iminal Appeal No 56 of 1968
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 9 1968 of the Kerala High Court in OP No 5032 of 1967 Contempt
699 Y KKrishna Menon D P Singh N Nettar and Y J Francis for the appellant
A Y V Nair for the respondent
M R K Pillai for the intervener
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah C J
Mr E M section Naniboodiripad
former Chief Minister of Kerala has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence of Rs 1000 fine or simple imprisonment for one month by the High Court of Kerala for contempt of Courti Judgment February 9 1968 was by majority Mr justice Raman Nair now Chief Justice and Mr justice Krishamoorthy lyer formed the majority
Mr Justice Mathew dissented
The case has been certified by them as fit for appeal to this Court under article 1 3 4  1  c of the Constitution
The conviction is based on certain utterances of the appellant when he was Chief Minister at a Press Conference held by him at Trivandrum on November 9 1967
The report of the Press Conference was published the following day in some Indian newspapers
The proceedings were commenced in the High Court on the sworn information of an Advocate of the High Court based mainly on the report in the lndian Express
The appellant showed cause against the notice sent to him and in an elaborate affidavit stated that the report was substantially correct though it was incomplete in some respects  The offending parts of the Press Conference will be referred to in this judgment but we may begin by reading it as a whole
This is what was reported  Marx and Engels considered the judiciary as an instrument of oppression and even today when the State set up his sic not undergone any change it continues to be so Mr Nambudiripad told a news conference this morning
He further said that Judges are guided and dominated by class hatred class interests and class prejudices and where the evidence is balanced between a well dressed pot bellied rich man and a poor ill dressed and illiterate person the judge instinctively favors the former the Chief Minister alleged
The Chief Minister said that election of Judges would be a better arrangement but unless the basic state set up is changed it could not solve the problem
700 Referring to the Constitution the Chief Minister said the oath he had taken was limited only to see that the constitutional provisions are practiced I have not taken any oath  the Chief Minister said that every word and every clause in the Constitution is sacred
Before that he had also taken an oath Mr Nambudiripad said holding aloft a copy of the Marxist party s programme and read out extracts from it to say that the oath had always held that nothing much could be done under the limitations of the Constitution
Raising this subject of Constitution and judiciary suo motu at the fag end of his Dews conference the Chief Minister said so many reports have appeared in the press that Marxists like himself Mr A K Gopalan and Mr Imbichi Baba Transport Minister were making statements critical of the judiciary presumably with the idea that anything spoken about the court is contempt of court
His party had always taken the view the  Chief Minister said that judiciary is part of the class rule of the ruling classes
And there are limits to the sanctity of the judiciary
The judiciary is weighted against  workers peasants and other sections of the working classes and the law and the system of judiciary essentially serve the exploiting classes
Even where the judiciary is separated from the executive it is still subject to the influence and pressure of the executive
To say this is not wrong
The judiciary he argued was only an institution like the President or Parliament or the Public Service Commission
Even the President is subject to impeachment
After all sovereignty rested not with any one of them but with the people
Even with regard to Judges confidential records are being kept why  The judge is subject to his own idiosyncrasies and prejudices
We hold the view that they are guided by individual idiosyncrasies guided and dominated by class interests class hatred and class prejudices
In these conditions we have not pledged ourselves not to criticise the judiciary or even individual judgments
 This did not mean he explained that they could challenge the integrity of the individual judge or cast reflections on individual judgments the Chief Minister contended
He did not subscribe to the view that it was an aspersion on integrity when he said that judges are guided 701 and dominated by class hatred and class prejudices
The High Court and the Supreme Court can haul me up if they want he said
The affidavit Which he filed later in the High Court explained his observations at the press conference supplied some omissions and pleaded want of intention to show disrespect and justification on the ground that the offence charged could not be held to be committed in view of guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution
He stated that his observations at the press conference did no more than give expression to the Marxist philosophy and what
was contained in Chapter 5 of the Programme of the Communist Party of India Marxist adopted in November 1964
His pleas in defence were accepted by Justice Mathew who found nothing objectionable which could be termed contempt Of court
