UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES,

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

CASE LAW

E. M. SANKARAN NAMBOODIRIPAD VS

T. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR,

[AIR 1970 SC 2015]

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. RABIA GUND AMANDEEP KAUR

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR B.A. LL.B. (HONS.)

UILS SEMESTER – 8 TH

PANJAB UNIVERSITY SECTTION – C

CHANDIGARH ROLL NO. – 176/19

1|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The success and the final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance from
many people and I am extremely privileged to have got this all along the completion of my
project. All that I have done is only due to such supervision and assistance and I would not forget
to thank them.

I respect and thank, Dr. Rabia Gund for providing me an opportunity to do the project of
“Professional Ethics and Professional Accounting System” on the case law of “E. M.
Sankaran Namboodiripad vs T. Narayanan Nambiar, [AIR 1970 SC 2015]” and giving me
all support and guidance, which made me complete the project duly. I am extremely thankful to
her for providing such a nice support and guidance, although she had busy schedule managing
the corporate affairs.

I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing this project
within the limited time frame.

Amandeep Kaur

2|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Facts of the case .............................................................................................................................. 4

Legal Provisions.............................................................................................................................. 5

 Freedom to Speech and Expression ..................................................................................... 5

 Law of Contempt of Court ................................................................................................... 6

Issues raised .................................................................................................................................... 6

Arguments ....................................................................................................................................... 6

 Issue I ................................................................................................................................... 6

 Issue II.................................................................................................................................. 8

Judgement ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Decision ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Ratio Decidendi .......................................................................................................................... 9

Obiter Dicta ............................................................................................................................... 10

Critical Analysis............................................................................................................................ 12

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 13

3|Page
INTRODUCTION
Title of the Case: E. M. Sankaran Namboodiripad vs T. Narayanan Nambiar

Court: Supreme Court of India

Equivalent Citation: AIR 1970 SC 2015

Petitioner: E. M. Sankaran Namboodiripad

Respondent: T. Narayanan Nambiar

Bench: Chief Justice M. Hidayatullah, Justice G.K. Mitter, Justice A.N. Ray

Decided On: July 31, 1970

FACTS OF THE CASE

 Mr. E.M.S. Namboodiripad’s conviction is based on certain utterances of the Appellant,
when he was Chief Minister, at a Press Conference held by him at Trivandrum, on November
9, 1967.
 The report of the Press Conference was published the following day in some Indian
newspapers.
 He made various critical remarks relating to the judiciary referring to it inter alia as “an
instrument of oppression” and the Judges as “dominated by class hatred, class prejudices”,
“instinctively” favouring the rich against the poor. He also stated that as part of the ruling
classes the judiciary “works against workers, peasants and other sections of the working
classes” and “the law and the system of judiciary essentially served the exploiting
classes.”1
 And thereafter the proceedings commenced in the High Court, the appellant was calls upon
to show why he should not be committed for contempt.
 In an affidavit in reply, the appellant stated that the reports were "substantially correct",
though incomplete in some respects. He supplied some omissions and pleaded want of
intention to show disrespect to the judiciary and justification on the ground that the offence

1
“Case Analysis: E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad vs T. Narayanan Nambiar” available at
https://legalserviceindia.com/, (last visited on 7th March, 2023).

4|Page
 charged could not be held to be committed, in view of the guarantees of freedom of speech
and expression under the Constitution.
 He claimed that his observations did no more than give expression to the Marxist philosophy
-and what was contained in the programme of the Communist Party of India. By a majority
judgment the appellant was convicted for contempt of court and fined Rs. 1000/- or simple
imprisonment for one month.
 In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the law of contempt
must be read without encroaching upon the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression in
Article 19(1)(a), and that the intention of the appellant in making his remarks at the press
conference should be examined in the light of his political views which he was at liberty to
put before the people.
 He sought to justify the remarks as an exposition of his ideology which claimed was based on
the teachings of Marx and Engels and on this ground claimed protection of the first clause of
Art. 19(1).

LEGAL PROVISIONS

 Freedom to Speech and Expression

Article 19(1)(a) is the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression for the entire
citizen. One’s opinions may be expressed by words of mouth, in writing, printing, pictures, or
any other mode. This freedom includes a person’s right to propagate or publish the views of other
people. The freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) includes the entitlement to express one’s
views and opinions at any matter through any medium.

