MANU/SC/0210/1993

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: AIR1993SC 1348, 1993C riLJ1042, 1992 INSC 357, 1992(3)SC ALE501, [1992]Supp3SC R735, 1993(2)SC T217(SC ),
1993(1)SLR392(SC )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Contempt Petn. No. 7 of 1989 with IA Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal No. 5412 of 1990
Decided On: 18.12.1992
State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.R. Pandian and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.
ORDER
S.R. Pandian, J.
1. Contempt Petition No. 7 of 1989 is filed by Shri S.A. Khan, DIG of Police requesting
the Court to initiate suo moto proceeding for criminal contempt allegedly committed by
the respondent/contemner, Ch. Bhajan Lal and to issue notice for the same and punish
him adequately.
2. I.A. No. 1/91 in C.A. No. 5412/90 was filed by the applicant Shri S.A. Khan for the
following prayers:
(1) award adequate punishment to the respondent Shri Bhajan Lal for
committing aggravated contempt of the Authority of this Hon'ble Court by
seeking to punish the petitioner (applicant) for assisting the Court through the
advocates appearing for the State of Haryana;
(2) set aside the order of suspension of the applicant herein; and also
(3) pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper.
3. LA. No. 2/91 in C.A. No. 5412/90 was filed by the applicant Shri S.A. Khan seeking
the following prayers:
(a) set aside the suspension order dated 5.7.91 and fix an early date of hearing
of the contempt application No. 2743 of 1989 and the application for direction
filed by the applicant earlier.
(b) pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case for which act the petitioner most respectfully prays
this Hon'ble Court.
4. IA Nos. 1 and 2 were filed on 12.8.1991 and 21.8.1991 respectively. It may be noted
that the Contempt Petition No. 7/89 was filed in September 1989 in S.L.P. (C) No.
14014/88.
5. Even before giving the brief facts which have given rise to the filing of this Contempt
Petition, we would like to mention that a confusion is created in the contempt
proceeding, by wrongly mentioning it as 'Contempt Petition No. 2743/89' instead of I.A.
08-08-2025 (Page 1 of 8) www.manupatra.com TRILEGAL trilegal
No. 1/91 in all the follow up affiliated proceedings. 'No. 2743/89' is the number
assigned to the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed in SLP (C) No. 14014/88 which was
subsequently registered as Civil Appeal No. 5412/90. The said CMP No. 2743/89 was
filed by the State of Haryana and others praying for the deletion of the name of Ch.
Devi Lal, Chief Minister of Haryana from the array of parties and dispensation of the
filing of a formal affidavit in support of that application. It was not at all a Contempt
Petition. It transpires from the original records that I.A. No. 1/91 dated 12.8.91 has
been filed in Civil Appeal No. 5412/90 for awarding adequate punishment to the
respondent for committing aggravated contempt of court. In the affidavit filed
accompanying the petition also it is mentioned as I.A. No. 1/91 in Civil Appeal No.
5412/90, but in the main petition containing the averments, it has been wrongly
mentioned as Contempt Petition No. 2743/89 in Civil Appeal No. 5412/90. The
mentioning of the number '2743/89' to the Contempt Petition is patently wrong.
Unfortunately, this mistake has been carried out throughout the subsequent
proceedings, namely, in the counter affidavit, the reply affidavit, the rejoinder and so
on. Even at the threshold when we wanted to have a clarification as to how two
Contempt Petitions, namely, Contempt Petition 'No. 2743/89' (sic) I.A. No. 1/89 and
Contempt Petition No. 7/89 have happened to be filed, no satisfactory explanation has
been offered and the puzzle remained unanswered. It may be pointed out that I.A. Nos.
1/91 and 2/91 were filed in Civil Appeal No. 5412/90 praying, (1) for initiating
contempt proceedings against Ch. Bhajan Lal; and (2) for setting aside the suspension
order dated 5.7.1991 passed as against Shri S.A. Khan respectively. But in both the
applications, the facts and the prayers are inextricably mixed up. Therefore, we have
culled out the facts with some difficulty by separating them and then have narrated the
averments with reference to each proceeding.
6. On 12.11.1987 one Dharam Pal presented a complaint before Ch. Devi Lal, who was
then the Chief Minister of Haryana making serious allegations against Ch. Bhajan Lal
who was then the Union Minister for Environment and Forests, Govt. of India alleging
that Ch. Bhajan Lal had accumulated huge properties worth crores of rupees
disproportionate to his known sources of income in the names of his family members,
relations and persons close to him by misusing his power and position and also
undervaluing the market price and that all those transactions are benami in character.
On the basis of the above allegations, a case was registered in Sadar Police Station
under Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act of 1947. Even when the investigation was in the threshold, Ch. Bhajan
Lal filed a Writ Petition No. 9172/87 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the first information report and
also a writ of prohibition restraining the State of Haryana and the investigating officials
from further proceeding with the investigation. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana
before which the Writ Petition was filed granted ex parte stay which was thereafter
made absolute. After hearing the parties to the Writ Petition, the High Court concluded
that the allegations made in the FIR did not constitute a cognizable offence for
commencing the lawful investigation and granted the relief as prayed for and mulcted
the fifth respondent therein, namely, Dharam Pal, the complainant with the costs of the
writ petition. On being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the State of
Haryana and others preferred SLP (Civil) No. 14014/88 which was registered as Civil
Appeal No. 5412/90 on grant of leave. This Court by its judgment dated 21st November,
1990 to which both of us were parties set aside the judgment of the High Court and
allowed the appeal in the following terms:
We set aside the judgment of the High Court quashing the First Information
Report as not being legally and factually sustainable in law for the reasons
08-08-2025 (Page 2 of 8) www.manupatra.com TRILEGAL trilegal
 aforementioned, but, however, we quash the commencement as well as the
entire investigation, if any, so far done for the reasons given by us in the
instant judgment on the ground that the third appellant (SHO) is not clothed
with valid legal authority to take up the investigation and proceed with the
same within the meaning of Section 5A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
as indicated in this judgment. Further we set aside the order of the High Court
awarding costs with a direction that the said costs is payable to the first
respondent (Ch. Bhajan Lal) by the second respondent (Dharam Pal).
In the result, the appeal is disposed of accordingly but at the same time giving
liberty to the State Government to direct an investigation afresh, if it so desires,
through a competent Police Officer empowered with valid legal authority in
strict compliance with Section 5A(1) of the Act as indicated supra. No order as
to costs.
7 . While this Civil Appeal was pending before this Court, Ch. Bhajan Lal is stated to
have made a statement touching the proceeding which was then pending in SLP (Civil)
No. 14014/88. The substance of the statement was reported in the Indian Express dated
30th July, 1989, the copy of which is annexed as Annexure 'A." with this Contempt
Petition. The relevant portion of the Press statement which according to the applicant,
Shri Khan, amounts to contempt of court is reproduced hereunder:
He alleged that the Deputy Inspector General of Police here, who considered
himself a big officer, was implicating his people in false cases. He vowed to
make him rub his nose on the ground, where the meeting was being held, for
forgiveness. Mr. Bhajan Lal had perhaps been provoked by the reports that the
said officer was distributing copies of two magazines, both sister publications
in Hindi and English, which carried stories about the cases of corruption going
on against him in the Supreme Court.
8 . According to the applicant, he in his official capacity, was supervising the
investigation of the case registered against Ch. Bhajan Lal and was attending this Court
(Supreme Court) assisting the Advocate General of Haryana whenever the SLP was fixed
for hearing and that his active participation in the proceedings has caused intolerable
annoyance to Ch. Bhajan Lal. The applicant further states that Ch. Bhajan Lal "in order
to create a bias in his favour, and prejudice the public that he was innocent of the
charge of amassing wealth by illegal and corrupt means, has issued public statements
so that this Hon'ble Court does not take the serious charges of corruption against him
seriously." The above statement according to the applicant amounts to gross criminal
contempt of the court. In addition to the above, the following averments are made in
the Contempt Petition:
That the respondent Ch. Bhajan Lal who wants by hook or crook to thwart the
proceedings of this Court to ensure no investigation takes places, is adopting
the coercive and threatening measures, in interfering with the proceedings of
this Court in the above said case.
(Vide para 7 of the Contempt Petition)
The matter is sub-judice before this Hon'ble Court. The applicant is not in a
position and will not be able to undertake the investigation according to law if
the gross contempt committed by respondent Shri Bhajan Lal goes unpunished.
It will reduce the law enforcement agencies to a laughing stock. Ch. Bhajan Lal
is obviously actuated with an intention to intimidate those who dare to speak
08-08-2025 (Page 3 of 8) www.manupatra.com TRILEGAL trilegal
 the truth exposing his abuse of power to amass wealth in the background of his
admittedly humble beginning in life.
