IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21000 of 2009(Q) ------------------------------------- CRMP.715/2009 of SPECIAL JUDGE (COURT FOR TRIAL OF CBI CASES-I), ERNAKULAM ........................................................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.P.NANDAKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.K.DAMODARAN NAIR, CHIEF EDITOR, CRIME FORTNIGHTLY, K.M.A.BUILDING, PUTHIYARA ROAD, CALICUT-4. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.MANU TOM SRI.C.R.REKHESH SHARMA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SRI.PRAKASH KARAT, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, POLIT BUREAU MEMBER & GENERAL SECRETARY, COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST), A.K.G.BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. SRI.BUDDHADEV BHATTACHARYA, HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF WEST BENGAL, WRITERS' BUILDING, KOLKATTA. 3. SRI.MANIK SARKAR, HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF TRIPURA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, AGARTALA, TRIPURA. 4. SRI.V.S.ACHUTHANANDAN, HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SRI.KODIYERI BALAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE HOME MINISTER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SRI.PALOLI MOHAMMED KUTTY, HONBLE MINISTER FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C) NO. 21000/2009-Q -2- 7. SRI.THOMAS ISSAC, HON'BLE MINISTER FOR FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. SRI.M.A.BABY, HON'BLE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION & CULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. SMT.SREEMATHI TEACHER, HON'BLE MINISTER FOR HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. SRI.P.K.GURUDASAN, HON'BLE MINISTER FOR LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11. SRI. S.RAMACHANDRA PILLAI, MEMBER, POLIT BUREAU & CENTRAL COMMITTEE, COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST), AKG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.B.VINOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.21000 of 2009 Q -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner approached Special Judge (Court for Trial of C.B.I. Cases-1), Ernakulam by filing M.P. No.715/2009 under Section 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for initiating proceedings against twelve respondents, including the accused, facing trial. Respondents include three Chief Ministers and several Ministers of State as well as leaders of the political party. Allegation against them is that Exhibit P2 press communique issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) held on July 11 and 12, 2009 amounts to criminal contempt. Learned Special Judge, under Exhibit P3 order, dismissed the petition and refused to refer the contempt proceedings to this Court. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash Exhibit P3 order and WPC 21000/09 2 to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Special Judge to take action under Section 15 of the Act. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. Learned senior counsel, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in In re, P.C.Sen (AIR 1970 SC 1821) and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kochu Moideen v. Nambeesan (1969 KLT 513), argued that there need not be any intention on the part of the respondents to interfere with the criminal proceedings pending before the court and instead, if it tends to influence the pending proceedings, it would amount to a criminal contempt. Learned senior counsel pointed out that if the decision of the Central Committee, wherein, one of the accused had also participated, tends to influence the decision to be taken by the court, it will amount to criminal contempt and the decision of the Central Committee, published under the press communique, would, definitely, influence the witnesses in the criminal WPC 21000/09 3 case and therefore, learned Special Judge should have initiated proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Act and Exhibit P3 order is to be quashed and Special Judge is to be directed to make a reference to this Court under Section 15(2) of the Act. 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act provides that in the case of any criminal contempt of a Subordinate Court, the High court may take action on a reference made to it by the Subordinate Court or on a motion made by the Advocate General or in relation to a Union Territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. Criminal contempt is defined under clause(c) of Section 2 as publication whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandilises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court or prejudices or WPC 21000/09 4 interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. Rule 8 of Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1971 provides the procedure to be followed by the subordinate courts before making a reference under Section 15 of the Act. It provides that a subordinate court may hold such enquiry as it may deem fit into the circumstances leading to the reference. 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 enables the subordinate court to make a reference to the High Court, if it is satisfied that a criminal contempt has been committed by the respondents. The question is whether, publication of Exhibit P2 press communique scandilises or tends to scandilise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court. It is not the case that the communique scandilises or tends to scandilise the authority of WPC 21000/09 5 any court. Therefore, clause (i) has no application. Then, the question is whether Exhibit P2 prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. 5. Relevant portion of Exhibit P2 press communique with regard to the case pending before the Special Judge reads: “The Central Committee examined the report submitted by the Polit Bureau on the SNC Lavalin contract for the renovation and modernisation of three hydroelectric projects in Kerala which were entered into by the UDF Government in 1995-96 and which were subsequently implemented by the LDF Government. The Central Committee is of the view that Com. Pinarayi Vijayan, Secretary of the Kerala State Committee and the Electricity Minister in the ten LDF Government between 1996-98 was not involved in any corrupt practice whatsoever. The Central Committee reiterated that the Party will fight the case politically and legally.” WPC 21000/09 6 6. A reading of the press communique only shows that the Central Committee of an important political party considered the case faced by one of the Secretaries of a State Committee and arrived at “the view that the Secretary was not involved in any corrupt practice whatsoever.” The Central Committee reiterated that “the Party will fight the case politically and legally”. It cannot be said that a political party is not entitled to have a view on a case pending before the court. In a democratic socialistic republic, every political party has a right to hold a view on public matters. Hence, I cannot agree with the submissions that the view arrived at by the Central Committee would either influence or prejudice or interfere or tends to interfere with the due course of the case pending before the Special Judge or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. So also, the decision of the Central Committee WPC 21000/09 7 reiterating that they will fight the case politically and legally in my view will not attract a criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with Exhibit P3 order passed by the learned Special Judge. Attempt of the petitioner is only to gain personal glory by approaching this Court, which cannot be appreciated. Petition is dismissed. 27th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv