HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHARAO CONTEMPT CASE No.982 OF 2009 Dated 12th October, 2009. Between Vijaya Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad Re[/ by its Administrative Officer Sri T.Jagan ….Petitioner and Smt.M.Kalpana Reddy and ors. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHARAO CONTEMPT CASE No.982 OF 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. The grievance of the petitioner, in this contempt case, is that the respondents have resorted to commit criminal contempt by way of making some remarks before the electronic media against a learned Judge of this Court, degrading decency and dignity of this Court and also interfering with the judicial process. 3. We are not going into various details that have been mentioned in the affidavit, filed in support of the contempt case, inasmuch as, they are not relevant. The scope of this contempt case is only in order to know as to whether the acts on the part of the respondents amount to violation of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Acts, 1970 ( for short ‘the Act’), particularly, attracting Section 15 of the Act. 4. The factual matrix of the case, led to filing of this Contempt Case, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner is a Housing Building Society viz., Vijaya Cooperative Housing Building Housing Society Limited and the respondents are members of a welfare society and that the respondents have multi dimensional grievances in connection with the leasing out of an extent of Ac.2.00 of land to some other institution, the details of which are not relevant to the subject matter of this case. It appears, cases and counter cases were filed and the same are said to be pending before the competent civil Courts. The relief sought for and the subject matter of those cases are also not relevant to the subject matter of this contempt case. It appears, during Dasara Vacation, before a learned single Judge, who was presiding over as judge of the Vacation Court, passes some interim orders, while receiving and transmitting the matter to the competent civil Court for disposal of the matter, on merits. A Television Channel had interviewed the respondents, wherein the respondents have ventilated grievances faced by them, in their own way, as they felt proper and appropriate. One of these respondents allegedly made certain comments against the learned judge of this Court by mentioning his religion and made some other remarks to the effect that he was misled etc. Such mention of the religion of the learned Judge of this Court and also stating that he was allegedly misled amounts to criminal contempt. There are various other factors mentioned in the affidavit, but, those details, in our considered view, are not relevant and we are not delving into those facts and confine ourselves only to the limited question -- as to whether the statements made by the respondents, during the interview conducted by the Television Channel, attract the provisions of Section 15 of the Act and those remarks amount to criminal contempt. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the statements/remarks made do not amount to contempt much less criminal contempt. Those statements/remarks are made only in the course of interview, keeping in view various disputed questions of fact in the pending cases before civil Courts. He further pointed out that in order to maintain criminal contempt, it is imperative for the petitioner to obtain due consent of the learned Advocate General. Therefore, it is his contention that this contempt case ought not to have been registered by this Court at all since no such permission was obtained and the same ought to have been dismissed in limini. 6. In the above context, a further question that arises for consideration before this Court is - whether this Court, by its own motion, can take cognisance of any act or acts of the respondents into the fold of the criminal contempt, particularly in the light of Section 15 (1) of the Act. 7. Therefore, in order to ascertain -- as to whether the statements/remarks made by the respondents are grave enough to initiate action under the Act, on our own, we directed the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to press into service the compact disc (CD) said to have been obtained by him from the said TV channel. Accordingly, the compact disc had been produced before this Court and the same is said to be under the custody of the Registry of this Court. On an earlier occasion, we have witnessed the compact disc personally in our chambers. 8. In order to give opportunity to both the learned counsel, and, to have look at the contents of the compact disc, we adjourned the matter to today and in the presence of both the learned counsel, we witnessed the interview recorded by the TV channel, from which we could see that a lady member of the group, who was interviewed, stated that, during the vacation Court, a case was presented before a learned Judge belonged to a particular religion, in which orders were passed and that the petitioner had obtained orders by misleading the Court. Further, an attempt was made by the other members of the group who were interviewed and the scope of other aspects touching upon the merits of the controversy are not with reference to the proceedings pending before the Court. 9. From the above , it could be seen that the lady member of the interview group made an attempt to refer the learned Judge of this Court by religion only intending to identify that learned Judge. It appears that the lady member of the group did not know the name of the learned Judge and tried only to identify that learned Judge by his religion. 10. It is obvious that quite often the Judges of a particular religion or community, as the case may be, very few in number, and the general public may not aware of the details of the learned Judge and, therefore, a bleak attempt would be made to identify the learned Judge by his religion, who presided over the Bench in the vacation Court, and nothing more. 11. Viewed from any angle, we could not see any violation on the part of the lady member of the interview group in her statements/remarks, which amounts to lower the dignity and decency of this Court. Her intention, in our considered view, is quiet obvious, as already pointed out supra, and the same is only to identify the Court and the learned Judge presided over that particular Court. It is a known fact that the Judges of Court are not the public personalities nor there is anything for every one to know the details of the learned Judges by name, and other particulars. The only possible way for one among the lady members of the interview group was to identify that learned Judge, and, nothing more than that is apparent so as to see that the dignity and decency of this Court is degraded. 12. The same member of the interview group further stated that the learned Judge was misled. 13. It is to be seen, in this regard, that there is a clear distinction between ‘mislead’ and ‘was misled’. 14. It is obvious from the very comment that the learned Judge was misled and nothing was attributed to the learned Judge. In other words, if the Court was misled, mistake lies with the person who misled the Court. 15. The last question that arises for consideration is – whether this Contempt Case is maintainable? 16. In this regard, it is to be seen that obviously it is mandatory from the very language employed in Section 15 (2) (b) of the Act that permission of the learned Advocate General is imperative. In the present case, the learned Advocate General appears to have rejected to give his consent and the petitioner cannot maintain the criminal contempt case on that ground. 17. However, notwithstanding the rejection by the learned Advocate General, we are of the considered view that if the Court is of the view that the act or acts of any person or persons amount/s to interference with the judicial process of the Court affecting its dignity and decency, basing on the gravity of such assault, this Court can, on its own, initiate the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act, making the person/s concerned responsible for criminal contempt. 18. In other words, the jurisdiction of this Court is to adjudicate the issue on its own, as to whether a particular act or acts amount/s to criminal contempt or not, is unquestionable. 19. In order to verify whether the acts committed by the respondents and the gravity of the same would attract the jurisdiction of this Court warranting interference and to react on its own under Section 15 (1) of the Act, we have perused the compact disc furnished by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and as stated supra, we do not find any such grave circumstances calling for interference of this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section 15 (1) of the Act. 20. For the foregoing, we see no merits in this contempt case and the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the Contempt Case is dismissed in limini. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 22. it is made clear that any of the observations made herein shall not be understood as having been made on the merits of the case and that the cases pending before the competent civil Courts shall be dealt with independently, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this case. --------------------------- JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA ----------------------------- JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO DATED 12TH OCTOBER, 2009 Msnr.