{"id":173292,"date":"1969-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969"},"modified":"2017-06-27T19:51:25","modified_gmt":"2017-06-27T14:21:25","slug":"a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969","title":{"rendered":"A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1694, \t\t 1970 SCR (2) 410<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nA.K. GOPALAN AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNOORDEEN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/09\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nMITTER, G.K.\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR 1694\t\t  1970 SCR  (2) 410\n 1970 SCC  (2) 734\n\n\nACT:\n    Contempt of Court's Act (32 of 1952) ss. 3 &   4--Murder\nFirst  information  Report  lodged--Statement  charging\t for\nmurder\tmade--Arrest\t accused  thereafter--After   arrest\nstatement published in newspaper-When contempt committed.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    A first information report was lodged on Sept. 11,\t1967\nregarding  the loss of life of a person when two  groups  of\npeople clashed.\t On Sept. 20, 1967 the first appellant\tmade\na  statement  charging\tone of the groups  being  guilty  of\ndeliberate conspiracy to commit the murder and alleging that\na prominent member of that party had given instructions\t for\nthis.\tThe  respondent\t along with  his  two  brothers\t was\narrested  on  Sept.  23,  1967\tand  on\t the  next  day\t the\nMagistrate  remanded the accused to police custody.  In\t its\nissue  dated Sept. 23, 1967 a newspaper of which the  second\nappellant was the editor printed the statement of the  first\nappellant.   Later  on all the three accused  were  produced\nbefore\tthe  Magistrate.  The respondent  filed\t a  petition\nunder  ss.  3  and 4 of the Contempt of\t Court's  Act,\t1952\nagainst\t the  first  appellant,\t second\t appellant  and\t the\nprinter\t of  the newspapers.  The High Court found  all\t the\npersons guilty of contempt of court.\n    In\tappeal\tby  certificate obtained by  the  first\t and\nsecond appellants this Court,\n    HELD  :--(Per  Full Court):---The second  appellant\t was\nguilty of contempt of court, as proceedings in a court\twere\nimminent on Sept. 23, 1967 when the statement was  published\nin  the\t newspaper.   When  the\t accused  had  already\tbeen\narrested on September 23, 1969 in connection with a  serious\ncognizable case proceedings in a court were imminent on that\ndate.  The fact that the police might, after  investigation,\ncome to the conclusion that the accused was innocent.  would\nnot make the proceedings any the less imminent.\t To  advance\nthe  day  of imminence to the day when the  police  makes  a\nreport\tunder s. 173 Cr. P.C. would do untold harm to  those\nwho may actually be ultimately prosecuted. [418 B-D]\n    (Per  Sikri\t and  Jaganmohan Reddy,\t JJ.)  :--The  first\nappellant  was not guilty of contempt of court as there\t was\nno evidence that any proceedings in a court were imminent on\nthe date when the statement was made. The lodging of a first\ninformation  report  does  not\tby  itself  establish\tthat\nproceedings  in a court were imminent.\tIt would  depend  on\nthe   facts  proved  in\t a  particular\tcase   whether\t the\nproceedings  are  imminent  or\tnot  As\t far  as  the  first\nappellant was concerned the relevant date was Sept. 20, 1967\nwhen he made the statement and not Sept. 25, 1967 when\t the\nnewspaper  published the statement.  There was\tno  evidence\nthat  the first appellant was instrumental in  getting\tthis\nstatement published on Sept 25, 1967.  Even the accused were\nnot  arrested till September 23, 1967, and ordinarily  until\nan   accused  is  arrested  it\tcannot\tbe  said  that\t any\nproceedings  in\t a court are imminent  against\tthat  person\nbecause he may never be arrested or he may be arrested after\na lapse of months or years. [416 E, F; 4 17 A-C]\n      411\n    Surendra  Mohanty v. State of Orissa Cr. A No.<\/a>  107\t  of\n1956  dt. 23-1-1961. relied on.\n    It would be an undue restriction on the liberty of\tfree\nspeech to lay down that even before any arrest has been made\nthere  should  be no comments on the facts of  a  particular\ncase.  In some case no doubt, especially in cases of  public\nscandal\t regarding   companies, it is the  duty of  a\tfree\npress  to comment on such topic so as to bring them  to\t the\nattention of the public. [417 D]\nR.v.  Savundranayagan  and Walker, [1968] 3 All\t E.R.  439',\nreferred\n    (Per  Mitter, J. dissenting) :--A contempt of court\t may\nbe committed by a person when he knows or has good reason to\nbelieve\t that criminal proceedings are immigrant.  The\ttest\nis whether the circumstances in which the alleged  contemnor\nmakes  the  statement  are such that a\tperson\tof  ordinary\nprudence would be of opinion that criminal proceedings would\nsoon be launched.  