1951 (2) TMI 26 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court Asserts Jurisdiction Over Panchayati Adalats

Sukhdeo Baiswar Versus Brij Bhushan Misra and Ors.

The court found the publication in 'Gramwasi' to be contemptuous as it prejudiced the fair trial of Sukhdeo. It clarified that the Panchayati Adalat ... - Issues Involved:1. Contempt of Court by publication.2. Jurisdiction of Panchayati Adalat under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.3. Powers of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Contempt of Court by Publication:The judgment addresses an application for contempt against the opposite parties for publishing an article that allegedly interfered with the due course of justice. The article, published in the weekly paper 'Gramwasi,' contained statements about the applicant Sukhdeo, which were deemed to prejudice the fair trial of his case pending before the Panchayati Adalat. The court found that the publication of the article was calculated to incite prejudice against Sukhdeo, thus interfering with the due course of justice. The court cited several precedents, including Rex v. Parke and Rex v. Davies, to emphasize that publications which tend to prejudice the fair trial of a case amount to contempt of court. The court held that the publication of the article in 'Gramwasi' was similar to those publications found to be contemptuous in the cited cases.2. Jurisdiction of Panchayati Adalat under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act:The court examined the jurisdiction of the Panchayati Adalat under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It was noted that Panchayati Adalats have exclusive jurisdiction to try certain criminal cases, civil suits, and cases under the Land Revenue Act. However, the court found that the Panchayati Adalat had erroneously assumed jurisdiction over the complaints against Sukhdeo under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), which pertains to public nuisance. The court clarified that not issuing receipts to tenants does not amount to committing a public nuisance and that the Panchayati Adalat had no jurisdiction to try the case under Section 290, I.P.C. The court also noted that the Panchayati Adalat could not have jurisdiction over offences punishable under Section 239 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939, as it was not mentioned among the offences within its jurisdiction.3. Powers of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution:The court discussed its powers of superintendence over subordinate courts under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was emphasized that the High Court has the authority to check the assumption or excess of jurisdiction by subordinate courts, including Panchayati Adalats. The court traced the historical development of the power of superintendence from English law and its application in India. The court concluded that Panchayati Adalats are judicially subordinate to the High Court and that the High Court has the power to ensure that they do not exceed their jurisdiction. The court also noted that the power of superintendence includes the authority to interfere with judicial orders of subordinate courts in cases of assumption or excess of jurisdiction.Conclusion:The court accepted the apologies tendered by the opposite parties and decided not to take severe action against them. The main responsibility was placed on the editor of 'Gramwasi,' who was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the fee of the Government Advocate. The court found Brij Bhushan Misra guilty of contempt of court but, in view of his apology, passed no further order against him except for the payment of costs.Judgment:The court accepted the apologies of J. N. Wilson and Kedar Nath Tiwari and canceled the notice issued against them. Brij Bhushan Misra was found guilty of contempt of court but was only ordered to pay the costs of the applicant and the Government Advocate's fee.