But this right is not absolute and restricted by Article 19(2), following are the restrictions:

 Security of the State,

 Friendly relations with foreign States,
 Public order,
 Decency and morality,
 Contempt of court,
 Defamation,
 Incitement to an offence, and

5|Page
  Sovereignty and integrity of India.

 Law of Contempt of Court

Law of contempt stems from the right of the Courts to punish by imprisonment or fines person
guilty of words or acts which either obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice. This
right is exercised in India by all Courts when contempt is committed in facie curiae and by
Superior Courts on their own behalf or on behalf of Courts subordinate to them even if
committed outside the Courts. Formerly, it was regarded as inherent in the powers of a Court of
Record and now by the Constitution of India, it is a part of the powers of the Supreme Court and
the High Courts.

There are many kinds of contempt. The chief forms of contempt are insulting the judges, attacks
upon them, comment on pending proceedings to prejudice fair trial, obstruction to officers of
Courts, witnesses or the parties, abusing the process of the Court, breach of duty by officers
connected with the Court and scandalizing the judges or the Courts.

The last form occurs, generally speaking, when the conduct of a person tends to bring the
authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard. In this conduct are included
all acts which bring the Court into disrepute or disrespect or which offend its dignity, affront its
majesty or challenge its authority. Such contempt may be committed in respect of a single judge
or a single Court or whole judiciary. The question is whether in the circumstances of this case the
offence was committed.

ISSUES RAISED
Issue I: Whether the Appellant has said anything which brings him out of the protection Article
19(1)(a).

Issue II: Whether the appellant has said anything which exposes him to the charge of contempt
of court.2

ARGUMENTS
 Issue I
2
“E. M. Sankaran Namboodiripad vs T. Narayanan Nambiar on 31 July, 1970” available at http://indiankanoon.org/,
(last visited on 7th March, 2023).

6|Page
Whether the Appellant has said anything which brings him out of the protection Article 19(1)(a)?

Appellants
V.K. Krishna Menon (Advocate of the appellant) argued that the guarantee of freedom of speech
and expression in the article 19(1)(a) of the constitution must not be any how encroached by the
application of law of contempt of court. He further submitted that the freedom of speech and
expression gave immunity to the Appellant as all he did was to give expression to the teachings
of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

He argued that the law of contempt should be applied in such a manner that the freedom of
speech and expression are not whittled down. We know that Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the
complete freedom of speech and expression but it also has an exception in respect of contempt of
Court. The guaranteed right on which the functioning of our democracy rests, is intended to give
protection to expression of free opinions to change political and social conditions and to advance
human knowledge.

Mr. V.K. Krishna Menon read the following observations from Samuel Roth v. United States of
America3, Arthur Terminieilo v. City of Chicago4, Charlotte Anita Whitney v. People of the
State of California5 and New York Times Company v. L.B. Sullivan6 on the high-toned
objective in guaranteeing freedom of speech.

The court agreed with the observations and stated that freedom of speech and expression will
always prevail except where contempt is manifest, mischievous or substantial. He argued that the
Appellant has the benefit of the guaranteed right as the statements which he made were made just
to give expression to the teachings of Marx, Lenien and Engels and seeks to educate the
exploited peoples on the reality behind class oppression.

Respondent
As the appellant has contended before the respondent that the law of contempt should
be applied while keeping in mind the article 19(1)(a) the freedom of speech and
expression. While it is intended there should be freedom of speech, it is also intended that in the
exercise of the right contempt of court shall not be committed.

3
I.L. Ed. 2nd 1484 at 1506.
4
93 L.Ed.1131 at 1134.
5
71 L.Ed.1095.
6
11 L.Ed.2nd. 686.

7|Page
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression but it also come along with some
exceptions in respect of contempt of court. The right is intended to give protection to free
opinions to change political and social culture and to advance human knowledge. The right under
Article 19(1)(a) is essential for a free society and the constitution itself has imposed restrictions,
therefore it cannot be said that right abolishes the law of contempt.

 Issue II

Whether the appellant has said anything which exposes him to the charge of contempt of court?