The first appellant must have realised on\nSeptember 20, 1967 that the investigation by the police\t was\nsure  to lead to cognizance of the offence being taken by  a\nMagistrate  and prosecution of some persons for the  offence\nof  culpable  homicide.\t  The first  appellant\twas  not  an\nilliterate  person who could not be reasonably\texpected  to\nknow that Criminal proceedings were bound to be launched  in\nrespect of the affair; whether anybody would be successfully\nprosecuted is a different matter. but that would depend upon\nthe  evidence which would be brought before the court.\t But\nno person with any experience of worldly affairs, much\tless\na person of the standing of the first appellant, a member of\nParliament  and\t a  leader of a\t political  group  could  be\nignorant  of the fact that a murder in broad day light\twhen\ntwo  group of people clash is sure to be  investigated\tinto\nand  made  the\t subject  of   criminal\t  proceedings.\t His\nstatement  suggested that he had some personal enquiries  in\nthe  matter  and had come to gather therefrom  that  certain\nmembers\t of a particular political party had entered into  a\nconspiracy  to\tmurder and had actually carried\t their\tplan\ninto  execution.  There,  can be no  doubt  that  the  first\nappellant's  motive and object was not only to\tfurther\t the\ncause of a particular political party but also to create  an\natmosphere  of prejudice against members of that  party\t and\ncharge\tsome of them with one of the most  serious  offences\nknown to law, namely, that of conspiracy to murder folio.wed\nby actual homicide. [422 H-423G]\n    Surendra Mohanty v. The State of Orissa, Cr. A. No.<\/a>\t 107\nof 1956 dr. 23-1-1961, distinguished.\n    Rex\t v.  Parke, [1903] 2 K.B. 432,\tR.V.  Daily  Mirror.\n[1927] 1 K.B. 845, 851, Ragina v. Odhams Press Ltd. [1957] 1\nQ.B. 73 at 81, R.V. Savundaramareyagan and Walker, [1968]  3\nAll,  E.R.  439 at 441, Tuljarama Rao v. Sir  James  Tavlor.\nI.L.R. 1939 Mad. 466 at 476, In the matter Tribune,  Lahore.\nI.LR.  25 Lahore 111, and Attorney-General v. Butterworth  &\nOrs. [1962] 3 A.E.R. 326, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal  No.71  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
    Appeal  from  the judgment and order dated\tJanuary\t 15,
\n1968  of  the  Kerala High Court in O.P. No.  4394  of\t1967
\n(Contempt).\n<\/p>\n
A.S.R. Chari and B.R.G.K. Achar, for the appellants.
\nA.  C. Jose, S.K. Mehta, K.L. Mehta and Sona  Bhatiani,\t for
\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n
412<\/span><\/p>\n
    M.R.K. Pillai, for the Advocate-General for the State of
\nKerala.\n<\/p>\n
The  Judgment of S.M. SIKRI and P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY,  JJ.was
\ndelivered  by  SIKRI,  J.  MITTER,  J.\tgave  ‘a  dissenting
\nOpinion.\n<\/p>\n
    Sikri,  J.\t In this appeal by  certificate\t of  fitness
\ngranted\t by the Kerala High Court two questions arise:\t (1)
\nWhether\t on the day when the appellant, A.K.  Gopalan,\tmade
\nthe  statement\tcomplained of or when it  was  published  in
\n“Deshabhimani”\tany proceedings in a court could be said  to
\nbe  imminent;  and  (2) whether this  statement\t amounts  to
\ncontempt of court.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t facts in brief are that on September 11, 1967,\t the
\nruling parties in Kerala State staged what is called ‘Kerala
\nBandh’.\t  A serious incident took place on that\t day  during
\nthe course of which one C.P. Karunakaran lost his life at  a
\nplace called Kuttoor.  A First information report was lodged
\non  that  very\tday.   On  September  12,  1967\t the   first
\ninformation   report  was  transferred\tto  another   police
\nstation.   On  September  20,  1967,  the  appellant,\tA.K.
\nGopalan, made the following statement:
\n“Tearful story
\n\t      It    was the story of a young man who had  to
\n\t      sacrifice his life to the naked goondaism\t  of
\n\t      Congressmen, that was heard from the trembling
\n\t      lips  of so many people in Kuttoor.  Had\tthis
\n\t      tragedy  occurred\t in the course of  a  sudden
\n\t      fight one could have understood it.  But\twhat
\n\t      I\t was  able to make out was that\t it  was  in
\n\t      prosecution  of  a  deliberate  conspiracy  to
\n\t      commit  murder.  It appears that\ta  prominent
\n\t      Congress leader of the Cannanore District\t had
\n\t      given instructions for this the previous\tday.
\n\t      It  was as a result of being pounced upon\t and
\n\t      stabbed  while  he  was  in  a  peaceful\t and
\n\t      disciplined manner calling for the  observance
\n\t      of  the  Bandh by the closure  of\t shops\tthat
\n\t      Comrade\t  C.P.\t   Karunakaran\t    suffered
\n\t      martyrdom.  Comrade Kunhikannan who  was\twith
\n\t      him  also\t suffered  serious  injuries.\t The
\n\t      police  have seized an unlicensed\t loaded\t gun
\n\t      and   other  weapons  from  the  shop   of   a
\n\t      congressman at the scene of occurrence.
