1966 (3) TMI 77 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds order on publication restraint, citing fair justice administration.

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the High Court's order restraining the publication of court proceedings. It held that the order ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to restrain publication of court proceedings.2. Violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and (g).3. Amenability of judicial orders to writ jurisdiction under Article 32.4. Inherent powers of the court to hold trials in camera or restrain publication.5. Distinction between judicial orders and administrative actions by courts.6. Scope and limitations of Article 32 in relation to judicial orders.7. Applicability of writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition to High Courts.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Restrain Publication of Court Proceedings:The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to restrain the publication of court proceedings to ensure the fair administration of justice. This power is derived from the need to prevent excessive publicity that might deter witnesses from giving truthful evidence or cause harm to the interests of justice. The court emphasized that this inherent power must be exercised with caution and only when the ends of justice clearly require such a course.2. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(a) and (g):The petitioners argued that the impugned order infringed their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to carry on any occupation). The court held that judicial orders, by their nature, do not infringe fundamental rights under Article 19(1) because they are aimed at resolving disputes and ensuring justice. The court further stated that incidental and indirect effects on fundamental rights do not constitute a violation under Article 19(1).3. Amenability of Judicial Orders to Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32:The court ruled that judicial orders of the High Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 32. It was emphasized that judicial decisions, whether right or wrong, must be challenged through the appellate process rather than through writ petitions. The court distinguished between judicial orders and administrative actions, stating that only the latter could be challenged under Article 32.4. Inherent Powers of the Court to Hold Trials in Camera or Restrain Publication:The court recognized the inherent power of the High Court to hold trials in camera or restrain the publication of proceedings to serve the ends of justice. This power is essential to protect the interests of witnesses and ensure that justice is not compromised by undue publicity. The court cited statutory provisions and past precedents to support this inherent jurisdiction.5. Distinction Between Judicial Orders and Administrative Actions by Courts:The court clarified that judicial orders, which are part of the adjudicatory process, are distinct from administrative actions by courts. While administrative actions may be subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 32, judicial orders are not, as they are aimed at resolving disputes and ensuring justice between parties.6. Scope and Limitations of Article 32 in Relation to Judicial Orders:Article 32 provides a remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but it does not extend to challenging judicial orders of the High Court. The court emphasized that Article 32 is not a substitute for the appellate process and that judicial orders must be challenged through appeals and revisions as provided by law.7. Applicability of Writs of Certiorari, Mandamus, and Prohibition to High Courts:The court held that writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition are not applicable to judicial orders of the High Court. These writs are intended to control inferior courts and tribunals, not superior courts like the High Court. The court reaffirmed that the appropriate remedy for challenging judicial orders is through the appellate process.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the impugned order of the High Court restraining the publication of court proceedings did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and (g). The court emphasized that judicial orders are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 32 and must be challenged through the appellate process. The inherent powers of the High Court to hold trials in camera or restrain publication were recognized as essential for the fair administration of justice.