The other two learned Judges took the opposite view
Judgment was entered on the  basis of the majority view
In explaining his press conference the appellant added that it did not offend the majesty of law undermine the dignity of courts  or obstruct the administration of justice
Nor did it have any such tendency
He claimed that it contained a fair criticism of the system of judicial administration in an effort to make it conform to the peoples  objective of a democratic and egalitarian society based on socialism
He considered that it was not only his right but also his duty to educate public opinion
He claimed that the statement read as a whole amounted to a fair and reasonable criticism of the present judicial system in our country hat it was not intended to be a criticism of any Particular judge
his judgment or his conduct and that it could not be construed as contempt of court
He added that he had always enforced the judgments of the courts and shown respect to the judiciary and had advocated the independence of the judiciary and decried all attempt to make encroachments upon it
Criticism of the judiciary according to him was his right and it was being exercised by other parties in India
He denied that it was for the courts to
tell the people what the law was and asserted that the voice of the Legislatures should be supreme
He however found is party at variance with the other parties in that according to he political ideology of his party the State including all the three limbs the Legislature the Executive and the Judiciary was the instrument of the dominant class or classes so long as society was divided into exploiting and exploited classes and parliamentary democracy was an organ of class oppression
He concluded that his approach to the judiciary was  a the verdicts of the courts must be respected and enforced 702 b no aspersions should be cast on individual judges or judgments by attributing motives to judges c criticism of the judicial system or of judges going against the spirit of legislation should be permissible and d education of the people that the State including the judiciary was an instrument of exploitation of the majority by the ruling and exploiting classes was legitimate
These principles he submitted were not transgressed by him and also summed up his observations and the press conference
The law of contempt stems from the right of the courts to punish by imprisonment or fines persons guilty of words or acts which either obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice
This right is exercised in India by all courts when contempt is committed in facie curaie and by the superior courts on their own behalf or on behalf of courts subordinate to them even if committed outside the courts
Formerly it was regarded as inherent in the powers of a Court of Record and now by the Constitution of India it is a part of the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Courts
There are many kinds of contempts
The chief forms of contempt are insult to judges attacks upon them comment on pending proceedings with a tendency to prejudice fair trial obstruction to officers of courts witnesses or the parties abusing the process of the court breach of duty by officers connected with the court and scandalising the judges or the courts
The last form occurs generally speaking when the conduct of a person tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard
In this conduct are included all acts which bring the court into disrepute or disrespect or which offend its dignity affront its majesty or challenge its authority
Such contempt may be committed in respect of a single judge or a single court but may in certain circumstances be committed in respect of the whole of the judiciary or judicial system
The question is whether in the circumstances of this case the offence was committed
In arguing the case of the appellant Mr V K Krishna Menon contended that the law of contempt must be read without en croaching upon the guaranteed freedom of speech and expression in article 1 9  I  a of the Constitution that the intention of the contemner in making his statement at the press conference should be examined in the light of his political views as he was at liberty to put them before the people and lastly the harm done to the 703 courts by his statements must be apparent
He admitted that it might be possible to say that the speech constituted contempt of court but submitted that it would be inexpedient to do so
He stated further that the species of contempt called scandalising the court had fallen in desuetude and was no longer enforced in England and relied upon Mcleod vs St Aubyn1
He further submitted that the freedom Of speech and expression gave immu nity to the appellant as all he did was to give expression to the teachings of Marx Engels and Lenin
Lastly he contended that a general remark regarding courts in general did not constitute contempt of court and relied upon The Government Pleader High Court Bombay v Tulsidas Subhanrao Jadhav 2  and the observations of Lord Denning M R in R vs Metropolitan Police Commissioner3
It is no doubt true that Lord Morris in at p 561 observed that the contempt of court known from the days of the Star Chamber as Scandalum Justiciae Curiae or scandalising the judges had fallen into disuse in England