\n\t      Murder too was planned.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  Is  it  not to be inferred from  all\tthis
\n\t      that  there was a prearranged plan  to  commit
\n\t      murder   ?  The  enlightened  people  of\t the
\n\t      locality\twere determined to press forward  to
\n\t      the chosen destination of that class for\twhom
\n\t      Comrade. Karunakaran has sacrificed his life.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   413<\/span><\/p>\n
  On  September 23, 1967 K.P. Noordeen was  arrested  along-
\nwith   his  two\t brothers.   On\t September  24,\t  1967\t the
\nMagistrate  remanded the accused to police custody.  In\t its
\nissue  dated  September\t 25,  1967,  the   Malayalam   Daily
\nnewspaper  called “Deshabhimani” of which P. Govinda Pillai,
\nthe second appellant,was the editor and M. Govindankutty was
\nthe printer, printed the statement which we have  reproduced
\nabove.\t On September 29, 1967, all the three  accused\twere
\nproduced before the Magistrate. On October 5, 1967, bail was
\nrefused\t by the District Magistrate but was granted  by\t the
\nSessions  Judge.   On November 1, 1967, Noordeen  filed\t the
\npetition  under ss. 3 and 4 of the Contempt of\tCourt’s\t Act
\n(32 of 1952) impleading the three respondents, A.K. Gopalan,
\nP. Govinda Pillai and M. Govindankutty.
\n  The  High Court held all the three respondents  guilty  of
\ncontempt of court and convicted them accordingly.  The\tHigh
\nCourt  imposed a sentence of fine of Rs. 200\/- on the  first
\nrespondent and of administering an admonition to respondents
\n2  and\t3.  The High Court discharged  respondents  two\t and
\nthree after due admonition.  The appellants A.K. Gopalan and
\nP. Govinda Pillai havingsecured certificate of fitness under
\nArt. 134(1)(c)\tthe appeal is now before us.
\nThis  Court in Surendra Mohanty v. State of  Orissa<\/a>(1)\texa-
\nmined the question whether the publication of a statement at
\na  time when the only step taken was the recording of  first
\ninformation report under s. 154, Cr. P.C., could be contempt
\nof  court.   As\t the  judgment in this\tcase  has  not\tbeen
\nreported we think that we should reproduce the main  portion
\nof  the\t judgment.   Kapur, I., speaking on  behalf  of\t the
\nCourt, observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     “Before the publication of the comments
\n\t      complained  of,  only  the  first\t information
\n\t      report was filed in which though some  persons
\n\t      were  mentioned  as being suspected  of  being
\n\t      responsible  for\tcausing the  breach  in\t the
\n\t      bund, there was no definite allegation
\n\t      against  any one of them. In  the\t chargesheet
\n\t      subsequently   filed  by\tthe   police   these
\n\t      suspects\tdo  not\t appear to  be\tamongst\t the
\n\t      persons  accused.\t It was,  therefore,  argued
\n\t      that by the publication there could not be any
\n\t      tendency\tor likelihood to interfere with\t the
\n\t      due course of justice.  The learned Additional
\n\t      Solicitor-General\t for the State submitted  on
\n\t      the other hand that if there was a  reasonable
\n\t      probability  of a prosecution  being  launched
\n\t      against  any  person and such  prosecution  be
\n\t      merely  imminent, the publication would  be  a
\n\t      contempt of court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tThe  Contempt of Courts Act confers  on\t the
\n\t      High\tCourts the power to punish  for\t the
\n\t      contempt\tof inferior Criminal Appeal  107  of
\n\t      1966 decided on 23-1-1961
\n\t      414<\/span>
\n\t      courts.  This power is both wide and has\tbeen
\n\t      termed  arbitrary.  The courts must   exercise
\n\t      this power with circumspection, carefully\t and
\n\t      with  restraint and only in cases where it  is
\n\t      necessary\t  for  maintaining  the\t course\t  of
\n\t      justice pure and unaffected.  It must be shown
\n\t      that  it\twas probable  that  the\t publication
\n\t      would  substantially  interfere with  the\t due
\n\t      course of justice; commitment for contempt  is
\n\t      not   a  matter  of  course  but\twithin\t the
\n\t      discretion   of  the  court  which   must\t  be
\n\t      exercised with caution. To constitute contempt
\n\t      it is not necessary to show that :as a  matter
\n\t      of  fact a judge or a jury will be  prejudiced
\n\t      by  the offending publication but the  essence
\n\t      of  the  offence\tis  conduct  calculated\t  to
\n\t      produce  an  atmosphere of  prejudice  in\t the
\n\t      midst of which the proceedings will have to go
\n\t      on  and a tendency to interfere with  the\t due
\n\t      course  of  justice or  to  prejudice  mankind
\n\t      against persons who are on trial or who may be
\n\t      brought to trial.\t It must be used to preserve
\n\t      citizens’ right to have a fair trial of  their
\n\t      causes  and proceedings in an atmosphere\tfree
\n\t      of all prejudice or prepossession.  It will be
\n\t      contempt if there is a publication of any news
\n\t      or  comments which have a tendency to  or\t are
\n\t      calculated  to or are likely to prejudice\t the
\n\t      parties  or their causes or to interfere\twith
\n\t      due course of justice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    As\tto when proceedings begin or when they are  imminent
\nfor  the purposes of the offence of contempt of\t court\tmust
\ndepend\tupon  the  circumstances of each  case,\t and  it  is
\nunnecessary  in\t this case    define  the  exact  boundaries