Appellant
The counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant it might be possible to say that the speech
constituted contempt of Court but submitted that it would be not suitable and advisable to do so.
He stated further that the type of contempt called scandalizing the Court had was no more in use
and was no longer enforced in England and relied upon Mcleod v. St. Aubyn7. He further
submitted that the freedom of speech and expression gave immunity to the Appellant as all he
did was to give expression to the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

Lastly, he contended that a general remark regarding Courts in general did not constitute
contempt of Court and relied upon The Government Pleader High Court, Bombay v. Tulsidas
Subharao Jadhav8. The Appellant has maintained that his philosophy is based upon that of Marx
and Engels. Indeed, the claims to be descended from the last philosopher and seeks to educate
the exploited peoples on the reality behind class oppression.

Marxist-Leninist he advocates the radical and revolutionary transformation of the State from the
violent instrument of exploiting classes to an instrument which the exploited majority can use
against these classes. In this transformation he wishes to makes the state wither away and with
the state its organs, namely, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary also to change. The
law of contempt, he says, cannot be used to deprive him of his rights.

Respondent
Giving the counter arguments towards the cases cited by the Appellant, the defendants said that
there is no doubt that the Contempt of Court had fallen into disuse in England as per the

7
L.R. 1899 A.C. 549.
8
I.L.R. 1938 Bom 179.

8|Page
observations in Mcleod v. St. Aubyn but as per the observation in Queen v. Gray within one year
of Mcleod v. St. Aubyn it was disproved and since then many convictions have taken place under
Contempt of Court. Next case was Government Pleader High Court; Bombay v. Tulsidas
Subharao Jadhav which should be disposed of because the case never laid down that there could
never be contempt of court.

The Respondent further contended that all the cases of Contempt of Court are with different facts
and in this way it is difficult to interrelate so each case must be examined on its own facts and
the decision must be reached in the context of what was done or said. Further the Appellant
alleged that whatever was said by E.M. Shankaran Namboodiripad was according to the
learnings of Marx, Engels and Lenin so the Respondent then explained the learnings of Marx,
Engels and Lenin in a detailed manner and on the basis of that argued that in all the writings
there is no direct attack on the Judiciary selected as the target of people’s wrath and also it will
be noticed that in all these writings, there is not that mention of judges which the Appellant has
made.
The Appellant either does not know or has deliberately distorted the writings of Marx, Engels
and Lenin for his own purpose. He misunderstood the attack by them on stages and the laws as
involving an attack on the judiciary. It is clear that it is an attack upon judges which is calculated
to raise in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with and distrust of all judicial
decisions. It weakens the authority of law and law Courts which amounts to the Contempt of
Court.

JUDGEMENT
Decision

Appellant is held liable for the contempt of court and the conviction was upheld by sentencing
him to a nominal fine. They accordingly reduce the sentence of fine to Rs. 50/-. In default of
payment of fine he will (sic) mint for one week. With this modification the appeal will be(sic).

Ratio Decidendi

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees complete freedom of speech and expression but it also makes an
exception in respect of contempt of Court.

9|Page
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 granted by the sub-clause........in relation to contempt of Court, defamation
or incitement to an offence.

But this right is not absolute. It is restricted by Art 19(2) which lays down the restrictions in case
of contempt of court.

Obiter Dicta

Other than the judgment which was pertaining to the provisions provided for the freedom of
expression and contempt of court which largely constitutes the ratio decidendi of the judgment
the other opinions of judge Hidayatullah mostly revolved around the statement he made and how
that statement was contradicting in it. He also talked about how the statement he made was a
misinterpretation of the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin and also how their teachings
doesn't involve the system of judiciary explicitly in any of their writings.

The appellant termed judiciary as an instrument of oppression and justice Hidayatullah through
his learned view about the teachings in the judgement enlighten us that why judiciary will not be
an instrument of oppression. The judge starts with telling about why essentially Marx and Engels
come up with their writings ant texts about class oppression. He says that they were concerned
with the idea of social justice and equality. So as to provide a solution for this problem he found
that the Class capitalist exploit the class workers and gain from their works by not providing
their fair share for the work they have done.