But as pointed out by Lord Atkin in Andre Paul Terence Ambard vs The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago 4 the observations of Lord Morris were disproved within a year in The Queen vs Gray5
Since then many convictions have taken place in which offence was held to be committed when the act constituted scandalising a judge
We may dispose of the Bombay case above cited
The con temner in that case had expressed contempt for all courts
Beaumonth C J Wasoodew J concurring held that it was not a case in which action should be taken
The case did not lay down that there could never be contempt of court even though the court attacked was not one but all the courts together
All it said was that action should not be taken in such a case
if the Chief Justice intended laying down the broad proposition contended for we must overrule his dictum as an incorrect statement of law
But we think that the Chief Justice did not say anything like that
He was also influenced by the unconditional apology and therefore discharged the rule
Another case cited in this connection may be considered here
In Criminal Appeal No 110 of 1960 In Re Basuddeo Prasad Advocate Patna High Court decided on May 3 1962 the offending statement was that many lawyers without practice  get appointed as judges of the High Courts
The remark was held by this Court not to constitute contempt of court
The remark was made after the report of the law Commission was pub 1 3 2 ILR 4 AIR 1936 PC 141 at 143
5 at 40
704 lished and this Court held that the person concerned who was then the Secretary of the Indian Council of Public Affairs and an advocate was entitled to comment on the choice of judges and that the remarks were within the proper limits of public criticism on a question on which there might be differences of opinion
In our judgment that case furnishes no parallel to the case we have here
Each case must be examined on its own facts and the decision must be reached in the context of what was done or said
The appellant has contended before us that the law of con tempt should be so applied that the freedom of speech and expression are not whittled down
This is true
The spirit underlying article 19 1 a must have due play but we cannot overlook the provisions of the second clause of the article
While it is intended that there should be freedom of speech and expression it is also intended that in the
exercise of the right contempt of court shall not be committed
The words of the second clause are Nothing in sub clause a of clause 1 shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the state from making any law in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of t he right conferred by the sub clause  in relation to contempt of court defamation or incitement to an offence These provisions are to be read with articles 129 and 215 which specially confer on this Court and the High Courts the power to punish for contempt of themselves
Article 191 a guarantees complete freedom of speech and expression but it also makes an exception in respect of contempt of court
The guaranteed right on which the functioning of our democracy rests is intended to give protection to expression of free opinions to change political and social conditions and to advance human knowledge
While the right is essential to a free society the Constitution has itself imposed restrictions in relation to contempt of court and it cannot therefore be said that the right abolishes the law of contempt
or that attacks upon judges and courts will be condoned
Mr V K Krishna Menon read to us observations from Samuel Roth vs United States of America  Arthur Terminiello vs City of Chicago 2 Charlotte Anita Whitney vs People of the State of California  and New York Times Company vs L B sunivan 4  on the high toned objective in guaranteeing freedom of speech
We agree with the observations and can only say that 2 93 LM Ed 1131 at 1134
1 1 L Ed2d 1489 it 1506
3 71 L ed
4 II L ed
705 reedom of speech and expression will always prevail except where contempt is manifest mischievous or substantial
The question always is on which side of the line the case falls
The Observations of this Court in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar4 in connection with sedition do not lend any assistance because the topic there discussed was different
Freedom of speech goes far but not far enough to condone a case of real contempt of court
We shall therefore see whether there was any justification for the appellant which gives him the benefit of the guaranteed right
The appellant has maintained that his philosophy is based upon that of Marx and Engels
Indeed he claims to be descended from the last philosophe and seeks to educate the exploited peoples on the reality behind class oppression
As a Marxist Leninist he advocates the radical and revolutionary transformation of the State from the coercive instrument of exploiting classes to an instrument which the exploited majority can use against these classes
In this transformation he wishes to make the state wither away and with the state its organs namely the Legislature the Executive and the Judiciary also to change
He has justified the press conference as an exposition of his ideology and claims protection of the first clause of article 191 which guarantees freedom of speech and expression
The law of contempt he says cannot be used to deprive him of his rights
