No 300 of 1969
M C Chagla N A Palkhivala B Datta J B Dadachanji 0
C Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the applicants
H R Gokhale and section B Wad for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah CJ
This petition is an off shoot of the decision of this Court on the constitutional validity of the Banking Companies Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings Act being Act 22 of 1969
By a majority of ten Judges against one this 513 Court declared the Act to be unconstitutional
The decision of the Court was given on February 10 1970
On February 13 1970 a meeting was organised by the Blitz National Forum at Vithalbhai Patel 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 section R Shari Mr Kumarman glam Mr Prabhatkar Mr section M Joshi MP Mr Bhupesh Gupta MP and Mr V K Krishna Menon MP
These speakers criticised the decision Mr R K Khadilkar the Hindustan Times reported said that such decisions do not enhance the prestige of the Judiciary  that such acts on the part of the highest Court will only encourage Naxalites who have rejected constitutional means to bring about socialism  and that the judgment would be treated with more and more contempt by ordinary people 
He observed that the situation would be rectified by Parliament because ten Judges sitting in an ivory tower  could not sit over the verdict of Parliament which represented the people
The Times of India report said that Mr Khadilkar said that Government would soon bring forward an amending measure to offset the dangerous implications for social progress of the community of the Supreme Court judgment in the Bank Nationalization case that if necessary the issue whether Parliament or the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of the people s will should be referred to the people and a mandate taken from them and quoted Pandit Nehru that it was never the intention of the Constitution to make the Supreme Court the third house of correction 
The Patriot reported that attempts to utilize community savings lying in banks for the welfare of the common man have been blocked by the judiciary  that the Supreme Court could not be accepted as the third chamber of legislature  that he did not want to threaten the judiciary  but Parliament 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
On February 26 1970 two petitioners Mr Krishna Rao Kaushik MP 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 Sup
Cl70 4 514 mischief in the administration of justice and the confidence of the whole community in the administration of justice was bound to be undermined
Two affidavits sworn in support were based on the newspaper reports
As some of the alleged observations particularly those reported in the Hindustan Times prima facie exceeded the bounds of legitimate criticism a notice was issued to Mr Khadilkar to show cause why action should not be taken against him
In reply Mr Khadilkar filed an affidavit denying the main allegations
He stated in his affidavit as follows I am a firm believer in the independence of judiciary as an integral part of our democratic polity
I am in entire agreement with the sentiment expressed in para 1 of the petition viz that the dignity of the Hon ble Supreme Court must be maintained and the administration of justice should not be allowed to be undermined in this country
I have a deep faith in the social and economic objectives of our Constitution as enshrined in the Directive Principles of the Constitution and the democratic and constitutional methods of achieving them
Indeed by oath of office I am duty bound to uphold these objectives of our Constitution
 In reply to the specific charge of making statements tending to vilify the Judges and to bring the  administration of justice into hatred and contempt Mr Khadilkar denied having made the statement attributed to him by the Patriot that attempts to utilize community savings in the banks for 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
bSupreme Court judgment would be treated with more and more contempt by ordinary people
cThe judiciary had persistently failed to interpret the Constitution and remained static
dTen Judges sitting in ivory tower could not sit in judgment over verdict of Parliament which represented the people
 He asserted that he had said  no aspersions should be cast on the judiciary and event bough the decision had far reaching consequences
pointed out that the judgment was cautiously worded and the learned Judges had not challenged 515 the authority of Parliament to bring forward a measure of nationalisation
He claimed to have added No desire to cast aspersions on the judiciary and would very much like to see its prestige remained high and its image untarnished
We cannot however avoid pointing out wherein according to us the decision is erroneous primarily by reason of its consequences for attempts at social reform
 He explained what he had said by recalling his speech
It is not necessary to quote his version
He complained that the newspapers had picked out ideas but put them in their own words and that it was not always possible to contradict the newspapers
He expressed his views on the institution of property as a fundamental right to which it is not necessary to refer here
He concluded by saying I may also state that in my comments on the Bank Judgment no improper motives were attached to the Hon ble Judges
There was no malice either against the Hon ble Judges or the institution of Supreme Court the independence of which I honestly cherish
 In support of his own affidavit Mr Khadilkar exhibited affidavits from Messrs Mohan Kumarmangalam A section R Chari and section M Joshi
In these affidavits which are insissima verba support was given to the denials of Mr Khadilkar
At an earlier hearing the petitioners promised to file affidavits of reporters 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 nit 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
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 knowledge and judgment of the Judges
They do not think themselves in possession of all truth or hold that wherever others differ from then it is so far error
No one is more conscious of his limitations and fallibility than a Judge but because of his training and the assistance he gets from learned counsel he is apt to avoid mistakes more than others
5 1 6 Further the supremacy of a legislature under a written Constitution is only within what is in its power but what is within its power and what is not when any specific act is challenged it is for the courts to say
If that were realised much of the misunderstanding would be avoided and the organs of Government would function truly in their own spheres 
We are constrained to say also that while fair and temperate criticism of this Court or any other Court even if strong may be actionable attributing improper motives or tending to bring Judges or courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of which notice must and will be taken
Respect is expected not only from those to whom the judgment of the Court is acceptable but also from those to whom it is repugnant
Those who err in their criticism by
indulging in vilification of the institution of Courts administration of justice and the instruments through which the administration acts should take heed for they will act at their own peril
We think this will be enough caution to persons embarking on the path of criticism
With these words we order the papers to be filed


Summary:
At a public meeting held a few days after the decision of this Court on the constitutional validity of the Banking Companies Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings Act 22 of 1969 K a Minister in the Central Government was reported by newspaper to have made certain critical remarks which two petitioners before the Court contended constituted a serious contempt of this Court
The petitioners swore an affidavit in support of their petition based on the newspapers reports
As the Court considered that some of the alleged observations prima facie exceeded the bounds of legitimate criticism a notice to show cause was issued to K
In reply K filed an affidavit denying the main allegations and contending that he has been misreported
In support of his own affidavit three other affidavits were filed by persons present at the public meeting
Although an application was made for summoning the reporters present at the public meeting the Court did not consider it necessary to prolong the hearing of the case as on the material before the Court there was nothing to contradict the affidavits which denied the accuracy of the newspaper reports
However while closing the case the Court observed  While fair and temperate criticism of this Court or any other court even if strong may not be actionable attributing improper motives or tending to bring judges or courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing directly or indirectly the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of which notice must and will be taken
Respect is expected not only from those to whom the judgment of the Court is acceptable but also from those to whom it is repugnant
Those who err in their criticism by indulging in vilification of the institution of Courts administration of justice and the instruments through which the administration acts should take heed for they will act at their own peril
516 B