TOPIC – C. K. Daphtary & Ors vs O. P.
Gupta & Ors
Submitted by
Jayant Singh Mittal
174/19
(ROLL NO)
B.A. LL. B
SECTION-C
Under the able guidance of
Dr. Rabia G Kanwar
In the partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the award of the Degree of
B.A.LL. B
1|Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my special gratitude to respectable director madam Prof. Rajinder Kaur
and my subject teacher Dr. Rabia whose contribution in stimulating suggestions and
encouragement helped me to coordinate my project especially in writing this project report. I
would like to thank them for the kind support and sheer guidance and all the permission they
gave to use all required resources and the necessary material to complete the project on case
law “C. K. Daphtary & Ors vs O. P. Gupta & Ors”
Last but not least, many thanks go to my fellow classmates, family and friends whose have
invested their full effort and support in guiding me to complete this project .
2|Page
TABLE OF CONTENT
S. No. CONTENT Page No.
1. Introduction 4-5
2. Facts of the Case 6
3. Issues and arguments 7
4. Judgement 8-9
5. Conclusion 9
6. Bibliography 10
3|Page
INTRODUCTION
CONTEMPT OF COURT
Article 1291 declares that the supreme court as a “Court of record” and that it shall have all the
powers of a court of record including the power to punish for its contempt of itself.
Further Article 142(2) empowers the Supreme Court to investigate and punish for any
contempt of itself i.e., contempt of Supreme court of itself.
Similarly, Article 215 declares High courts as a “Court of record” and that it shall have all the
powers of such a court including the powers to punish for contempt for itself.
Power to punish for contempt of both the High court and the Supreme Court has been given by
the Constitution as well as by Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not define what is contempt, it simply explains the types
of contempt: Civil contempt and Criminal contempt.
Importance of contempt of court
Contempt in law means being disobedient to a court of law or towards it ruling. The recognition
of contempt of court and to punish for contempt is essential for a nation such as India which is
based on the concept of rule of law, which requires supremacy of law, since the judiciary is
considered, as the last bastion of hope and justice for the citizens of any nation.
According to the Supreme court bar association v. Union of India (1995)2, The object of
punishment is both curative and corrective and these coercions are meant to assist an individual
complainant to enforce his remedy and there is also an element of public policy for punishing
civil contempt since the administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any court
of law is to be disregarded with impunity.
Kinds of contempt of court
The Contempt of courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter “1971 Act”) regulates the contempt of court and
provides for 2 types of contempt.
1. Civil contempt3
1
The Constitution of India
2
(1995) 2 SCC 584
3
Section 2(b), Contempts of Courts Act
4|Page
According to section 2(b), civil contempt means wilful disobedience of any judgement or a
decree of a court or a wilful breach of any undertaking given to a court.
The definition of civil contempt is simple enough for a reasonable man with ordinary prudence
to conclude as to what action will constitute civil contempt. Determination of civil contempt is
objective and is not based on the subjective understanding of anyone. If there is a judicial order
and if such order has been wilfully disobeyed then that fact of disobedience will constitute civil
contempt.
2. Criminal contempt4
Section 2(c) defined criminal contempt as the publication of any matter which either
scandalises or lowers the authority of the court, or that such matter interferes or prejudices any
judicial proceeding, Interferes or obstructs the administration of justice in any manner. Further,
an act or publication will constitute contempt if it even tends to scandalize the authority of the
court or it tends to interfere with any judicial proceeding or administration of justice.
The expression “scandalizes the authority of court” depends to a great degree on the discretion
of the judge as no law in India has defined what constitutes scandalizing the court. Proceeding
for criminal contempt has been initiated against citizens even for criticizing the Judges of
Supreme court and high courts.
Punishment for contempt of court
According to section 125 contempt may be punished either by simple imprisonment of 6 months
or a fine of Rs. 2000 or both.
Further section 12 also states that imprisonment should only be imposed if it is necessary to do
in the interest of justice. In Smt. Pushpaben and another vs. Narandas V. Badiani and
another6, the supreme court said that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 confers special power
on the court to impose imprisonment and the court must give a special reason with a proper
application of mind while giving a sentence of imprisonment. It further said that the Sentence
of a fine is the rule while imprisonment is an exception.