All this is general but the appellant attacked the judiciary directly as an instrument of oppression and the judges as dominated by class hatred class interests and class prejudices instinctively favoring the rich against the poor He said that as part of the ruling classes the judiciary works against workers peasants and other sections of the working classes and the law and the system of judiciary essentially serve the exploiting classes
Even these statements he claims are the teachings of Marx Engels and Lenin whose follower he is
This was also the submission of his counsel to us
The appellant is only partly right
He and his counsel may be said to have distorted the approach of Marx Engels and Lenin and we proceed to explain how Marx believed man s inherent rationalism and virtue and depended upon them to create a better society where there would be no injustice and oppression and everyone would be able to share the fruits of man s labour and genius
attacked all forms of social evils
Hence his sympathy for the neglected and the injured and insulted  laboring masses
Marx was neither first nor alone in this
Before him the Judeo Christians demanded social justice Others who preached social 1 1962 2 Supp
SCR769 706 equality and denounced social injustice were the Utopian Socialists and the Christian Socialists
They had all pointed out inequalities of civilization based on urban industrial development
We had thus Auguste Comte s Cours de philosophie positive Feuerbach s History of New Philosophy and the writings of Hegel
Marx s contribution was to create a scientific and ethical approach to the problem of inequality
He adopted the Hegelian dialectical form to explain how the capitalist society had arisen and showed how it would meet its fall
His view was that it nursed within itself the germ of its own destruction
In his classic book Das Kapital he disclosed the clues for the transition from capitalism to socialism
His labour theory was that the capitalist did not give to labour a due share from the value of the goods produced by labour because of the iron law of wages and this left the surplus labour value thereby saved in the hands of the capitalist
In this way the capitalist became an exploiter who grew rich on the exploited labour surplus and could indulge in what he called capitalist luxuries 
The introduction of machinery further cut down labour value and increased unemployment leading to reduction of wages
In this way the means of production passed into the hands of a few
Marx saw that this led to tensions which Marx thought would ultimately destroy the capitalist system
He saw the Revolution drawing nearer which would destroy classes  and the exploitation of man by man Mere was in his view one obstruction to the triumph of the working classes and that was government established by the capitalists who could frame laws to enforce the differences
From this stemmed his hostility to the state its government and its laws
The Communist Manifesto which spoke of class struggle particularly between the bourgeoisie and the proletarians gave a history of the domination of the ruling classes converting everyone not belonging to itself into paid wage laborers
He said that these reactonaries were gearing all production to their own benefit and power
Describing the communists in this context the Manifesto said that they had no separate interests but represented the proletariat as a whole irrespective of nationalities and that the class struggle was universal
The communists were to settle the lines of action and their aim was abolition of property not property of the common man but the bourgeois property of the capitalist created by surplus from wage labour and resulting in accumulation of capital in the hands of the capitalist
According to the communists this capital became not a personal but social power and the fight visualised in the Manifesto was the termination of its class character
Wage labour would thus leave no surplus nor would it lead to accumulation of more wage labour yielding still greater surplus but the gains of 707 production would go to enrich labour in the communist society
Freedom according to the Manifestonever meant the abolition property in to but the abolition of the bourgeois individuality
hat was done away with was not property but the means of subjugating labour of others to one s own use
This in short is the communist thesis of social equality as one gathers from the Manifesto
Next follow the steps for achieving the betterment of what Saint Simon described as the largest and poorest class
Engels in his Analysis of Socialism explained the different types but we are hot concerned with them here
The radicals  appeal followed the forces of reaction released in the 1880s by Tzar Alexander 111
The Populists of Plekhanov were routed and driven out
Then in 1890s the young intellectuals took up the cause of socialism and Marxism provided the answer where the moderation and escapism of the Populists had failed
The former was based on a scientific approach while Populism was empiric and tended to make Russia as Bulgakov wrote a peasant and crude country 
The Populists based themselves on the Peasant Communes
The rise of Vladimir Lenin at this time determined the future of Marxism and his classic the State and Revolution appears to be in the mind of the appellant when he made his pronouncements
