Criminal contempt can arise from defamatory communications that scandalise the court and undermine public confidence in justice.

A threatening or defamatory communication may amount to criminal contempt when it scandalises the court or undermines confidence in the administration of justice. The text explains that a telegram and a later criminal complaint, which repeated and amplified allegations against the Chief Justice of India, fell within criminal contempt because they attacked the dignity and authority of the court and interfered with justice administration. It also states that a plea of good faith fails unless supported by due care and attention; repeating an already determined allegation without fresh inquiry negatived bona fide belief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the telegraphic communication and the follow-up criminal complaint amounted to criminal contempt by scandalising the court and tending to interfere with the administration of justice; (ii) Whether the contemnor could avoid liability on the plea of good faith based on an alleged bona fide belief regarding the Chief Justice of India's date of birth.

Issue (i): Whether the telegraphic communication and the follow-up criminal complaint amounted to criminal contempt by scandalising the court and tending to interfere with the administration of justice.

Analysis: Criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 covers both publication and other acts which scandalise or tend to scandalise the authority of a court, prejudice judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice. The telegram contained direct commands, threats of criminal prosecution, a demand for money, and an imputation that the Chief Justice of India was a usurper. The subsequent criminal complaint repeated and amplified those allegations and made the telegram public. Such attacks were held to strike at the dignity, authority, and effective administration of justice rather than merely amounting to a private grievance.

Conclusion: Yes. The acts constituted gross criminal contempt and were punishable as contempt of court.

Issue (ii): Whether the contemnor could avoid liability on the plea of good faith based on an alleged bona fide belief regarding the Chief Justice of India's date of birth.

Analysis: Good faith, as defined by Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires due care and attention and not a mere honest or asserted belief. The contemnor had earlier raised the same age controversy, which had already been conclusively determined by constitutional authority. In those circumstances, repeating the allegation without a fresh, reasonable, and proper enquiry showed absence of due care and attention and negatived the plea of bona fide belief.

Conclusion: No. The plea of good faith failed.

Final Conclusion: The contemnor was held guilty of criminal contempt, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment, with suspension of the sentence on the terms stated by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A threatening or defamatory communication and its repetition by complaint can amount to criminal contempt when it is calculated to scandalise the court or undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, and a plea of good faith fails unless supported by due care and attention.

---