4
Section 2(c), Contempts of Courts Act, 1971
5
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
6
1979 AIR 1536
5|Page
C. K. Daphtary & Ors vs O. P. Gupta & Ors on 19 March, 1971
EQUIVALENT CITATIONS: 1971 AIR 1132, 1971 SCR 76
AUTHOR: S Sikri
BENCH: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Shelat, J.M., Vaidyialingam, C.A., Grover, A.N.,
Ray, A.N.
ACTS
1. Constitution of India- Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2)- Whether law relating to
contempt of court imposes unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and effect
of Article 129. Distinction between Article 19(1)(a) and the first amendment to
American Constitution.
2. Constitution of India- Article 105(2) and Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of
publication) Act, 1956- Absence of express or implied authority of Lok Sabha and no
evidence to show the publication by or under the authority of a parliament- Whether
protection available to non member.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The State of U. P. filed an appeal in this Court against the judgment, of the High Court holding
the dismissal of the first respondent from service invalid. The appeal was heard by two Judges
of this Court and the junior Judge delivered judgment on behalf of the Court, allowing the
appeal. The first respondent thereupon wrote, got printed and published and circulated a
pamphlet containing scurrilous criticism of the senior Judge using the word dishonest
judgment, open dishonesty deliberately and dishonestly and utter dishonesty. He also stated in
the pamphlet that the senior Judge cleverly asked the junior Judge to deliver the judgment, and
that the junior Judge toed his line by writing what the senior Judge told him to write. The
President of the Bar Association of the Supreme Court and three other Advocates filed a
petition supported by the affidavits of the advocates, about 4 months after the circulation of the
pamphlet, for committing the firs respondent and the printer and publisher of the pamphlet for
contempt of court. The first respondent deliberately avoided service till the senior Judge retired
and then filed a counter affidavit containing an unconditional apology and fresh abuses of the
senior Judge.
6|Page
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the act done amounts to contempt of court?
2. Whether the wrong is done to judge personally or it is done to the public?
3. Whether law relating to contempt of court imposes unreasonable restrictions on
freedom of speech and effect of Article 129?
4. Whether The Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956 protect
the first respondent?
5. Contempt of Court- what constitutes -whether justification of contempt permissible -
whether delay in filing petition is fatal to contempt action -persons entitled to bring
contempt petition -whether attorney general alone has a right- whether bar entitled to
bring action in the interest of proper administration of justice- effect of apology couple
with fresh abuses on contempt proceedings.
ARGUMENTS
1. RESPONDENT
The first respondent has urged that the existing law relating to contempt of court by writings
in respect of proceedings which have finished is repugnant to Article 19(1)(a), read with
Article 19(2). He contends that the existing law imposes unreasonable restrictions on a
citizen’s right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). He urges that we
should follow the law existing in the United States of America.
Respondent also urged that they are protected by Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of
Publication) Act, 1956 and Article 105(2) of The Constitution.
2. PETITIONER
Mr. C.K. Daphtary, on the other hand, contends, first, that Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2)
do not apply to the law relating to contempt of this Court because of Article 129 of the
Constitution, which reads:
“The Supreme Court shall be a Court of Record and shall have all the powers of such a court
including the powers to punish for contempt of itself.”
Secondly, Mr. Daphtary urges that the existing law relating to contempt of court is not a
‘law” covered by the definition of the word “law” in Article 13(3)(a).
7|Page
Thirdly, Mr. Daphtary contends that the existing law only imposes reasonable restrictions
within the meaning of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY COURT
1. Under Art. 129 of the Constitution this Court has the power to punish for contempt of
itself, and under Art. 143(2) it can investigate any such contempt. The Constitution
makes this Court the guardian of fundamental rights and hence it would not enforce
any law which imposes unreasonable restrictions on the precious right of freedom of
speech. The Supreme Court, in examining the scope of the contempt of court, laid down
that the test in each case is whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory
attack on the judge or whether it will interfere with the due course of justice or the
proper administration of law by the court.