(Vide para 9 of the Contempt Petition)
That the act of intimidation and blackmail unbecoming of member of the Central
Government Ch. Bhajan Lal has committed the gross criminal contempt of this
Hon'ble Court with an intention to interfere in the Administration of Justice.
(Vide para 10 of the Contempt Petition)
9 . It is pertinent to note that leave was granted in SLP (Civil) No. 14014/88 only on
21.11.1990. In other words, on the date when the alleged contemptuous statement was
made on 30th July 1989 leave had not been granted, but the matter was heard at the
stage of SLP itself. A reading of the statement which we have reproduced above only
the underlined portion can be said to be contemptuous, if at all it is stated so, and the
rest of it is the view of the reporter of that news item.
1 0 . One Shri Gian Singh, Under Secretary, Home, Haryana has filed his counter
affidavit on behalf of the State in the Contempt Petition stating that the said application
is not maintainable "since Shri Khan has no locus standi, inasmuch as he was not a
party to the present proceedings either in his personal or official capacity." It is further
stated that "Shri Khan has exhibited his personal animosity against the first Respondent
by holding a Press Conference on 20.9.1991". A photo copy of the Press statement is
annexed to this counter.
1 1 . Ch. Bhajan Lal though has not filed any separate affidavit in the contempt
application No. 7 of 1989, he has filed an affidavit in 'Contempt Petition No. 2743/89',
(sic I.A. No. 1 of 1991). Ch. Bhajan Lal has replied in his counter affidavit, meeting the
allegations, made in LA. No. 1/91 i.e. the application for initiating the contempt
proceedings as hereunder:
Having been in political life for a long period of time, I am aware of my
responsibilities and would never make any public utterances with the intent of
either scandalising the Court, or of lowering the authority of the Court, or of
interfering, either directly or indirectly in the due course of any judicial
proceedings, or interfering with, either directly or indirectly, or obstructing, in
any manner, the administration of justice.
(Vide para 1 in his affidavit sworn on 6th December, 1991)
The statements attributed to me in the Application for Contempt are based on
newspaper reports which are mere 'hearsay' and cannot in law be relied upon
for the purposes of initiating such proceedings.
Even if it be assumed that the statements attributed to me were so made, it was
never with the intent of committing any criminal contempt by either
scandalising the Court, or tending to interfere with the course of judicial
proceedings, or interfering or tending to interfere with, or obstructing, or
tending to obstruct, the administration of justice.
(Vide para 3)
I am filing this Affidavit to obviate any doubts which may have arisen in the
minds of this Hon'ble Court on the basis of the statements contained in the
08-08-2025 (Page 4 of 8) www.manupatra.com TRILEGAL trilegal
 Application, or any doubts that may have arisen in the mind of the applicant,
that I have any personal ill-will or malice against him. I consider it appropriate
to place on record my lack of ill-will or malice. This should suffice and lead this
Hon'ble Court to believe that the applicant in making the said Application must
have done so on the erroneous impression that the deponent was ill-disposed
towards him.
(Vide para 5)
...If in the event, this Hon'ble Court chooses to issue notice to me despite the
present Affidavit, I reserve liberty at that stage to make my submissions in
respect of the specific allegations made.
(Vide para 6)
12. Mr. Khan has filed an affidavit in reply to that of Ch. Bhajan Lal stating that Ch.
Bhajan Lal has not denied the statement reported in the Press and that his statement
that he vowed to make him rub his nose on the ground amounts to a threat to crush the
applicant for assisting the Advocate General of Haryana in SLP (C) No. 14014/88 before
the Supreme Court against Ch. Bhajan Lal and it is a gross interference with the
administration of justice and that this arrogance act of intimidation and terrorization
merits severest punishment. It is further stated that the serious investigation conducted
has been reduced to a farce by "purchasing the complainant Dharam Pal, rewarding him
with Chairmanship of Khadi Board, procuring final reports alleged to be made on 18th
June, 1991 in order to be sworn as Chief Minister on June, 23."
