30, 2015

    iv)            Court

Supreme court

      v)            Quorum / Constitution of Bench

2 judges bench

    vi)            Author / Name of Judges

C. Nagappan, Vikramajit Sen

  vii)            Citation

AIRONLINE 2015 SC 100, 2015 (4) SCC 81, (2015) 148 ALLINDCAS 139, (2015) 1 ALLCRIR 817, (2015) 1 CRIMES 194, (2015) 1 CURCRIR 360, (2015) 1 JLJR 440, (2015) 1 KER LT 579, (2015) 1 RECCRIR 830, (2015) 1 SCALE 781, (2015) 2 DLT(CRL) 555, (2015) 2 PAT LJR 65, 2015 (2) SCC (CRI) 1, (2015) 60 OCR 700, (2015) 89 ALLCRIC 258

viii)            Legal Provisions Involved

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Section 12: Describes and punishes criminal contempt, which includes acts that disgrace the court or diminish its authority.

Constitution of India

Article 129: The Supreme Court has the authority to punish for contempt of itself as a court of record

Article 215: High Courts have the power to punish for contempt of their proceedings

Article 142(2): Permits the Supreme Court to issue any ruling required to ensure full justice, including the imposition of contempt penalties.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

As the pillar of democracy, the judiciary is charged with maintaining justice, defending individual liberties, and enforcing the rule of law. By discouraging behaviour that would jeopardize the legal system, contempt of court acts as an essential safeguard for these values.

Any action that shows disrespect or defiance toward the court’s authority is regarded as contempt of court. It encompasses a wide range of behaviours that may obstruct the administration of justice.

In India, the concept of court comes undersection 2 2(a) of the Contempt of Court Act,1971 which has broadly described it as civil contempt or criminal contempt.

CIVIL CONTEMPT:

Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act,1971 states civil contempt as wilful disobedience to the order, decree, direction, any judgement or writ of the court by any person or wilfully breach of undertakings by a person given to a court. Since civil contempt deprives a party of the benefit for which the order was made these are the offences essential of a private nature.

The main aim of this contempt is to enforce adherence to court orders, thereby protecting the rights of parties involved in legal proceedings.

For example: when a party fails to pay alimony as ordered by the court, they can be held under civil contempt.

 CRIMINAL CONTEMPT:

According to section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 criminal contempt is defined as the publication of any matter by words, spoken or written, or by gesture, or by signs, or by visible representation or doing of any act which includes:

  1. a) Offends or tries to offend, the authority of any court
  2. b) Biasness, or interference with any kind of judgement
  3. c) Obstructs or tries to interfere with the administration of justice in any manner.

This type of contempt is Corrective in purpose and aims to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and the administration of justice.

There are also 2 articles in the constitution of India which also talks about the contempt of court:

Article 129: It states that the Supreme Court is the “court of record” and it has all the powers of courts including the power to punish for contempt itself.

Article 142(2): this article also talks about contempt of court. It talks about how when any law is made by the parliament, the sSupreme Courthas all the power to ensure any people’s attendance, or production of any documents or has the power to give punishment to anyone for its contempt.

This also doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court can do anything against the right of personal liberty if it has the power to punish for contempt of court.

ESSENTIALS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT:

Contempt of court has certain essentials and these are as follows:

Disobedience to any type of court proceedings, order, decree etc. should be done deliberately in case of civil contempt.

Publication is the most important thing in criminal contempt and this publication can be spoken, written, or by words, or by signs.

The court shall make a valid order which should be known to the respondent

The action should be deliberate and should be in clear disregard of the court’s orders.

The interpretation of contempt legislation has changed through many major judgments by the Supreme Court and High Courts. These rulings have clarified the boundaries of permissible criticism of the judiciary and the application of contempt laws. Notable cases include:

a) In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002): The Supreme Court held that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it must be exercised with due regard to the dignity of the judiciary. The court mentioned that freedom of speech shouldn’t be misused and should not be used for contempt.

b) A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970): This decision established that the judiciary must be shielded against belittling or derogatory statements that could hinder its respect and authority, stating the necessity of striking a balance between freedom of speech and expression and judicial authority.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

In accordance with the procedural background, Following the speech, the High Court of Kerala initiated contempt proceedings against Jayarajan under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Under section 12 of the contempt of court act,1971 the high court thus sentenced him for six months of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of 2000/-

The appellant argued that his speech was in accordance with his fundamental right to free speech under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution. He also stated that his remarks were not meant to disrespect judiciary but to showcase the dissatisfaction that the public has.

Additionally, he claimed that the word subhumann” was used informally and with various meanings, without any malicious intent.

Jayarajan challenged the finding of contempt and the harshness of the punishment in his appeal of the High Court’s ruling to the Supreme Court of India.

Although it is acceptable to criticize decisions, the Supreme Court maintained the conviction, ruling that disparaging or abusive language directed at judges is tantamount to contempt.
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of thoffencese but exhibited clemency in the sentence by reducing the six-month jail term to four weeks.