A scurrilous attack on a Judge, in respect of a judgment or past conduct has in our
country the inevitable effect of undermining the confidence of the public in the
Judiciary; and if confidence in Judiciary goes administration of justice definitely
suffers. Therefore, assuming Art. 19(2) applies to the existing law of contempt the
restrictions on freedom of speech are reasonable and are in public interest.
2. Article 105(2) does not apply to the facts of the case. There was nothing to establish
the publication of the pamphlet as a publication by or under the authority of either
House of Parliament.
3. The Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956 does not protect
the first respondent, because the protection of Ss. 3 and 4 of that Act is limited to
newspapers or broadcasting agencies, and that too provided the publication was in
public interest and without malice. But in the present case, the publication was not in
a newspaper.
4. Whether there has been delay or not in filing a petition depends on the facts of a
particular case. In the present case, after the first respondent distributed a copy of the
pamphlet in the Bar Association of the Supreme Court, the petitioners had to ascertain
facts regarding its publication, printing etc. Further the petitioners had to take steps
only after the Attorney General did not move in the matter.
5. It is not the law, even in England, that only the Attorney-General should move in
contempt matters. Besides, the position of an Attorney General in England is quite
different from that of the Attorney General in India. Unlike the Attorney General in
India, he does not have to receive instructions from Government to move a contempt
8|Page
petition. Moreover, there is nothing in law which prevents this Court from entertaining
a petition at the instance of the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and
other Advocates of this Court, since the Bar is vitally concerned in the maintenance of
the dignity of courts and the proper administration of justice. Further, this Court can
issue a notice suo mota.
6. The pamphlet constituted gross contempt of this Court. His apology was no apology
when it was coupled with fresh abuses of the senior Judge. Therefore, he deserved a
heavy sentence, but since such contempt of this Court were rare, a lenient sentence
should be imposed.
In the result it is held that:
Respondent No. 1, O.P Gupta, is guilty of contempt of this Court and sentenced to simple
imprisonment for two months.
Responded no.2, Melaram partner of press stated that he did not look into the material which
the 1st responded brought for printing and expressed his unconditional and unqualified
apology to this court. No further action was taken against him.
Respondent no. 3, has not been served or traced.
CONCLUSION
The law of Contempt has been enacted to secure public respect and confidence in the Judicial
process. If such confidence is shaken or broken, the confidence of the common man in the
institution of judiciary and democratic set up is likely to be eroded which, if not checked, is
sure to be disastrous for the society itself. The case of C. K. Daphtary & Ors vs O. P. Gupta &
Ors is the landmark case of Professional Ethics on Contempt of Court. In this case, court
decided on various issues of contempt of court. Firstly, The Supreme Court, in examining the
scope of the contempt of court, laid down that the test in each case is whether the impugned
publication is a mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it will interfere with the due
course of justice or the proper administration of law by the court. Secondly, court opined that
the power to file petition of contempt of court is not only on Attorney General and President
of the Supreme Court Bar Association and other Advocates of this Court can also file such
petition. Thirdly, apology of Respondents, was no apology when it was coupled with fresh
abuses of the senior Judge and deserved a heavy sentence.
9|Page
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. www.scconline.com
2. C. K. Daphtary & Ors vs O. P. Gupta & Ors on 19 March, 1971 (indiankanoon.org)
3. Power to punish for Contempt of court in light of the case of Shri CK Daphtary and Ors
v. Shri OP Gupta and Ors [AIR (1971) SC 1132] - LawLex.Org
4. C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta | Supreme Court Of India | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
5. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/n-ram-shourie-bhushan-move-sc-challenging-
constitutionality-of-criminal-contempt-by-scandalizing-the-court-160838
6. Mr Justice Markandey Katju, Judge, Supreme Court of India – On Contempt Of
Court: The Need For A Fresh Look -on 17th January 2007 at Indian Society Of
International Law, New Delhi
7. https://books.google.co.in/books/about/The_Law_of_the_Constitution.html?id=ITgfA
QAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
10 | P a g e