We are doubtful if he has fully appreciated the literature if he has read it
Lenin s teachings on the State had removed the distortions of Marxism from the minds of the people
He quoted long extracts from Marx and Engels to establish his points
Lenin first took up Engel s Origin of the Family Private Property and the State
The State according to Engels was not the image and reality of Reason as Hegel had maintained before
It was the product of society a power standing above society like the Leviathan of Hobbes
According to Lenin the State was the product and manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonism
The State emerged when class antagonisms could not objectively be reconciled
The distortion which had crept into Marxism was that the State was regarded as an organ for the reconciliation of the classes
Lenin reinterpreted Marx and according to him the State could neither arise nor maintain itself if it were possible to reconcile classes
Marx had thought of the State as an organ of class rule and an organ of oppression
The views of the Menshiviks and other Socialist revolutionaries were exactly the converse
The disputes which have arisen in our country over the inviolability of property as a fundamental right have the same foundations
One side views that the chapter on Fundamental Rights reconciles through itself the basic and fundamental class antagonisms and the state is no longer required to play any part
The other side would give to one of the organs of the state namely 708 the legislature a continual power of readjustment through laws and amendments of the Constitution
Both views do not accord with the Communist Manifesto and hence the distrust of the Constitution by the communists disclosed by the appellant
Lenin however though that the State degenerated into an instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed classes  and wielded special public powers to tax and maintain armies
Engels thought that this made the State stand above society and the officers of the State were specially protected as they had the protection of the laws
From this sprung his hostility to the State
Engels summed it up thus The State is by no means a power forced on society from without Neither as little is it the reality of the ethical idea  the image and reality of reason  as Hegel maintains
The state is a product of society at certain stage of development it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself that it is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel
But in order that these antagonisms classes with conflicting economic might not consume themselves and society in sterile struggle a power seemingly standing above society becomes necessary for the purpose of moderating the conflict of keeping it within the bounds of order 
And this power arisen out of society but placing itself above it and increasingly alienating itself from it is the state Lenin resumed this thought further thus  This expresses with perfect clarity the basic idea of Marxism on the question of the historical role and meaning of the state
The State is the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms
The state arises when where and to the extent that class antagonisms objectively cannot be reconciled
And conversely the exis tence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable Having viewed the state in this way these writers from Marx to Lenin viewed it as the instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed classes
The Paris Commune of 1871 had stated its conclusions how the state gets above society but it was blurred in a reactionary manner later by Kautsky in 1912
Lenin cleared the misconception in an exposition of Engel s philosophy   As the state arose from the need to hold class same antagonisms in check but as it arose at the time in the midst of the conflict of these classes it is as a 709 rule the state of the most powerful economically dominant class which through the medium of the state
becomes also the politically dominant class and thus acquires means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed classes  the modern representative state is an instrument of exploitation of wage labour by capital
 Engels added further In a democratic republic wealth exercises its power indirectly but all the more surely first by means of the direct corruption of officials  and second by means of an alliance between the Government and Stock Exchange Lenin gave the example that at the present time imperia lism and the domination of the banks have developed  both these methods of upholding and giving effect to the omnipotence of wealth in democratic republics of all descriptions into an unusually fine art
He concluded that a democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism and that it establishes its power so securely so firmly that no change whether of persons of institutions or of parties in the bourgeois democratic republic can shake it
Therefore Marx Engels and Lenin thought in terms of withering away of the state 
Although Lenin thought that Engel s doctrines were an adulteration of Marxism he was not right
Marx himself believed this
In his Poverty of Philosophy Marx says  
The working class in the course of development will substitute for the old bourgeois society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism and there will be no more political power properly so called since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in bourgeois society