\nwithin which they are to be confined.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t filing of a first information report does  not,  by
\nitself,\t establish  that proceedings in a court of  law\t are
\nimminent.   In\torder ‘to do this various other\t facts\twill
\nhave  to  be proved and in each ,case  that  question  would
\ndepend on the facts proved.”\n<\/p>\n
Then Kapur J. examined the facts of that case and observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “In the present case all that happened was
\n\t      that  there  was a  first\t information  report
\n\t      made  to the police in which certain  suspects
\n\t      were   named;   they   were   not\t   arrested;
\n\t      investigation was started and on the date when
\n\t      the   offending  article\twas   published\t  no
\n\t      judicial\tproceedings had been taken  or\twere
\n\t      contemplated against the persons named in\t the
\n\t      first   information  report.    Indeed   after
\n\t      investigation  the  suspects  named  in\tthat
\n\t      report  were  not sent up for trial.   At\t the
\n\t      date this offending publication was made there
\n\t      was  no proceeding pending in a court  of\t law
\n\t      nor was any such proceeding imminent.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     415<\/span><\/p>\n
    On\tthe  first point it seems to us clear  that  on\t the
\nfacts  of this case it cannot be said that  any\t proceedings
\nwere imminent on September 20, 1967 in a court.\t It is\ttrue
\nthat  the first information report was lodged  on  September
\n11,  1967,  but this Court has definitely held\tin  Surendra
\nMohanty’s case(1) that lodging of a first information report
\ndoes  not  by itself establish that proceedings in  a  court
\nwere imminent.\tThis court further said that it would depend
\non  the\t facts\tproved\tin a  particular  case\twhether\t the
\nproceedings  are imminent or not.  There are no other  facts
\nwhich  tend to establish the imminence of proceedings  in  a
\ncourt.\t Even the accused were not arrested  till  September
\n23, 1967, and even if it be relevant there  is no proof that
\narrest\twas  imminent  on September  20,  1967.\t  Ordinarily
\nuntil  an  accused is arrested it cannot be  said  that\t any
\nproceedings  in\t a court are imminent  against\tthat  person
\nbecause he may never be arrested or he may be arrested after
\na lapse of months or years.\n<\/p>\n
    It would be an undue restriction on the liberty of\tfree
\nspeech to lay down that even before any arrest has been made
\nthere  should  be no comments on the facts of  a  particular
\ncase.  In same cases no doubt, especially in cases of public
\nscandal regarding companies, it is the duty of a free  press
\nto  comment  on\t such  topics so as to\tbring  them  to\t the
\nattention  of the public.  As observed by Salmon,  L.J.,  in
\nR.v.  Sayundranaragan and Walker(“).  “It is in\t the  public
\ninterest that this should be done.  Indeed, it is  sometimes
\nlargely because of facts discovered and brought to light  by
\nthe  press  that  criminals are\t brought  to  justice.\t The
\nprivate\t individual  is adequately protected by the  law  of
\nlibel  should defamatory statements published about  him  be
\nuntrue,\t or  if\t any defamatory comment made  about  him  is
\nunfair”.   Salmon,  L.J. further pointed out  that  “no\t one
\nshould\timagine that he is safe from committal for  contempt
\nof  court if, knowing or having good reason to believe\tthat
\ncriminal  proceedings  are imminent, he chooses\t to  publish
\nmatters calculated to prejudice a fair trial.”\n<\/p>\n
    The learned counsel for the State urges that the crucial
\ndate is not September 20, 1967, when the statement was made,
\nbut  September\t25, 1967, when the newspaper  published\t the
\nstatement.  The latter date may be relevant in the  case  of
\nthe other appellant but as far as Gopalan is concerned it is
\nSeptember  20, 1967, which is the relevant date..  There  is
\nno  evidence  that  he\twas  instrumental  in  getting\tthis
\nstatement published on September 25, 1967.
\n    We\tare  accordingly of the opinion that  the  appellant
\nGopalan\t was wrongly convicted by the High Court.  There  is
\nno evidence that any proceedings in a court were imminent.
\n(1) Cr. A. 107 of 1956 decided on 23-1-1951.
\n(2) [1968]3 All E.R. 439.\n<\/p>\n
416<\/span><\/p>\n
    Let\t us now examine the case of P. Govinda\tPillai,\t the
\nsecond\tappellant.  The statement was published, as we\thave
\nalready\t said, in the daily newspaper Called  “Deshabhimani”
\non  September  25, 1967.  Were any proceedings\tin  a  court
\nimminent  on  that  date  ? The\t accused  had  already\tbeen
\narrested  on  September 23, 1969, in  a\t serious  cognizable
\ncase.\tArrest means that the police was prima facie on\t the
\nright  track.  The accused must have been produced before  a
\nmagistrate within 24 hours of the arrest in accordance\twith
\nArt.  21 of the Constitution, and, the magistrate must\thave
\nauthorised  further  detention\tof the\taccused.   In  these
\ncircumstances  it is difficult to say ‘that any\t proceedings
\nin  a court were not imminent on that date.  The  fact\tthat
\nthe  police  may  have\tafter  investigation  come  to\t the
\nconclusion  that the accused was innocent does not make\t the
\nproceedings  any the less imminent.  Proceedings in a  court
\nmay  be imminent on one day and yet not be brought the\tnext
\nday.   For  instance, the accused may in  the  meantime\t die
\nor  he\tmay  be\t proved innocent.  To  advance\tthe  day  of
\nimminence to the day when the police makes a report under s.