13. All the senior counsel, namely, Mr. R.K. Garg, appearing for the applicant, Shri
Khan and Mr. Kapil Sibal appearing for the State of Haryana and Mr. K. Parasaran
appearing for Ch. Bhajan Lal articulated their arguments with all seriousness,
occasionally punctuated with political overtones. According to Mr. Garg, the very fact
that Ch. Bhajan Lal does not deny the truth of the statement published in the Indian
Express itself is sufficient to hold that Ch. Bhajan Lal by making such a statement has
scandalized the Court or lowered its authority or interfered either directly or indirectly in
the due course of the judicial proceedings or obstructed the administration of justice. In
this context, he referred to the proceedings of SLP (Civil) No. 14014/88, the active
participation of Mr. Khan in assisting the Advocate General of Haryana before this Court
and the passing of the suspension order on 5.7.1991, i.e. immediately after Ch. Bhajan
Lal was sworn as Chief Minister on 23rd June, 1991 and seriously urged that all the
above factors would establish that Ch. Bhajan Lal made the contemptuous statement
only with reference to the proceedings which was then pending before this Court and,
therefore, this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise its inherent power in
issuing suo moto notice to the contemner, namely, Ch. Bhajan Lal and to adequately
punish him.
14. According to Mr. Kapil Sibal, this petition is not maintainable for more than one
reason, those being:
(1) Mr. S.A. Khan was neither the investigating officer in the case registered
against Ch. Bhajan Lal nor he was a party to that criminal proceedings;
(2) That the statement attributed to Ch. Bhajan Lal cannot be said to have
interfered with the proceedings, then pending before this Court, since on that
day (that is 30.7.1989) the First Information Report had already been quashed
by the High Court and there was no stay of the order of the High Court passed
08-08-2025 (Page 5 of 8) www.manupatra.com TRILEGAL trilegal
 by this Court.
(3) In any case, there is no material on record apart from the newspaper report
to show that this statement was made by Ch. Bhajan Lal.
(4) At any rate, the petitioner is not competent to file this contempt petition
because he was not a party to the proceedings.
15. Thereafter, Mr. Kapil Sibal drew our attention to a news item that appeared in the
issue of 'Times of India' dated 21.9.89 annexed to the counter affidavit of Shri Gian
Singh as Annexure "A". The said news item reads that Shri Khan held a Press
Conference on 21.9.89 at New Delhi on the strength of a sanction given to him by the
then Haryana Government in which he is reported to have said that "if the former Chief
Minister of Haryana, Mr. Bhajan Lal had not been given anticipatory bail by the High
Court, he would have been behind the bars" and that "he was conscious of the
consequences of meeting newsmen" and further said "I am ready for it." The news item,
in addition shows that Shri Khan referring to the statement of Ch. Bhajan Lal that
appeared in the issue of Indian Express dated 30th July 1989 had said "Mr. Bhajan Lal
perhaps provoked by the report that he had distributed copies of the magazines which
carried stories about cases of corruption against the former Chief Minister."
16. Mr. Kapil Sibal after taking as through the entire report of the Press Conference,
made his incisive argument stating that it is only Shri Khan, who is none other than a
bureaucrat has made the scandalising remark against Ch. Bhajan Lal who was then the
Minister in the Central Cabinet and that he had involved himself in picking up the gaunt-
let and offering a verbal bout through the media. According to the learned Counsel, if at
all any serious action is to be taken, it should be only against Shri Khan for making
such a statement of vilification but not against Ch. Bhajan Lal.
17. Mr. K. Parasaran also questioned the very maintainability of this petition by Shri
Khan on the ground that the press statement without proof of the contents found therein
is inadmissible in law.
18. In support of their respective statements, they relied on a few decisions of this
Court which we will presently refer to.
1 9 . Mr. Garg placed much reliance on the decision In Re. P.C. Sen,
MANU/SC/0298/1968 : 1970CriLJ1525 . In that case, the Chief Minister of West Bengal
broadcast a speech on the All India Radio seeking to justify the propriety of the West
Bengal Milk Product Order of 1965. In the course of that speech, the Chief Minister
made several comments on controversial matters which were pending for adjudication
before the Court. The High Court issued a Rule requiring the Chief Minister to show
cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court and after an inquiry, the
High Court held that the speech amounted to contempt of Court. An appeal was filed
before this Court challenging the order of the High Court submitting inter-alia that the
speech contained no direct reference to any pending proceedings and the Chief Minister
was under a duty to make the speech to instruct the public about the true state of
affairs. But this Court while rejecting the submission made the following observations:
The law relating to contempt of Court is well settled. Any act done or writing
published which is calculated to bring a Court or a Judge into contempt, or to
lower his authority, or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful
process of the Court, is a contempt of Court: R. v. Gray 1900 2 Q.B.D. 36.