 Marx and Engels in the Manifesto had considered the true state to be the proletariat organised as the ruling class 
It was the Kautskyites the Dictatorship of the Proletariat who misunderstanding the doctrines of Marx taught that the proletariat needed the state
According to Marx the proletariat needed a state which must wither away leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat
In this fight for power the Communist Manifesto gave a purely abstract solution
It was substitution of the commune for the bourgeois state machinery and a fuller democracy
The Army 710 was to be replaced by armed people the officials were to be elected and also the judges
The Commune was not to be a talking parliament  but a working  body 
It was to be the executive and the legislature at the same time
The principles were formulated by Engels thus The necessity of political action by the proletariat and of its dictatorship as the transition to the abolition of classes and with them the state   
The thesis on the withering away of the state was to be accompanied by a restatement of the functions of the law
Law made by the bourgeois rulers was castigated as involving class supremacy
The Hegelian doctrine of the apotheosis of Reason was replaced by the invocation of economic necessity as the only foundation for laws
The laws which preserved privileges were to go laws which kept the power of the bourgeois above the people were to go only laws creating equality and preserving society from internal decay and disruption to be tolerated
In all the writings there is no direct attack on the judiciary selected as the target of people s wrath
Nor are the judges condemned personally
Engels regarded the courts as one of the means adopted by the law for effectuating itself
It was thus that he wrote The centralised state power with its ubiquitus organs standing army police bureaucracy clergy and judicature organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labour originates from the days of absolute monarchy serving nascent middle class society as mightly weapons in its struggles against feudalism
This is not a castigation of the judiciary as being dishonestly ranged against the people but only a recital of a historic fact in feudal societies
He only said that the judicial functionaries must be divested of sham independence  which marked their subservience to succeeding governments and therefore be elected
In one of his letters to the Spanish Federal Council of the International Workingmen s Association London February 13 1871 he talked of the power of the possessing classes the landed aristocracy and the bourgeoisie and said that they kept the working people in servitude not only by their wealth got by the exploitation of labour but also by the power of the state by the army
the bureaucracy and the courts
He was not charging the judiciary with taking sides but only as an evil adjunct of the administration of class legislation
The fault was with the state 711 and the laws and not with the judiciary
Indeed in no writing which we have seen or which has been brought to our notice Marx or Engels has said what the appellant quotes them as saying
We have summarized into a very small compass many thousands of words in which these doctrines have been debated from Plekhanov to Lenin through the thoughts of Kautsky Kerensky Lasalle Belinsky and others who attempted a middle line between the revisionism of Bernstein and the Bolshevik views of Lenin
We have done so because Mr V K Krishna Menon sneared that many people learn about communism through Middleton Murray It will be noticed that in all these writings there is not that mention of judges which the appellant has made
Either he does not know or has deliberately distorted the writings of Marx Engels and Lenin for his own purpose
We do not know which will be the more charitable view to take
Marx and Engels knew that the administration of justice must change with laws and changes in society there was thus no need to castigate the judges as such beyond saying that the judicial system is the prop of the state
The courts in India are not sui generis
They owe their existence from powers and jurisdictions to the Constitution and the laws
The Constitution is the supreme law and the other laws are made by Parliament
It is they that give the courts their obligatory duties one such being the settlement of disputes in which the state by which we mean those in authority are ranged against citizens
Again they decide disputes in which class interests are apparent
The action of the courts when exercised against the state proves irksome to the state and equally when it is between two classes to the class which loses
It is not easily realized that one of the main functions of courts under Constitution is to declare actions repugnant to the Constitution or the laws as the case may be to be invalid
The courts as well as all the other organs and institutions are equally bound by the Constitution and the laws
Although the courts in such cases imply the widest powers in the other jurisdictions and also give credit where it belongs they cannot always decide either in favour of the state or any particular class
There are innumerable cases in which the decisions have gone against what may be described in the language of communism as the exploiting classes
For those who think that the laws are defective the path of reform is open but in a democracy such as ours to weaken the judiciary is to weaken democracy itself
Where the law is silent the courts have discretion
The existence of law containing its 712 own guiding principles reduces the discretion of courts to a minimum
The courts must do their duty according to their own understanding of the laws and the obligations of the Constitution
They cannot take their cue from sentiments of politicians nor even indirectly give support to something which they consider to be wrong against the Constitution and the laws
The good faith of the judges is the firm bed rock on which any system of administration securely rests and attempt to shake the people s confidence in the courts is to strike at the very root of our system of democracy
The oft quoted anger of the Executive in the United States at the time of the New Deal and the threat to the Supreme Court which the United States had the good sense not be pursue should really point the other way and it should be noted that today the security of the United States rests upon its dependence on Constitution for nearly 200 years and that is mainly due to the Supreme Court
The question thus in this case is whether the appellant has said anything which brings him out of the protection of article 19 I a and exposes him to a charge of contempt of court
It is obvious that the appellant has misguided himself about the true
teachings of Marx Engels and Lenin
He has misunderstood the attack by them On state and the laws as involving an attack on the judiciary
No doubt the courts while upholding the laws and enforcing them do give support to the state but they do not do so out of any impure motives
They do not range themselves on the side of the exploiting classes and indeed resist them when the law does not warrant an encroachment
To charge the judiciary as an instrument of oppression the judge as guided and dominated by class hatred class interests and class prejudices in stinctively favoring the rich against the poor is to draw a very distorted and poor picture of the judiciary
It is clear that it is an attack upon judges
which is calculated to raise in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with and distrust of all judicial decisions
It weakens the authority of law and law courts
Mr V K Krishna Menon tried to support the action of the appellant by saying that judges are products of their environment and reflect the influences upon them of the society in which they move
He contended that these subtle influences enter into decision making and drew our attention to the writings of Prof Laski Justice Cordozo Holmes and others where the subtle influences of one s upbringing are described
This is only to say that judges are as human as others
But judges do not consciously take a view against the conscience or their oaths
What the appellant wishes to say is that they do
In this he has been guilty of a great calumny
We do not find it necessary to refer to these 713 writings because in our judgment they do not afford any justification for the contempt which has patently been committed
We agree with Justice Raman Nair that some of them have the exaggerations of the confessional
Others come from persons like the appellant who have no faith in institutions hallowed by age and respected by the people
Mr V K Krishna Menon exhorted us to give consideration to the purpose for which the statement was made the position of the appellant as the head of a State his sacrifices his background and his integrity
On the other hand we cannot ignore the occasion a press conference the belief of the people in his word as a Chief Minister and the ready ear which many in party and outside would to him
The mischief that his words would cause need not be assessed to find him guilty
The law punishes not only acts which do in fact interfere with the courts and administration of justice but also those which have that tendency that is to say axe likely to produce a particular result
Judged from the angle of courts and administration of justice there is not a semblance of doubt in our minds that the appellant was guilty on contempt of court
Whether he misunderstood the teachings to Marx and Engels or deliberately distorted them is not to much purpose
The likely effect of his words must be seen and they have clearly the effect of lowering the prestige of judges and courts in the eyes of the people
That he did not intend any such result may be a matter for consideration in the sentence to be imposed on him but cannot serve as a justification
We uphold the conviction
As regards sentence we think that it was hardly necessary to impose heavy sentence
The ends of justice in this case are amply served by exposing the appellant s ignorance about the true teachings of Marx and Engels behind whom he shelters and by sentencing him to a nominal fine
We accordingly reduce the sentence of fine to Rs 50 
In default of payment of fine he will undergo simple imprisonment for one week
With this modification the appeal will be dismissed


Summary:
The appellant who was the Chief Minister of Kerala at the time