\n173, Cr. P.C would do untold harm to those who may  actually
\nbe ultimately prosecuted. Not only will it tend to harm\t the
\naccused\t but  would also tend to subvert the scheme  of\t our
\ncriminal law and procedure.  It would subvert it because  it
\nwould tend to encourage public investigation of a crime\t and
\na  public discussion of the character and antecedents of  an
\naccused\t in  detention.\t The investigation of  a  cognizable
\ncase  is  eminently  the province of the police,  and  if  a
\nperson\thas  information  relevant to the  commission  of  a
\nparticular  crime  there  is nothing  to  prevent  him\tfrom
\ntransmitting it to the police.\tThis it seems to us would be
\nthe  ordinary  rule  in the case of an\tinvestigation  of  a
\nmurder.\t  It  may  be that  in\tan  investigation  involving
\nprolonged examination of account books of companies and\t the
\nramifications  of a conspiracy, proceedings may not be\tsaid
\nto be imminent as soon as the accused is arrested.  Some  of
\nthese cases take a long time to investigate and as  observed
\nby  this Court, it is difficult to lay down  any  inflexible
\nrule.  But as far as an investigation of a charge of  murder
\nis  concerned once an accused has been arrested\t proceedings
\nin court should be treated as imminent.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tview of this conclusion we must hold that as far  as
\nthe appellant P. Govinda Pillai is concerned proceedings  in
\na court were imminent on September 25, 1967.
\n    It has not been argued that Govinda Pillai did not\tknow
\nof the arrest of the accused or that he had good reasons  to
\nbelieve\t that no arrest had been effected by  September\t 25,
\n1967.\tIt is true that the statement does not\tmention\t the
\nname of the accused but it does suggest that the person\t who
\ncommitted the deliberate murder was acting as a result of  a
\nconspiracy and it was not a
\n      417<\/span>
\ncase  of a sudden fight.  It seems to us that the  statement
\nwould tend to prejudice mankind against the accused.
\n    In the result we maintain the conviction entered by\t the
\nHigh Court against the appellant P. Govinda Pillai.
\n    Accordingly\t the appeal of A.K.  Gopalan is allowed\t and
\nthe  appeal  of P. Govinda Pillai dismissed.  The  fine,  if
\nalready paid by A.K. Gopalan, shall be refunded.
\n    Mitter, J.\tWith respect I agree with the order proposed
\nas  regards  Govinda  Pillai but I am unable  to  concur  in
\nallowing  the appeal of the first appellant.  The facts\t are
\nstated\tsufficiently in the judgment of my  learned  brother
\nand  need not be repeated. He has held and indeed there\t can
\nbe  no\tdoubt that any publication or comment  which  has  a
\ntendency  to  or is calculated or likely  to  prejudice\t the
\nparties\t or their causes or with the. due course of  justice
\nin pending proceedings would constitute a contempt of court.
\nIt  is\talso universally accepted that even  if\t proceedings
\nhave not actually begun but are imminent conduct of the kind
\nreferred  to  above  would be punishable.  In  my  view\t the
\nconsensus  of  authorities both in England and in  India  is
\nthat contempt of court may be committed by any one making  a
\ncomment or publication of the exceptionable type if he knows
\nor  has reason to believe that proceedings  in court  though
\nnot  actually begun are\t imminent. There does not appear  to
\nbe  any decision of this Court on the last aspect and it  is
\ntherefore  necessary  to  make a  brief\t reference  to\tthe.
\nauthorities.\n<\/p>\n
    It is agreed that there were no proceedings pending in a
\ncourt  when  the  first\t appellant  made  his  statement  on
\nSeptember  20,\t1967  which was actually  published  in\t the
\nMalayalam  Daily newspaper in its issue dated September\t 25,
\n1967.\tIn  my view although no\t criminal  proceedings\tWere
\nactually  pending in any court on 20th September, it is\t not
\npossible to hold that at that time such proceedings were not
\nimminent or that the first appellant had no reasonable cause
\nto believe that they were not imminent.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Contempt  of Courts Act, 1952 does not\t purport  to
\ndefine\twhat actually constitutes such contempt.   This\t was
\ndone with a purpose as attempts to interfere with the course
\nof  justice  are  of  so many different\t kinds\tand  may  be
\ncommitted  in circumstances so various that the\t Legislature
\npossibly  thought  it unwise to define the  limits  thereof.
\nCourts in India have referred to the manifold aspects of the
\nlaw  of Contempt of court and accepted the  principles\tlaid
\ndown in English decisions which go back to a date well\tover
\na century.  Early in the present century in Rex v.  Parke(1)
\none  Dongal  was  brought up before the\t petty\tSessions  of
\nSaffron Walden charged with forgery and remanded without any
\nevidence
\n(1) [1903] 2 K.B. 432
\n418<\/span>
\nbeing  taken.\tArticles to his disadvantage appeared  in  a
\nnewspaper of which the defendant was the editor.  A rule was
\nissued by the High Court to show cause why he should not  be
\ncommitted for contempt of court.  A point was taken that the
\njurisdiction  would not be attracted if at the time  of\t the
\npublication  of\t the  article complained of  there  were  no
\nproceedings  actually  pending in any court  but  the  petty
\nsessions  court\t and  that the jurisdiction  to\t punish\t the
\npublishers  of\tarticles of the kind before  the  court\t was
\nconfined  to  cases in which at the  moment  of\t publication
\nthere  was some cause actually de:ending in the High  Court.
