STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC.
Headnote
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 3 — Contempt of Court — Suo moto notice — Issuance of — Statement of facts appearing in Press report — Proof of — Necessity for. Held: (i) A statement of fact contained in a newspaper report is merely hearsay and inadmissible in evidence in the absence of proof by evidence aliunde. The presumption of genuineness attached to a newspaper report under Section 81 of the Evidence Act cannot be treated as proof of the facts reported therein. (ii) The absence of a denial by the alleged contemner does not absolve the applicant from the obligation of proving the statement of facts as they appeared in the press report. (iii) In the absence of the required legal proof, the Court is not justified in issuing a suo moto notice for contempt of court. (iv) Where the alleged statement was made after the proceedings had been quashed by the High Court and no stay was granted by the Supreme Court, and the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings, the petition for initiating contempt is not maintainable.
Issue
(1) Whether the Court should issue a suo moto notice for criminal contempt based on a press report attributing certain statements to the respondent, in the absence of proof of the facts stated therein? (2) Whether the contempt petition is maintainable when the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings and when the alleged statement was made after the High Court had quashed the proceedings and no stay was granted by the Supreme Court?
Facts
Shri S.A. Khan, a DIG of Police in Haryana, filed Contempt Petition No. 7 of 1989 requesting the Supreme Court to initiate suo moto proceedings for criminal contempt against Ch. Bhajan Lal, a former Union Minister and later Chief Minister. The petition was based on a press report in the Indian Express dated 30 July 1989, which quoted Bhajan Lal as vowing to make the DIG 'rub his nose on the ground', allegedly provoked by reports that the officer was distributing magazines containing stories about corruption cases against him pending in the Supreme Court. The applicant alleged this statement was intended to interfere with the administration of justice. The related criminal case, involving allegations of disproportionate assets against Bhajan Lal, was initially quashed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The State's appeal (Civil Appeal No. 5412 of 1990) was pending as an SLP (Civil No. 14014 of 1988) when the alleged statement was made. The Supreme Court eventually allowed the appeal on 21 November 1990, setting aside the High Court's judgment quashing the FIR but quashing the investigation on other grounds, granting liberty to the State to investigate afresh. The applicant also filed I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1991 in the disposed civil appeal, seeking punishment for contempt and setting aside his suspension order dated 5 July 1991.
Holding
The Court dismissed the contempt petition and interlocutory applications. The statement of fact in a newspaper report is hearsay and inadmissible without proof by evidence aliunde. The applicant failed to discharge the obligation of proving the facts stated in the press report. The absence of a denial by the respondent does not relieve the applicant of this burden. Furthermore, when the alleged statement was made, the proceedings (including investigation from the FIR) had already been quashed by the High Court, and no stay was granted by the Supreme Court. The petitioner was also not a party to the proceedings. The press item did not spell out any reference to the corruption case pending before the Court. Therefore, there was no justification for issuing a suo moto notice for contempt.
Disposition
dismissed