TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1970 (5) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y a majority of ten Judges against one, this Court declared the Act to be unconstitutional. The decision of the Court was given on February 10, 1970. 2. On February 13, 1970 a meeting was organised by the Blitz National Forum at Vithalbhai Fatel House at Delhi. It was presided over by Mr. Mohan Kumarmanglam, an advocate of this Court. According to the news items published the next day in the Hindustan Times, the Times of India and the Patriot, a number of persons spoke about the Act and the decision of this Court upon it. Among the speakers were Mr. R. K. Khadilkar, Minister in the Ministry of Finance, Mr. A. S. R. Chad, Mr. Kumarmanglam, Mr. Prabhatkar, Mr. S. M. Joshi, M.P., Mr. Bhupesh Gupta M.P. and Mr. V. K. Krishna Menon M.P. These....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rliament would have 'to take steps to respect the feelings of the people for stabilizing democracy'. Mr. Khadilkar also wished that the judiciary would take note 'of the changing situation and helped to transform the society for the benefit of the common man.' The three reports also described what the other speakers had said at the meeting. 3. On February 26, 1970, two petitioners (Mr. Krishna Rao Kaushik M.P. and Lt. Col. H. R. Pasricha) swore an information based on the newspaper reports (with copies annexed) that a serious contempt of this Court was committed by Mr. R. K. Khadilkar inasmuch as his speech had a clear tendency to affect the dignity and prestige of this Court and there was danger of grave mischief in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the welfare of the common man had been blocked by the judiciary' and the statements attributed to him by the Hindustan Times to the effect that- (a) The majority decision in the Bank case "did not enhance the prestige of the Judiciary. (b) Supreme Court judgment would be treated with "more and more contempt by ordinary people. (c) The judiciary had persistently failed to interpret the Constitution and remained static. (d) Ten Judges sitting in ivory tower could not sit in judgment over verdict of Parliament which represented the people. 6. He asserted that he had said : ... no aspersions should be cast on the judiciary and even though the decision had far-reaching consequences. I pointe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... etc. present at the meeting. At the resumed hearing no affidavits were filed on the ground that the journalists following their code of conduct did not wish to file any material unasked and request was, therefore, made to summon them in the interest of justice. We did not think it necessary to prolong the hearing of the case as on the material before us there was nothing to contradict the affidavits which deny the accuracy of the newspaper reports. We accordingly closed the case for orders. 11. There is no doubt that the Court like any other institution does not enjoy immunity from fair criticism. This Court does not claim to be always right although it does not spare any effort to be right according to the best of the ability, knowledg....