\nIn rejecting this contention Wills J. observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “The\t reason\t why  the   publication\t  of
\n\t      articles like those with which we have to deal
\n\t      is  treated as a contempt of court is  because
\n\t      their tendency  and sometimes their object  is
\n\t      to  deprive  the court of the power  of  doing
\n\t      that   which   is\t the  end  for\t which\t  it
\n\t      exists–namely  to  administer  justice  duly,
\n\t      impartially,  and with reference solely to the
\n\t      facts  judicially\t brought before\t it.   Their
\n\t      tendency\tis to reduce the Court which has  to
\n\t      try  the\tcase  to impotence, so\tfar  as\t the
\n\t      effectual\t  elimination\tof   prejudice\t and
\n\t      prepossession  is\t concerned  ….  If  it  be
\n\t      once  grasped that such is the nature  of\t the
\n\t      offence, what possible difference can it\tmake
\n\t      whether  the  particular Court which  is\tthus
\n\t      sought to be deprived of its independence, and
\n\t      its power of effecting the great end for which
\n\t      it is created, be at that moment in session or
\n\t      even actually constituted or not.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Dealing with the argument that the remedy only existed\twhen
\nthere was a cause pending in the court the Judge said:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “.\t       in very nearly all the  cases
\n\t      which  have   arisen there has been  a  cause’
\n\t      actually begun so that   the expression  quite
\n\t      natural under the circumstances,\t accentuates
\n\t      the  fact, not that the case has\tbeen  begun,
\n\t      but  that\t it is not at an end.  That  is\t the
\n\t      cardinal\tconsideration.\tIt is possible\tvery
\n\t      effectually   to\tpoison\tthe    fountain\t  of
\n\t      justice* before it begins to flow.  It is\t not
\n\t      possible to do so when the stream has ceased.”
\nIn  a  recent  judgment of the Court of\t Appeal\t in  England
\nobservations have been made which run counter to the  dictum
\nin the lust sentence.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t last  extract from the judgment of  Wills,  J.\t was
\nquoted\tby Lord Hewart C.J. in R.V. Daily Mirror(1)  and  by
\nLord  Goddard\tC.J.  in Regina\t v.  Odhams  Press  Ltd.(2).
\nDealing with the ques-\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1927] I K.B. 84.5 at 851.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1957]1 Q.B. 73 at 81.\n<\/p>\n
      419.
\ntion  whether  mens  rea was  necessary\t to  constitute\t the
\noffence the learned Chief Justice said:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “It  is obvious that if a person does\t not
\n\t      know  that  proceedings  have  begun  or\t are
\n\t      imminent,\t he cannot by writing or  speech  be
\n\t      said to influence the course of justice or  to
\n\t      prejudice\t a litigant or accused\tperson,\t but
\n\t      that  is no answer if he publishes that  which
\n\t      in  fact\tis calculated to  prejudice  a\tfair
\n\t      trial.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In   R.V.\t Savundaranayagan  and\tWalker(1)   to\t  be
\nreferred     in detail later the Court of Appeal in  England
\nexpressed similar views in no unmistakable terms.
\n    We may now turn to the decisions of our High Courts.  In
\nTuljarama Rao v.  Sir James Taylor(“)  and–in the matter of
\n“Tribune”, Lahore(3) opinions were expressed that a  comment
\non  proceedings which were imminent but not yet launched  in
\ncourt with knowledge of the fact was as much a contempt as a
\ncomment\t of  a\tcase actually launched.\t  According  to\t the
\nLahore\tHigh  Court it was sufficient that  the\t proceedings
\nwere  imminent to the know]edge of the person  charged\twith
\ncontempt.\n<\/p>\n
    It\twas pointed out in Surendra Mohanty  v.\t The   State
\nof, Orissa(4) that:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “As  to  when proceedings  begin  or\twhen
\n\t      they  are\t imminent for the  purposes  of\t the
\n\t      offence of contempt of Court must depend\tupon
\n\t      the  circumstances  of each case,\t and  it  is
\n\t      unnecessary  in this case to define the  exact
\n\t      boundaries   within  which  they\tare  to\t  be
\n\t      confined.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  The  filing of a First Information  Report
\n\t      does   not,   by\t itself,   establish\tthat
\n\t      proceedings in a court of law are imminent. In
\n\t      order to do this various other facts will have
\n\t      to  be proved and in each case  that  question
\n\t      would depend on the facts proved.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The facts in Surendra Mohanty’s case(4) were that there\t was
\na breach in a bund in a big reservoir between August 12\t and
\n13, 1953 as ‘a result of which some fields were flooded.  On
\nAugust\t13, 1953 a first information was lodged at a  police
\nstation\t stating  that it had been cut and the\tcutting\t was
\nsuspected  to have been done by one or more of\tthe  persons
\nwhose  names  were therein mentioned, The  police  thereupon
\nstarted\t investigation and on the 24th September  under\t the
\norders\tof the Sub-Divisional Magistrate statements of\tfive
\nwitnesses  were recorded presumably  under s.  164  Criminal
\nProcedure  Code.   On October 26, 1953 a report\t called\t the
\ncharge sheet for an offence under s. 430 I.P.C. was received
\n(1) [1968] 3 All E.R. 439 at 441.\n<\/p>\n
(2) I.L.R. 1939 Mad 466 at 476.\n<\/p>\n
(3) I.L.R. 25 Lahore 111.\n<\/p>\n
(4) C.A. 107 of 1956 decided on 23-1-1961.\n<\/p>\n
420<\/span><\/p>\n
,by the Magistrate who took cognizance and summoned the\t per
\nsons  accused therein and the proceedings were continued  in
\nthe court of the Magistrate.  Between August 14 and  October
\n26,  1953 two Oriya papers published comments in  regard  to
\nthe incident thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     “In  the year 1952, a  water  reservoir
\n\t      had  been\t constructed at\t Dangarpara  in\t the
\n\t      Titlagarh\t Sub-Division  of  the\tDistrict  of
\n\t      Bolangir\tby the Government at a cost  of\t Rs.
