Supreme Court clarifies contempt rules & mandatory publication obligations under Commissions of Inquiry Act.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's actions did not amount to contempt of court as they did not lower the authority of the court or interfere with the due course of justice. The Court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in cases of technical contempt. Additionally, the Supreme Court clarified that the publication of allegations in the official gazette was mandatory under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. The Court distinguished between the inquiry by the Commission and the criminal revision petitions, concluding that the High Court's judgment could not be sustained. As a result, the appeal was accepted, and the rule against the appellant for contempt of court was discharged.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of Court by the appellant.
2. Publication of allegations in the official gazette.
3. Distinction between the inquiry by the Commission and the criminal revision petitions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Contempt of Court by the appellant:
The appellant was found guilty of contempt of Court by the Patna High Court for handing over the notification, including the schedule of allegations, to the press for publication while criminal revision petitions were pending. The High Court observed that this act interfered with the course of justice and prejudiced the mankind against the two applicants. However, the Supreme Court, after considering the matter, concluded that this was not a fit case for contempt of Court. The Court emphasized that the law of contempt is well-settled and includes acts or writings that bring a Court or judge into contempt, lower their authority, or interfere with the due course of justice. The Supreme Court noted that intention to cause these consequences is not necessary; it is sufficient if the act is calculated to obstruct or interfere with justice. Despite this, the Court held that in cases of technical contempt, judicial restraint and circumspection should be exercised.

2. Publication of allegations in the official gazette:
The High Court's decision was based on the assumption that there was no statutory provision requiring the allegations to be printed in the official gazette. The Supreme Court found this assumption incorrect. Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act mandates that the notification appointing a commission of inquiry must be published in the official gazette. This requirement is imperative and cannot be dispensed with. The publication serves to give publicity to the notification and provide authenticity to its contents. The Supreme Court noted that the entire notification, including the schedule of allegations, was given to the press, not just parts of it, which was in compliance with the statutory requirement.

3. Distinction between the inquiry by the Commission and the criminal revision petitions:
The subject matter of the inquiry before the Commission was whether there was misuse of official position by Shri Hasibur Rahman in directing the withdrawal of prosecution against Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey, against the recommendations of the Law Secretary and the District Magistrate. The criminal revision petitions pending in the High Court concerned whether the magistrate's order dismissing the application for withdrawal of prosecution was contrary to law. The Supreme Court held that these matters were distinct and separate. The Court referred to the case of Jagannath Rao v. State of Orissa, where it was held that the setting up of a commission of inquiry or its continuation does not amount to contempt of Court, as the scope of the trial by Courts and the inquiry by the Commission is different. The Supreme Court concluded that the judgment of the High Court could not be sustained, and thus, the appeal was accepted, and the rule against the appellant for contempt of Court was discharged.

---