 at  a press conference held by him on November 9 1967 made various critical remarks relating to the judiciary referring to it inter alia as an instrument of oppression and the Judges as dominated by class hatred class prejudices instinctively favoring the rich against the poor
He also stated that as part of the ruling classes the judiciary works against workers peasants and other sections of the working classes and the law and the system of judiciary essentially served the exploiting classes
These remarks were reported in the newspapers and thereafter in proceedings commenced  in the High Court the appellant was called upon to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt
In an affidavit in reply the appellant stated that the reports were substantially correct though incomplete in some respects
He supplied some omissions and pleaded want of intention to show disrespect to the judiciary and justification on the ground that the offence charged could not be held to be committed in view of the guarantees of freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution
He claimed that his observations did no more than give expression to the Marxist philosophy and what was contained in the programme of the Communist Party of India
By a majority judgement the appellant was convicted for contempt of court and fined Rs 1000 or simple imprisonment for one month
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the law of contempt must be read without encroaching upon the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression in Article 191a  and that the intention of the appellant in making his remarks at the press conference should be examined in the light of his political views which he was at liberty to put before the people he sought to justify the remarks as an exposition of his ideology which he claimed was based on the teachings of Marx and Engels and on this ground claimed protection of The first clause of article 191
HELD  Upholding the appellant s conviction The law punishes not only act which do not fact interfere with the courts and administration of justice but also those which have that tendency that is to say are likely to produce a particular result
 Judged from the angle of courts and administration of justice there was no doubt that the appellant was guilty of contempt of court
Whether he misunderstood the teachings of Marx and Engels or deliberately distorted them was not to much purpose
The likely effect of his words must be seen and they clearly had the effect of lowering the prestige of judges and courts 698 in the eyes of the people
That he did not intend any such result may be a matter for consideration in the sentence to he imposed on him but could not serve as a justification
It was obvious that the appellant had misguided himself about the true teachings of Marx Engles and Lenin
He had misunderstood the attack by them on state and the laws as involving an attack on the judiciary
No doubt the courts while upholding the laws and enforcing them do give support to the state but they do not do so out of any impure motives
They do not range themselves on the side of the exploiting classes and indeed resist them when the law doe
not warrant an encroachment
To charge the judiciary as an instrument of oppression the judges as guided and dominated by class hatred class interests and class prejudices instinctively favoring the rich against the poor is to draw a very distorted and poor picture of the judiciary
It was clear that the appellant bore an attack upon judges which was calculated to raise in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with and distrust of all judicial decisions
It weakened the authority of law and law courts
712 E While the spirit underlying Art 191a must have due play the Court could not overlook the provisions of the second clause of that Article
Its provisions are to be read with articles 129 and 215 which specially confer on this Court and the High Courts the power to punish for contempt of themselves
Although article 191a guarantees complete freedom of speech and expression it also makes an exception in respect of contempt of court
While the right is essential to a free society the Constitution has itself imposed restrictions in relation to contempt of court and it cannot therefore be said that the right abolishes the law of contempt or that attacks upon judges and courts will be condoned
704 C Samuel Roth vs United States of America I LEd2d 1489 at 1506 Arthur Terminiello vs City of Chicago
 at 1134 Charlotte Anita Whitney vs People of the State of California   New York Times Company vs L B Sulivan 686 and Kedar  Nath Singh vs State of Bihar 1962 2 Supp
SCR 769 referred to
While it is true that Lord Morris in Mcleod vs St Aubyn at p 561 observed that the contempt of court known from the days of the Star Chamber as Scandalum Justiciae Curiae or scandalising the Judges had fallen into disuse in England as pointed out by Lord Atkin in Andre Paul Terence Ambard vs The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago AIR 1936 PC 141 at 143 the observations of Lord Morris were disproved within a year in The Queen vs Gray
at 40
Since then many convictions had taken place in which offence was held to be committed when the act constituted scandalizing a Judge703 D The Government Pleader High Court Bombay vs Tulsidas Subhanrao Jadhav ILR  explained
In re  Basudeo Prasad Cr Appeal No 110 of 1960 decided on May 3 1962 distinguished