\n\t      33,000.\tThis has been breached due to  heavy
\n\t      rainfall.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    It\tis  heard that 15  days\t before\t the
\n\t      breach  of this bund, Abhut Sankh,  Chintamani
\n\t      Subudhi and Bhagaban Das and others of Lakhana
\n\t      on  seeing  the  condition  of  the  reservoir
\n\t      apprehended  a  breach and brought it  to\t the
\n\t      notice of the S.D.O. and requested him to open
\n\t      an  escape  for the discharge of\tthe  surplus
\n\t      water.   But  in spite of ‘hearing  this,\t the
\n\t      S.D.O. did not open an escape.  When there was
\n\t      excessive accumulation of water, the Bund\t was
\n\t      unable to withstand and gave way.
\n\t\t  It  is heard that the S.D.O.\tin order  to
\n\t      conceal  his   own fault\tis  accusing  Mangra
\n\t      Naihi  of\t Bana  Bahal,  Nilamani\t Mahakud  of
\n\t      Kumanbahal  and Satya Ganda, Banemali,  Nariha
\n\t      and  others of Dangarpara of the\toffences  of
\n\t      cutting the bund and trying to create evidence
\n\t      by  assaulting them through the police and  by
\n\t      keeping watch (over the locality).
\n\t\t  If  actually\tthe  aforesaid\tpersons\t had
\n\t      reported to the S.D.O. regarding the said bund
\n\t      and  the\tS.D.O. neglected  in  taking  proper
\n\t      steps   himself,\t why  he   should   not\t  be
\n\t      responsible for this.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  Court  held that the order of conviction by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  could not be sustained in view of the facts  that  on
\nthe  date  when\t the  offending\t article  was  published  no
\njudicial  proceeding  had been taken  or  were\tcontemplated
\nagainst\t the persons named in the first information  report.
\nAccording  to the report the breach was not  caused  through
\nany natural cause but was due to cutting by some persons who
\nwere  suspected.  Indeed, after investigation  the  suspects
\nnamed  in that report were sent up for trial.  On  the\tdate
\nwhen   offending  publication  was  made,   there   was\t  no
\nproceeding  pending  in\t a court of law\t nor  was  any\tsuch
\nproceeding imminent.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis difficult to hold on the facts of this case\tthat
\nthe first appellant did not know or had no reason to believe
\nthat proceedings in court were not imminent when he made the
\nstatement  on 20th September.  It is common  knowledge\tthat
\nwhenever a man loses
\n    421<\/span>
\nhis life through a cause other than natural the police\twill
\ninvariably come to the scene, take custody of the dead\tbody
\nand start investigations.  Indeed under s. 174 Cr. P.C. even
\nwhen  information is received that a person has\t died  under
\ncircumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other
\nperson\thas  committed\tan offence, it is the  duty  of\t the
\nofficer\t in  charge  of\t the  police  station  within  whose
\njurisdiction the death occurs to give intimation thereof  to
\nthe  nearest  Magistrate empowered to hold  inquest  and  to
\nproceed to the place where the body of such deceased  person
\nis, to make an investigation and draw up a report.
\n    Here  a person lost his life in broad day light  not  by
\naccident but by stabbing when two groups of people  clashed.