Exploiting the working class provides this capitalist themselves with surplus labor value which
makes them indulge capitalist luxuries. Also this capitalist will then turn to the state and the law
to influence them to turn the laws and rules towards their favor. All this social divides and
inequalities between working class and the capitalists create tensions and eventually eliminate
the capitalist system existing in that society. Justice deliberated upon all this details was to come
to the observation that this was how and why there was this hostility towards the state and the
law.
There was this large distrust on the state and its institutions because it can be influenced by those
capitalists for their own betterment. So in order to avoid this social injustice Marx tried to come

10 | P a g e
up with scientific and ethical approach to provide equality among the capitalists and the working
class so that their fruit of their work and labor can be divided among them accordingly. This was
the concept on which Marx build up his work das capital.

Even though Marx’s writing didn’t include certain aspects of the system of judiciary his texts was
misinterpreted by people until Lenin came up with the right interpretations of his teachings and
texts. Marx in his works wrote that state is an instrument in the hands of the capitalists and rule
in favor of this people making the people in the oppressed class in a worse position and Engels in
his text explicitly writes that state is mostly formed class capitalists to protect their own interests
and in this way state gets above the society by using its facilities. Lenin in his texts tries to
interpret texts of Marx and Engels and told that state cannot be formed in favor of the class
capitalists in the modern society because there won’t be consensus between the society and the
state formed by this people since the state is for the society.

Lenin again asserts in his work that state cannot become an instrument of the class capitalists
especially when it is a democratic republic and it ensures that there won’t be bourgeois republic
existing in that society. So in the works of Marx and Engels writes that laws in a society should
be to ensure the social equality and shouldn’t be corrupted with that of the likes of the bourgeois
society when they talked about a deviation from the state which can be manipulated by
capitalists.
Even though they talked about how law and state should be in the other paradigm where there is
no chance of a state growing above society especially under bourgeois republic they never
directly broached upon the subject of the judicial system in the society. Adding to the fact that
they never directly attacked judiciary system justice Hidayatullah brought in the fact that Engels
stating that judiciary as a system is effective in achieving the social justice that is necessary and
can serve as a tool to keep the bourgeois forces at bay from influencing the state. Justice
Hidayatullah stated the relevant facts stated in the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin about the
state, law and judiciary to explain that the appellant has misinterpreted the teachings of Marx,
Lenin and Engels on whose teachings the appellant made his statements about the judiciary in
India.9
Justice Hidayatullah also states that the judiciary in India derives its power from the constitution
9
“E. M. Sankaran Namboodiripad vs T. Narayanan Nambiar, Supreme Court, 31-07-1970” available at
https://vlex.in/, (last visited on 7th March, 2023).

11 | P a g e
and laws which gives it autonomy from the state and other factors that could have influenced the
judiciary. This also ensures that the courts are impartial when it comes to giving away judgments
when it the verdicts of the court may or may not come in favor of either oppressed class or the
majority. Justice Hidayatullah also states that even if the people think that the law is not
providing the justice it was supposed to give that law can be changed for better in India but
weakening judiciary can also mean the weakening of democracy because judiciary becomes the
quintessential part in democracy to provide justice and ensuring equality.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The case throws light on the two major issues which are whether the criticism of the judiciary
must be protected under the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression i.e. article
19(1)(a).
And the other is whether such statements as that made by the appellant, in the press conference
should amount to contempt of court.

In the present case the appellant is held liable for the contempt of court and is not protected
under the right to freedom of speech and expression. As per our opinion the guarantee to
expression must always prevail over law of contempt whereas according to law,

12 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. “E. M. Sankaran Namboodiripad vs T. Narayanan Nambiar on 31 July, 1970” available at
http://indiankanoon.org/, (last visited on 7th March, 2023).
2. “E. M. Sankaran Namboodiripad vs T. Narayanan Nambiar” available at
https://aishwaryasandeep.com/, (last visited on 7th March, 2023).
3. “Case Analysis: E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad vs T. Narayanan Nambiar” available at
https://legalserviceindia.com/, (last visited on 7th March, 2023).
4. “E. M. Sankaran Namboodiripad vs T. Narayanan Nambiar, Supreme Court, 31-07-1970”
available at https://vlex.in/, (last visited on 7th March, 2023).

13 | P a g e