Contempt by speech or writing may be by scandalising the Court itself, or by
08-08-2025 (Page 6 of 8) www.manupatra.com TRILEGAL trilegal
 abusing parties to actions, or by prejudicing mankind in favour of or against a
party before the cause is heard. It is incumbent upon courts of justice to
preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, for prejudicing the mind
of the people against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is
finally heard has pernicious consequences. Speech or writings misrepresenting
the proceedings of the Court or prejudicing the public for or against a party or
involving reflections on parties to a proceeding amount to contempt. To make a
speech tending to influence the result of a pending trial, whether civil or
criminal is a grave contempt. Comments on pending proceedings, if emanating
from the parties or their lawyers, are generally a more serious contempt then
those coming from independent sources.
20. Relying on the above observation, Mr. Garg urged that Ch. Bhajan Lal by his Press
statement has not only threatened Shri Khan for implicating his people in criminal
cases, but also has interfered with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the
court when the proceeding relating to the case of corruption registered against him was
pending before this Court. According to Mr. Garg this Press statement clearly amounts
to gross criminal contempt of court and therefore it is a proper case in which the Court
should exercise its authority by issuing suo moto notice to Ch. Bhajan Lal and punish
him adequately.
21. The bone of contention of Mr. Parasaran is that the statement of fact contained in a
newspaper report is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the
absence of any proof by evidence aliunde. According to him, in the present case there is
no proof that the alleged contemptuous statement was in fact made by the Chief
Minister as it appears in the Press note. According to him, it is only for the applicant to
satisfy the court by adducing acceptable evidence that the statement of fact contained in
the report is true and that it calls for issue of suo moto notice. According to him, the
decision in In Re: P.C. Sen cannot be availed of by the applicant because in that case,
the evidence was led before the Court to prove that the offending speech was in fact
broadcast by the Chief Minister on the All India Radio, Calcutta Station. In support of
his submission that the news item cannot be the basis for initiating contempt
proceeding against the alleged maker of the statement, he relied upon a decision of this
Court in Samant N. Balakrishna Etc. v. George Fernandez and Ors. Etc.
MANU/SC/0270/1969 : [1969]3SCR603 , wherein it has been held that news items
when published are garbled versions and cannot be regarded as proof of what actually
happened or was said without other acceptable evidence through proper witnesses. He
also drew our attention to the dictum laid down by this Court in Laxmi Raj Shetty and
Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0252/1988 : 1988CriL J1783 , with regard to the
admissibility of the news item appearing in a Press report. The dictum reads thus:
We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a new item being in the
nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A
report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the
documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an
allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached
under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated
as proved of the facts reported therein.
It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is
merely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the
maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the
fact reported.
08-08-2025 (Page 7 of 8) www.manupatra.com TRILEGAL trilegal
22. In the present case, no evidence has been let in proof of the statement of facts
contained in the newspaper report. The absence of any denial by Ch. Bhajan Lal will not
absolve the applicant from discharging his obligation of proving the statement of facts
as appeared in the Press report. In fact, Ch. Bhajan Lal in his counter affidavit has taken
a stand that the statements attributed to him based on the newspaper report are mere
hearsay and cannot in law be relied upon for the purpose of initiating such proceedings.
Therefore, in the absence of required legal proof, the Court will not be justified in
issuing a suo moto notice for contempt of court.
2 3 . As Mr. Kapil Sibal has pointed out when this alleged statement was made, the
entire proceedings inclusive of investigation culminating from the registration of the FIR
had been quashed by the High Court and no stay has been granted by this Court and
that the petitioner was not a party to the proceeding.
2 4 . A perusal of the news item does not spell out any reference to the case of
corruption or its proceeding pending before this Court. In the alleged contemptuous
statement (Annexure 'A') only the view of the reporter is mentioned as if Ch. Bhajan Lal
had perhaps been provoked about the proceedings of the case before the Supreme
Court. In fact, the Civil Appeal No. 5412/90 itself has been disposed of on 21st
November, 1990 and LA. No. 1/91 is filed in the above main Civil Appeal after its
disposal, even though Contempt Petition No. 7/89 has been filed before the disposal of
the case. Be that as it may, as we do not see any reason much less compelling reasons
to issue suo moto notice to Ch. Bhajan Lal for contempt of court for the reasons
mentioned above, as we feel that this petition is liable to be dismissed.
25. In the result, I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1991 and Contempt Petition No. 7 of 1989 are
dismissed. No costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

08-08-2025 (Page 8 of 8) www.manupatra.com TRILEGAL trilegal