Issue:

• Whether the stated prayer of the petitioner will amount to contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?
• Whether the provision under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 ultra vires the provision under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution?
• Whether the person can assist the contempt proceeding if he doesn't seek any personal gains and has the averments regarding the public good?
• Whether the petitioner be liable to grant defense under Section 4 & 5 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971?

Rule:

• Article 19 of the Indian Constitution:
  Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
  
  1. All citizens shall have the right
     
     1. to freedom of speech and expression;
     2. to assemble peaceably and without arms;
     3. to form associations or unions;
     4. to move freely throughout the territory of India;
     5. to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
     6. omitted
     7. to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business;
         
  2. 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 the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense
      
  3. Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes or prevents the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.
      
  4. Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause
      
  5. Nothing in subclauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
      
  6. Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to:
     
     1. the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
         
     2. the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry, or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise[2]
         
• Article 32 of the Indian Constitution:
  Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
  
  1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
  2. The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
  3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)
  4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution[3]
      
• Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971:
  Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt �Subject to the provisions contained in section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof. �Subject to the provisions contained in section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof."[4]
   
• Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971:
  Fair criticism of judicial act, not contempt-A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided.-A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided."[5]

Application:
This case is about the Contempt of Court i.e. contempt against the judicial proceeding. The petitioner, Dr. S.C. Saxena a professor at the University, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) as per the Article 32 of the Indian Constitution against the Sri. P.V. Narasimha Rao, the President of the Indian National Congress and former Prime Minister of India. PIL was on the ground to pay Rs. 8.29 lakhs for using the aircraft of the Indian Air Force from 1st October 1993 till the 30th November 1993. The PIL was posted before the Chief Justice of India, and he directed Shri. Dipankar P. Gupta to verify the averments[6].

The writ petition came before the bench on 7th August 1995 and after hearing the petitioner-in-person the bench dismissed the writ. The petitioner filed another unregistered writ against the Chief Justice of India, Justice A.M. Ahmadi. The bench held and observed that the averments of the petitioner were scandalous and were against the Chief Justice of India in the seven consequent points. The bench dismissed the petition as the allegations were reckless and irresponsible, and no one was authorized to abuse the proceeding of the court. The court gave a notice of contempt proceeding against the petitioner and ordered them to reply to the notice[7].

The court listed 14 instances as prima facie regarding the contempt of proceeding against the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner wrote a news article against Justice J.S. Verma, who further reclused himself from the bench. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and under it he justified the accusation of the Chief Justice of India. The contemnor then gave a written reply to the contempt notice, under which he stated that the respondent had acted as judge in his case and dismissed the second writ.

The learned Solicitor General stated to the court that after rejecting the first petition, the petitioner must understand the restraint but instead, he filed another petition regarding the same[8]. Since the petitioner gave the justification in the second writ, the court must consider whether the petitioner has committed contempt of court. The petitioner contended that what he did was not for personal gain and the averments were regarding the public good, whereas he has no intention to scandalize the court. The petitioner made four prayers against the respondent such as:

• The respondent is unfit to hold the office of Chief Justice of India
• The respondent must be stripped of his citizenship
• There must be F.I.R registered against the respondent under the Indian Penal Code for committing fraud and forgery
• The respondent must be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act

The petitioner cited the analogy of Mr. Fazlul Huq, Chief Minister of Bengal what he said in the case of R.C. Pollard Vs. Satya Gopal Majumdar[9] about serving in the public office. The petitioner asked for protection on the ground that it was a fair comment under Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The petitioner made the obligation that the Solicitor General was working for the Chief Justice of India and supplied some documents to the bench without telling him about the same[10].

The petitioner submitted the document which consists of the article from "India Today" and "The Times of India" which was on the subject that Justice Ahmadi has been favored for the appointment over the local commissions. The petitioner cited the case of C. Ravichandran Iyer Vs. Justice A.M. Bhattacjarkee and Others[11], which was regarding the transparency of the judge on and off the bench[12].

Conclusion:
In the case of Dr. D.C. Saxena v/s. Chief Justice of India, hon'ble Supreme Court observed the applicability of the case, from the perspective of the petitioner who repeatedly filed a petition against the Chief Justice after being dismissed the petition.

Regarding all four issues the Supreme Court gave the verdict that as per the prayer of the petitioner against the Chief Justice of India, the petitioner will be liable for the contempt of court. The petitioner used the provision of Article 19(1)(a) i.e. Right to speech and expression, but they consist of certain restrictions, and due to it, the provisions under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 can be held as ultra vires towards the law under Article 19(1)(a).

The issue raised regarding the petition for the public good and no intention to scandalize the court's proceeding, under the same the Court held that it is true that the concept of means rea is considered as an essential element but in certain areas. As per Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 the concept of means rea is only mandatory for criminal contempt.

Regarding civil contempt, the only relevance considered is the offending act done to interfere with the court of justice. Hence the court must only consider the imputation of the contemnor as what is the effect of contempt of court. The nature of the imputation must be considered and in that regard, it can be held that the same act was contempt.

Within the concept of defense for contempt of court, the same will not be applicable in the present case because the same is applied over the circumstances of the publications of any report of the judicial proceeding fairly and accurately. In the present case, it can be observed that pleading and filing a petition before the court somehow can't be considered under the publication. The petitioner's words in the second writ petition were not the accurate report whereas he tried to justify the statement but failed to do so.

Hence in the case of Dr. D.C. Saxena v/s. Chief Justice of India, regarding the statements of the petitioner, the reckless way to present them in an inappropriate manner, and giving false statements against the judicial proceeding in the newspaper has been considered a contempt of court. The court sentenced the contemnor to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In case the contemnor defaults to pay the fine, then he will be alleged to go under simple imprisonment for one month extra.

End-Notes:

1. (2021), https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-caselaw/1997/july/1997-latest-caselaw-523-sc/
2. Article 19, Constitution of India, 1949
3. Article 32, Constitution of India, 1949
4. Section 4, Contempt of Court, 1971
5. Section 5, Contempt of Court, 1971
6. Lawtool.net (2021), https://www.lawtool.net/law-books-famous-cases/dr.-d.c.-saxena-vs-hon%27ble-the-chief-justice-of-india-on-19-july%2C-1997
7. (2021), https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609acdde4b014971140fe03
8. Dr. D.C. Saxena v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice Of India - CuriousForLaw, CuriousForLaw (2021), https://curiousforlaw.com/dr-d-c-saxena-v-the-honble-chief-justice-of-india-1996-scc-7-216-jt-1996-6-529/
9. 1943 Cal. 594 (605)
10. Murali Krishnan, Kesavananda to Kamini  the pattern is complete; Now who will judge the judges? Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news (2021), https://www.barandbench.com/columns/judging-judges-kesavananda-kamini
11. 1955 5 SCC 457
12. Dr.D.C. Saxena v Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India on 19 July 1996 - Judgement - LawyerServices, Lawyerservices.in (2021), https://www.lawyerservices.in/DrDC-Saxena-Versus-Honble-The-Chief-Justice-of-India-1996-07-19