CASE SYNOPSIS
1. Case Name: E. M. S. Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar
2. Court: Supreme Court of India
3. Citations: AIR 1970 SC 2015 and (1970) 2 SCC 325
4. Appellant : E.M.S Namboodiripad , then Chief Minister of Kerala
5. Respondent : T Narayanan Nambiar
The case is one classic example of whether the right to freedom of speech is absolute or have
some restrictions or limitations that have to be followed.
6. Facts of the case:
E.M.S Namboodiripad who is the first chief minister of Kerala, had criticised the
functioning of the Indian judiciary .
He called upon a press conference and allegedly referred the Indian judiciary as a
“class dominated institution “
Where according to him , the courts or Indian judiciary is favouring the rich and
oppressing the poor.
His ideology regarding the then Indian courts was mainly inferred from Marxist
theory , where the courts are influenced by class hatred and the institution is a classic
instrument for oppression
The statements of EMS was printed by newspapers ,leading to widespread circulation
of the news at that time .
This led to the case against EMS , under contempt of court proceedings .
The case commeneced in Kerala high court ,where the advocates solely relied on the
statements mentioned in the press conference held by the ex-chief minister of Kerala .
EMS countered by stating that, it is his freedom of speech to criticise the functions of
an institution which is an integral aspect for the functioning of indian government.
he stated , the statements mentioned by EMS , was fair criticism and is
not against the law
kerala high court, gave judgement against chief minster
subsequently , the case was taken before supreme court
7. Legal Issues
1. Whether criticism towards a judiciary (public critizcism) amounts to contempt of
cpourt?
Whether the public criticism on courts, class influenced institution amounts to
contempt of court
Whther the fundamental right of freedom of speech(article 19(1)(a) protects the public
criticism?
8. Legal Provisions Involved
1. Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression)
2. Article 19(2) (Permitting reasonable restrictions in relation to contempt of court)
3. Articles 129 & 215 (Powers of Supreme Court and High Courts to punish for
contempt)
4. Law of Contempt (especially the species known as "scandalising the court"
9. Arguments:
Appellant
The appellant had connoted that , statements that the chief minster had delivered
before the press conference was considered to be “fair criticism”
the statements were not biased or was targeting any specific individual , but the
institution as a whole , the functioning of the institution and how the people are
getting benefitted and affected out of it.
Appellant sought protection under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of India, stating
before the court , the statements were a right to educationally engage the public on the
political ideology .
Reiterating , statements would be included under the purview of the fundamental
rights to speech
The appellants side , argued that , law of contempt in England , has become obsolete
and therefore , the law shouldn’t be applied here.
Appellant since referred communist remarks in the press conference , also did the
same before the apex court , via Marxist, Engels and Leninist teachings related to
state and its organs.
Respondent
When a chief minister of the state , makes such public remarks about an institution
where people look up to for justice, it will tarnish the public image of the Indian
judiciary , undermine the public confidence and therefore will constitute to contempt
of court,
the appellant have scandalized the Indian judiciary with his remarks
10. Judgement
The supreme court upheld the decision of the lower court , stating that the remarks are
considered as a “CONTEMPT OF COURT”
The apex court reduced the fine that appellant has to pay , from Rupees 1,000 to
Rupees 50.
Default, imprisonment for one week
The court found that , the appellants remarks about Indian judiciary was a direct
attack to the institution , that can undermine its public confidence , lower the dignity
of judges in the eyes of people , therefore this case amounts to contempt of court
11. Court’s Reasoning
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution , which is the fundamental right to freedom
of speech and expression , is not an absolute right.
Therefore , no one can exercise this right by disobeying the rules and provision of the
country , or tarnishing any public institution by the usage of this right
Contempt of court is undermining the public confidence of Indian judiciary , and
therefore remains breach of law
The court also pointed out that , appellant has used the teachings of Marxist, Lenin
and Engels, but the party had distorted the teachings or either clearly misunderstood
what they had professed .
The teachings targeted state and power , but never directed towards the functioning of
judiciary as claimed by the appellant.
Weakening the judiciary by these slander remarks are unconstitutional and unjust , the
broad criticism was deemed harmful towards democracy of the state
12. Precedents Relying On
1. Andre Paul Terence Ambard v. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, AIR 1936
PC 141
2. Queen v. Gray, (1900) 2 QB 36
3. McLeod v. St. Aubyn, LR 1899 AC 549
4. The Government Pleader, High Court, Bombay v. Tulsidas Subhanao Jadhav, ILR
1938 Bom 179
5. R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, (1968) 2 WLR 1204
6. In re Basudeo Prasad, Advocate, Patna High Court
7. Charlotte Anita Whitney v. People of the State of California, 71 L Ed 1095
8. Arthur Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 93 L Ed. 1131
9. New York Times Company v. L.B. Sullivan, 11 L Ed. 2d 686
10. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, (1962) 2 Supp SCR 769
13. Ratio Decidendi
Mocking ,stating public allegations against Indian judiciary , with the addition of class
prejudice, bias etc,. exceeds the limits of fair criticism and leads to the scandalising of
Indian judiciary, or contempt of court.
The remarks will undermine the public image of the judiciary
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right , but is not an absolute right that anyone can
exercise.
The rights should be exercised within the purview of laws and legal provisions of the
country.
Academic, scholarly, or fair criticism is permitted, but general attacks on the integrity,
impartiality, or intention of the judiciary cross the line into contempt.