\nOne of the groups was charged by the statement of the  first
\nappellant  to be guilty of deliberate conspiracy  to  commit
\nmurder and it was further alleged that a prominent member of
\nthat party had given instructions for this, the day prior to
\nthe  violent  disturbance.  The first appellant was  not  an
\nilliterate  person who could not be reasonably\texpected  to
\nknow that criminal proceedings were bound to be launched  in
\nrespect of the affair: whether anybody would be successfully
\nprosecuted is a different matter, but that would depend upon
\nthe evidence which would be brought before the court. But no
\nperson\twith any experience of worldly affairs, much less  a
\nperson\tof the standing of the first appellant, a member  of
\nParliament  and\t a  leader of a\t political  group–could  be
\nignorant  of the fact that a murder in broad day light\twhen
\ntwo  groups of people clash is sure to be investigated\tinto
\nand made the subject of criminal proceedings.  The statement
\nof  the\t appellant suggests that he had made  some  personal
\nenquiries  in  the matter and had come to  gather  therefrom
\nthat  certain  members of a particular political  party\t had
\nentered into a conspiracy to murder and had actually carried
\ntheir plan into execution.  He had also charged a leader  of
\na  rival  party,  who  was  not\t named,\t with  having  given
\ninstructions  the previous day.\t There can be no doubt\tthat
\nthe motive and the object was not only to further the  cause
\nof  a  particular  political party but\talso  to  create  an
\natmosphere  of prejudice against members of that  party\t and
\ncharge\tsome of them with one of the most  serious  offences
\nknown to law, namely, that of conspiracy to murder  followed
\nby actual homicide.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe case of R.V. Savundranayagan and Walker (1)\t the
\nCourt  of Appeal in England although of opinion that a\tfree
\npress had the right and duty to comment on topics of  public
\ninterest so as to bring them to the attention of the  public
\nlike the failure of an insurance company in which the moving
\nfigure\twas  a man with an unsavory record who\tappeared  to
\nhave  used  large sums of the company’s money  for  his\t own
\npurposes and disappeared abroad
\n       (1) [1968] 3 All E.R. 439.\n<\/p>\n
up. CI\/70–15
\n422<\/span>
\nat  a point of time when there was nothing to  suggest\tthat
\ncriminal proceedings were even in contemplation, yet took  a
\ndifferent  view\t of the television  programme  depicting  an
\ninterview  with\t the appellant shortly after his  return  to
\nEngland, when according to the Court:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “It  must  surely  have  been\t obvious  to
\n\t      everyone that he was about to be arrested\t and
\n\t      tried on charges on gross fraud”.
\n\t      Salmon, L.J. added:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  “It must not be supposed that\t proceedings
\n\t      to  commit  for  contempt\t of  court  can\t  be
\n\t      instituted   only\t  in  respect\tof   matters
\n\t      published after the proceedings have  actually
\n\t      begun.  No one should imagine that he is\tsafe
\n\t      from  committal  for contempt   of  court\t if,
\n\t      knowing or having good reason to believe\tthat
\n\t      criminal proceedings are imminent, he  chooses
\n\t      to  publish matters calculated to prejudice  a
\n\t      fair trial.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
How  jealously courts of law regard the preservation of\t the
\npurity\tof  the\t course of justica and\tthe  prevention\t and
\npunishment of any attempt at pollution or perversion thereof
\nas a solemn obligation will appear from a recent decision of
\nthe   English  Court  of  Appeal  in   Attorney-General\t  v.
\nButterfield  & others(1).  The words of Lord  Denning,\tM.R.
\nare worth repeating. He said:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “I have no hesitation in declaring\tthat
\n\t      the  victimisation of a witness is a  contempt
\n\t      of  court, whether done while the\t proceedings
\n\t      are  pending   or after  they  have  finished.
\n\t      Such  a contempt can be punished by the  court
\n\t      itself before which he has given evidence: and
\n\t      so  that those who think of doing such  things
\n\t      may  know where they stand, I would add  that,
\n\t      if  the witness has been damnified by  it,  he
\n\t      may  well have redress, in a civil  court\t for
\n\t      damages.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  my view, we should hold that a contempt of court may  be
\ncommitted  by a person when he knows or has good  reason  to
\nbelieve that criminal proceedings are imminent.\t The test is
\nwhether\t the  circumstances in which the  alleged  contemnor
\nmakes  the  statement  are such that a\tperson\tof  ordinary
\nprudence would be of opinion that criminal proceedings would
\nsoon be launched.  In my way of thinking the first appellant
\nmust   have  realised  on  September  20,  1967\t  that\t the
\ninvestigation  by the police was sure to lead to  cognizance
\nof  the\t offence  being\t taken\tby  a  Magistrate  and\t the
\nprosecution  of\t some persons for the  offence\tof  culpable
\nhomicide.  His statement itself shows that to his  knowledge
\nthe police
\n(1) 1962] 3 All E.R. 326.\n<\/p>\n
     423<\/span><\/p>\n
were  on  the  track  of  the  ,guilty\tand  had  seized  an
\nunlicenced  loaded gun and other weapons from the shop of  a
\nperson\tbelonging to a political party some members  whereof
\nwere being accused of the crime.  I would therefore  dismiss
\nthe appeal by the first appellant also.\n<\/p>\n
ORDER BY COURT
\n    In\taccordance  with the opinion of\t the  majority,\t the
\nappeal\tof  A.K.  Gopalan is allowed and the  appeal  of  P.
\nGovinda\t Pillai is dismissed.  The fine, if already paid  by
\nA.K. Gopalan, shall be refunded.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P
\n424<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1694, 1970 SCR (2) 410 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: A.K. GOPALAN AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: NOORDEEN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/1969 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. MITTER, G.K. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN CITATION: 1970 AIR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nA.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-27T14:21:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-27T14:21:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969\"},\"wordCount\":5049,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969\",\"name\":\"A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-27T14:21:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-27T14:21:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969","datePublished":"1969-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-27T14:21:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969"},"wordCount":5049,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969","name":"A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-27T14:21:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-k-gopalan-and-another-vs-noordeen-on-15-september-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.K. Gopalan And Another vs Noordeen on 15 September, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173292","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=173292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}