Factual Background of the Case

In the factual background of the case, M.V Jayarajan vs High Court of Kerala & Anr the case arose because of a speech made by the appellant in a public meeting on 26.6.2010 at Kannur, Kerala allegedly convened in connection with a hartal organised to protest against the hike in petroleum prices.

This speech was in relation to the orders passed by another Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala on 23.6.2010 which banned the holding of meetings on public roads and road margins in the State with the object of ensuring accident-free and uninterrupted traffic along such public roads. These Orders were confirmed subsequently, a Review Petition was dismissed and the Special Leave Petition was also rejected by this Court.

A translation of this speech was published in various newspapers and while putting forward his opinions in regard to the previous judgements he stated “Unfortunately, what some idiots (fools) occupying our seat of justice say is nothing else. Speaking they make laws and they issue orders. This is not conducive to a democratic country. This is what they should correct” questioning their credibility and calling for their resignation if they had self-respect. His comments were perceived as an attack on the authority and dignity of the court.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

1)Whether Jayarajans remarks estabilished criminal contempt under section 2( c ) of the contempt of court acts.?

2)What is the correct balance between the right to free speech and the authority and dignity of the judiciary?

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that :

  • Freedom of speech: The petitioner stated that his remarks were an exercise of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
  • Judicial overreach: The judgement was claimed to have overlooked public interest and the judgement had violated fundamental rights Jayarajan criticized the judgement as exceeding the jurisdiction and relief given in the original jurisdiction.
  • Context of speech: He claimed that his speech was improvised and aimed at criticizing the court’s judgement of prohibiting public meetings on roads. He said that his words were evaluated and taken out of context. He stated that the word subhumann” was taken as idiot or fool when translated to English which in the local language meant “someone who had said or expressed something or acted in any particular way without properly considering the various aspects of a matter intensively, in all its aspects, or evaluating or taking into consideration, the likely consequences that may ensure therebyhastily and casuallyer, even if he be a person highly reputed and accepted by all as an intelligent and knowledgeable person.”

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  • The counsels for Respondent submitted that 1)contempt of The respondents argued that the speech of the appellant was disrespectful, and disgraceful towards the court and lowered its authority, constituting criminal contempt. They stated that the words were interpreted as an intentional attempt to undermine the judiciary’s dignity.
  • Nature of the remark: The court stated that the comments made by Jayarajan, such as “judgements have only the value of grass” and judges should resign if they have self-respect were disrespectful and could incite public unrest and diminish the authority of the court.
  • Precedent for Contempt: The High Court referenced earlier rulings that established the rule that, although it is acceptable to criticize court rulings, one must do so politely and without using derogatory language.
    According to the court, contempt rules are required to discourage behaviour that jeopardizes the integrity of the legal system, which must be maintained.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

According to Section 2(b), civil contempt is the deliberate disregard for any court-issued judgment, decree, order, guidance, or other procedures.
Criminal contempt is defined in Section 2(c) as any conduct or publication that undermines a court’s authority or has the potential to do so.
Section 12: Outlines the penalties for contempt, which may consist of a fine, up to six months in jail, or both.
Important provisionsabouto contempt are also provided by the Indian Constitution:
The freedom of speech and expression is protected by Article 19(1)(a), which is frequently used as a defence in contempt proceedings like Jayarajan’s.
Article 129: Recognizes the Supreme Court as a court of law and gives it the authority to penalize for contempt of itself.

Article 215: Gives High Courts the authority to punish for contempt of their proceedings.

Judicial precedents:

P.N. Duda v P. Shiv Shanker (1988): established a clear distinction between contempt and fair criticism.

Re: s Mulgaokar(1978): set guidelines for exercising contempt powers.

JUDGEMENT

  1. TheSupreme Courtt upheld the decision of the high court against Jayarajan, affirming that his speech was indeed derogatory to the court and constituted criminal contempt.
  2. The court stated that though freedom of speech is a fundamental right awarded to everyone it doesn’t extend to abusive or derogatory remarks against the judges.
  3. The Supreme Court lowered the punishment from six months to four months after taking the speech’s context into account. The ruling sought to achieve a compromise between protecting the dignity of the judiciary and defending the right to free speech. The ruling recognized the value of public discourse in a democracy while underscoring the necessity of protecting the integrity of the legal system.
  4. This case gave a clear understanding of the balance between freedom of speech and judicial authority.
  5. The ruling emphasized how important it is to preserve the legal system’s integrity. The Court emphasized the need to shield the court from derogatory statements that would undermine public faith in its capacity to carry out the rule of law.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgement serves as a reminder of the balance between free speech and maintaining respect for judicial institutions and the administration of justice. It emphasized that criticism of judgements is very much a part of freedom of speech and expression but it should be done in a way that doesn’t demean or harm the reputation of the judiciary and doesn’t result in contempt of court which can incite public unrest.

REFERENCES

Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture