{"id":19097,"date":"1952-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1952-02-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952"},"modified":"2016-03-19T12:19:58","modified_gmt":"2016-03-19T06:49:58","slug":"bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952","title":{"rendered":"Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 149, \t\t 1952 SCR 425<\/div>\n
Author: B Mukherjea<\/div>\n
Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBATHINA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MADRAS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/02\/1952\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nBENCH:\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nAIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1952 AIR  149\t\t  1952 SCR  425\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1954 SC  10\t (12)\n F\t    1959 SC 102\t (3)\n E\t    1971 SC 221\t (15,18)\n R\t    1978 SC 727\t (44)\n RF\t    1989 SC   1\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\n    Contempt  of Courts Act (XII of 1926), s. 2\t (3)--Indian\nPenal  Code (XLV of 1860), s. 499--Contempt  of\t subordinate\nCourt--Jurisdiction  of High Court to take  cognisance--Con-\ntempt  punishable  as defamation under\tPenal  Code--Whether\njurisdiction ousted--Scope and object of Contempt of  Courts\nAct.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Sub-sec. (3) of section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act,\n1926,  excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court  to\ttake\ncognisance  of a contempt alleged to have been committed  in\nrespect of a Court subordinate to it only in cases where the\nacts  alleged to constitute contempt are punishable as\tcon-\ntempt  under specific provisions of the Indian\tPenal  Code,\nbut not where these acts merely amount to offences of  other\ndescription  for which punishment has been provided  for  in\nthe Indian Penal Code.\n      The  fact that defamation of a judge of a\t subordinate\nCourt  constitutes an offence under sec. 499 of\t the  Indian\nPenal Code does not, therefore, oust the jurisdiction of the\nHigh  Court to take cognisance of the act as a\tcontempt  of\ncourt.\n    Defamatory statements about the conduct of a judge\teven\nin respect of his judicial duties do not necessarily consti-\ntute  contempt of Court.  It is only when the defamation  is\ncalculated  to obstruct or interfere with the due course  of\njustice or proper administration of justice that it  amounts\nto contempt.\n    Kisan Krishna Ji v. Nagpur Conference of Society of\t St.\nVincent\t de  Paul (A.I.R. 1943 Nag. 334)  disapproved.\tV.M.\nBason v. A.H. Skone ([.L.R. 53 Cal. 401) explained. Subordi-\nnate  Judge. First Class Hoshangabad v.\t Jawaharlal  (A.I.R.\n1940 Nag. 407), Narayan Chandra v. Panchu Pramanick (A. L R.\n1935  Cal. 684), Naresh Kumar v. Umaromal (A.I.R. 1951\tCal.\n489),  Kaulashia  v. Emperor (I.L.R. 12 Pat.  1),  State  v.\nBrahma Prakash\t(A.I.R.<\/a> 1950 All. 556), Emperor v. Jagannath\n(A.I.R. 1938 All. 358), Bennet Colman v. C.S. Monga  (I.L.R.\n1937 Lah. 34) approved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL  APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION:\tCriminal Appeal\t No.
\n13  of 1951.  Appeal by special leave from the judgment\t and
\norder  of  the\tHigh Court of Madras  (Rajamannar  C.J.\t and
\nBalakrishna  Ayyar J.) dated 10 th April, 1950, in  Contempt
\nApplication No. 10 of 1949.\n<\/p>\n
426<\/span><\/p>\n
S.P. Sinha (S.S. Prakasam, with him), for the  appellant.
\n  R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     1952.   February  14.  The Judgment of  the  Court\t was
\ndelivered by
\n     MUKHERJEA\tJ.—This  appeal has come up  before  us  on
\nspecial leave granted by this court on May 23, 1950, and  it
\nis  directed against a judgment of a Division Bench  of\t the
\nMadras High Court dated April 10, 1950, by which the learned
\nJudges\tfound the appellant guilty of contempt of court\t and
\nsentenced him to serve simple imprisonment for three months.\n<\/p>\n
      The appellant is the publisher and managing editor  of
\na Telugu Weekly known as “Praja Rajyam” which is edited\t and
\npublished  at Nellore in the State of Madras.  In the  issue
\nof  the\t said paper dated 10th February,  1949,\t an  article
\nappeared  under the caption “Is the Sub-Magistrate,  Kovvur,
\ncorrupt?”  The purport of the article was that Surya Narayan
\nMurthi,\t the stationary Sub-Magistrate of Kovvur, was  known
\nto the people of the locality to be a bribe taker and to  be
\nin the habit of harassing litigants in various ways. He\t was
\nsaid to have a broker, through whom negotiations in  connec-
\ntion  with these corrupt practices were carried on.  Several
\nspecific  instances were cited of cases tried by that  offi-
\ncer,  where it was rumoured that he had either taken  bribes
\nor  had\t put the parties to undue harassment,  because\tthey
\nwere  obdurate enough to refuse the demands of\this  broker.
\nThe  article, which is a short one, concludes with the\tfol-
\nlowing paragraph:–\n<\/p>\n
    “There  are\t party factions in many villages  in  Kovvur
\nTaluk.\t Taking\t  advantage of those  parties  many  wealthy
\npersons\t make  attempt to get the  opposite  party  punished
\neither\tby  giving  bribes or  making  recommendations.\t  To
\nappoint\t Magistrates who run after parties for a Taluk\tlike
\nthis…….   is to betray the public. It is  tantamount  to
\nfailure\t of  justice. Will the Collector  enquire  into\t the
\nmatter and allay the public of their fears?”\n<\/p>\n
427<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t attention  of the State Government being  drawn  to
\nthis article, an application was filed by the AdvocateGener-
\nal  of\tMadras before the High Court on November  14,  1949,
\nunder  section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act (Act  XII  of
\n1926)  praying that suitable action might be  taken  against
\nthe  appellant as well as three other persons, of  whom\t two
\nwere  respectively the editor and sub-editor of\t the  paper,
\nwhile  the third was the owner of the Press where the  paper
\nwas printed.\n<\/p>\n
      On receiving notice, the appellant appeared before the
\nHigh Court and filed an affidavit taking sole responsibility
\nfor  the article objected to and asserting that the  article
\nwas  published because of his anxiety to uphold the  highest
\ntraditions  of the judiciary in\t the  land and\t to   create
\npopular\t  confidence in\t courts, the duty of which  was\t  to
\ndispense  justice  without fear or favour  and\twithout\t any
\ndiscrimination\tof caste, creed or community.  It  was\tsaid
\nthat  before the article was published, numerous  complaints
\nhad  reached him from various quarters\timputing  corruption
\nand  disreputable  conduct to this Magistrate and  the\tonly
\ndesire\tof  the appellant was to draw the attention  of\t the
\nhigher\tauthorities  to the state of public opinion  in\t the
\nmatter and to invite an enquiry into the truth or  otherwise
\nof the allegations which were not asserted as facts but were
\nbased only on hearsay.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t High  Court after hearing the parties came  to\t the
\nconclusion  that the publication in question did  amount  to
\ncontempt  of court, as it was calculated to lower the  pres-
\ntige  and  dignity of courts and bring\tinto  disrepute\t the
\nadministration of justice. As the appellant was not prepared
\nto  substantiate the allegations which he made and which  he
\nadmitted to be based on hearsay and did not think it  proper
\neven  to express any regret for what he had done, the  court
\nsentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months.
\n    The\t other\tthree respondents,  through  their  counsel,
\ntendered  unqualified apology to the court and\tthe  learned
\nJudges\tconsidered that no further action against  them\t was
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
428<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t propriety of the decision of the High Court so\t far
\nas it relates to the appellant has been challenged before us
\nin this appeal and Mr. Sinha, who appeared in support of the
\nsame, raised before us a two-fold contention; his first\t and
\nmain  contention  is that as the contempt in this  case\t was
\nsaid  to have been committed in respect of a court  subordi-
\nnate  to  the  High Court and the allegations  made  in\t the
\narticle in question constitute an offence under section\t 499
\nof the Indian Penal Code, the jurisdiction of the High Court
\nto take cognizance of such a case is expressly barred  under
\nsection\t 2  (3)\t of the Contempt of Courts  Act.  The  other
\ncontention  advanced by the learned counsel relates  to\t the
\nmerits\tof the case and it is urged that in  publishing\t the
\narticle\t objected  to, the appellant acted in  perfect\tgood
\nfaith,\tand  as the article amounted to nothing else  but  a
\ndemand\tfor enquiry into the conduct of a particular  person
\nwho  was believed to be guilty of corrupt practices  in\t the
\ndischarge  of his judicial duties, there was no contempt  of
\ncourt either intended or committed by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      So far as the first point is concerned, the determina-
\ntion  of the question raised by the appellant  would  depend
\nupon  the proper interpretation to be put upon section\t2(3)
\nof the Contempt of Courts Act which runs as follows :–\n<\/p>\n
    “No\t High  Court  shall take cognizance  of\t a  contempt
\nalleged to have been committed in respect of a court  subor-
\ndinate\tto it where such contempt is an\t offence  punishable
\nunder the Indian Penal Code.”\n<\/p>\n
      According to Mr. Sinha, what the sub-section means  is
\nthat if the act by which a party is alleged to have  commit-
\nted  contempt of a subordinate court constitutes offence  of
\nany description whatsoever punishable under the Indian Penal
\nCode, the High Court is precluded from taking cognizance  of
\nit. It is said that in the present case the allegations made
\nin  the article in question amount to an offence of  defama-
\ntion as defined by section 499 of the Indian Penal Code\t and
\nconsequently  the jurisdiction of the High Court is  barred.
\nReliance
\n429<\/span>
\nis  placed in support of this proposition upon the  decision
\nof  the\t Nagpur\t High Court in Kisan Krishna  Ji  v.  Nagpur
\nConference  of Society of St. Vincent de Paul(1). This\tcon-
\ntention, though somewhat plausible at first sight, does\t not
\nappear\tto us to be sound. In our opinion,  the\t sub-section
\nreferred  to above excludes the jurisdiction of\t High  Court
\nonly. in cases where the acts alleged to constitute contempt
\nof  a  subordinate court are punishable\t as  contempt  under
\nspecific  provisions of the Indian Penal Code but not  where
\nthese  acts merely amount to offences of  other\t description
\nfor  which  punishment has been provided for in\t the  Indian
\nPenal  Code.  This would be clear from the language  of\t the
\nsub-section which uses the words “where such contempt is  an
\noffence” and does not say “where the act alleged to  consti-
\ntute such contempt is an offence”. It is argued that if such
\nwas the intention of the Legislature, it could have express-
\nly  said that the High Court’s jurisdiction will  be  ousted
\nonly  when  the\t contempt is punishable as  such  under\t the
\nIndian\tPenal Code. It seems to us that the reason  for\t not
\nusing  such  language  in the sub-section may  be  that\t the
\nexpression “contempt of court” has not been used as descrip-
\ntion of any offence in the Indian Penal Code, though certain
\nacts,  which  would be punishable as contempt  of  court  in
\nEngland, are made offences under it.\n<\/p>\n
      It  may  be pointed out in this connection   that\t al-
\nthough\tthe powers of the High Courts in  India\t established
\nunder the Letters Patent to exercise jurisdiction as Superi-
\nor Courts of Record in punishing contempt of their authority
\nor processes have never been doubted, it was a controversial
\npoint  prior to the passing of the Contempt of\tCourts\tAct,
\n1926, as to whether the High Court could, like the Court  of
\nKing’s Bench in England, punish contempt of courts  subordi-
\nnate  to  it in exercise of its inherent  jurisdiction.\t The
\ndoubt  has been removed by Act XII of 1926  which  expressly
\ndeclares the right of the High Court to protect\t subordinate
\ncourts against contempt, but
\n(1) (1943) A.I.R. 1943 Nag. 334.\n<\/p>\n
430<\/span><\/p>\n
subject\t to this restriction, that cases of  contempt  which
\nhave  already  been provided for in the Indian\tPenal\tCode
\nshould not be taken cognizance of by the High  Court.\tThis
\nseems  to be the principle underlying\tsection\t 2(3)of\t the
\nContempt  of Courts Act.  What these cases are need  not  be
\nexhaustively  determined for purposes of the  present  case,
\nbut some light is undoubtedly thrown upon this matter by the
\nprovision  of  section 480 of the Criminal  Procedure  Code,
\nwhich  empowers\t any  civil, criminal or  revenue  court  to
\npunish summarily a person who is found guilty of  committing
\nany offence under sections 176, 178, 179, 180 or section 228
\nof  the\t Indian Penal Code in the view or  presence  of\t the
\ncourt.\tWe are not prepared to say, as has been said by\t the
\nPatna  High Court in Jnanendra prasad v. Gopal(1), that\t the
\nonly  section  of  the Indian Penal Code  which\t deals\twith
\ncontempt  committed against a court of justice\tor  judicial
\nofficer\t is section 228.  Offences under sections 175,\t178,
\n179 and 180 may also, as section 480 of the Criminal  Proce-
\ndure Code shows, amount to contempt of court if the  “public
\nservant”  referred  to\tin these sections happens  to  be  a
\njudicial  officer  in a particular case.  It is\t well  known
\nthat  the  aim of the contempt proceeding is “to  deter\t men
\nfrom offering any indignities to a court of justice” and  an
\nessential  feature  of the proceeding is the exercise  of  a
\nsummary\t power by the court itself in regard to\t the  delin-
\nquent.\tIn the cases mentioned in section 480 of the  Indian
\nPenal  Code,  the  court has been  expressly  given  summary
\npowers\tto  punish a person who is guilty of  offending\t its
\ndignity\t in the manner indicated in the section.  The  court
\nis  competent also under section 482 of the Criminal  Proce-
\ndure  Code  to\tforward any case of this  description  to  a
\nMagistrate  having jurisdiction to try it, if  it  considers
\nthat the offender deserves a higher punishment than what can
\nbe  inflicted under section 480.  Again, the court is  enti-
\ntled  under  section 484 to discharge the  offender  on\t his
\nsubmitting an apology, although it has already adjudged\t him
\nto punishment under section 480
\n(1) I.L.R 12 Pat. 172.\n<\/p>\n
431<\/span><\/p>\n
or forwarded his case for trial under section 482. The\tmode
\nof purging contempt by tendering apology is a further  char-
\nacteristic  of a contempt proceeding. It  seems,  therefore,
\nthat  there  are offences which are punishable\tas  contempt
\nunder  the Indian Penal Code and as subordinate\t courts\t can
\nsufficiently vindicate their dignity under the provisions of
\ncriminal law in such cases the legislature deemed it  proper
\nto  exclude  them from the jurisdiction of  the\t High  Court
\nunder  section\t2(3) of the Contempt of\t Courts\t Act;but  it
\nwould\tnot be correct to’ say that the High Court’s  juris-
\ndiction\t is excluded even in cases where the act  complained
\nof, which is alleged to constitute contempt, is otherwise an
\noffence under the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
    This  view\thas  been taken and, in\t our  opinion  quite
\nrightly,  in  a\t number of  decisions  by  the\tCalcutta,(1)
\nPatna,(2)  Allahabad(3) and Lahore(4) High Courts. The\tonly
\nauthority  which  Mr.  Sinha could cite in  support  of\t his
\ncontention is the decision of the Nagpur High Court in Kisan
\nKrishna Ji v. Nagpur Conference of Society of St. Vincent de
\nPaul(“).   The authority is undoubtedly in his favour as  it
\nproceeds  upon the assumption that the idea  underlying\t the
\nprovision  of section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act  is
\nthat  if  a person can be punished by some  other  tribunal,
\nthen the High Court should not entertain any proceeding\t for
\ncontempt.   It is to be noticed that the learned Judge,\t who
\ndecided\t this  case, himself took the opposite view  in\t the
\ncase  of  Subordinate  Judge, First  Class,  Hoshangabad  v.
\nJawaharlal(6)  and  definitely\theld  that  the\t prohibition
\ncontained  in  section 2(3) of the Contempt  of\t Courts\t Act
\nrefers\tto offences punishable as contempt of court  by\t the
\nIndian\tPenal Code and not to offences punishable  otherwise
\nthan  as  contempt. This decision was  neither\tnoticed\t nor
\ndissented  from\t in  the subsequent case, and  it  is  quite
\npossible that
\n     (1)  Narayan  Chandra v. Panehu Pramanik  (A.I.R.\t1935
\nCal. 684); Naresh Kumar.v. Umaromar (A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 489).
\n    (2)Kaulashia v. Emperor (12 Pat. 1).\n<\/p>\n
   (3)\tState  v. Brahma Prakash (A.I.R.<\/a>  1950\tAll.  556);
\nEmperor v. Jagannath (A.I.R. 1938 All. 358).
\n   (4) Bennett Coleman v. G. S. Monga (I.L.R. 1937 Lah. 34).
\n(5) A.I.R. 1943 Nag. 334.\n<\/p>\n
(6) A.I.R. 1940 Nag. 407.\n<\/p>\n
56<\/span>
\n432<\/span><\/p>\n
the  attention\tof the learned judge was not drawn  to\tthis
\nearlier\t pronouncement\tof his, in which  case\tthe   matter
\nwould  certainly have been more fully discussed.   We  think
\nfurther that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in V.M.
\nBason v. A. H. Skone(1) which was the basis of the  decision
\nof the learned Judge in the subsequent case does not  really
\nsupport\t  the view taken in it.\t In the Calcutta  case\twhat
\nhappened was, that a clerk of the Attorney, who appeared for
\nthe  respondent decreeholder, went to serve a  notice  under
\nOrder  21, Rule 37(1), of the Civil Procedure Code upon\t the
\nappellant  judgment-debtor.  The judgmentdebtor\t refused  to
\ntake  the  notice and abused and  assaulted  the  Attorney’s
\nclerk.\tUpon that, contempt proceedings were started against
\nhim and Mr. Justice C.C. Ghosh, sitting on the Original Side
\nof the High Court of Calcutta, held the appellant guilty  of
\ncontempt  and fined him Rs. 200.  On appeal,  this  judgment
\nwas affirmed by the appellate Bench and there was a  general
\nobservation made by Chief Justice Sanderson at the close  of
\nhis judgment that it is not desirable to invoke the  special
\ninherent jurisdiction of the High Court by way of proceeding
\nfor contempt if ordinary proceedings in a Magistrate’s court
\nare sufficient to meet the requirements of a case.  This was
\nnot a case under section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts\t Act
\nat  all\t and no question either arose or was decided  as  to
\nwhether\t if  an act is otherwise punishable  as\t an  offence
\nunder  the  Indian Penal Code the jurisdiction of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  under that section would be ousted.  Undoubtedly\t the
\nHigh  Court had jurisdiction in that case and  whether\tsuch
\njurisdiction, which is certainly of a special character\t and
\nis  exercised summarily, should be called in to aid  in\t the
\ncircumstances  of  a particular case would depend  upon\t the
\ndiscretion  of the court.  This has, however, no bearing  on
\nthe  point that has arisen for consideration before  us.  We
\nwould hold, therefore, that the right view was taken by\t the
\nlearned\t Judge of the Nagpur High Court in the earlier\tcase
\nand not in the later one,
\n(1) I.L R. 53 Cal. 401.\n<\/p>\n
433<\/span><\/p>\n
    It\tis next urged by Mr. Sinha that even  assuming\tthat
\nthis  view  is correct, the language of section 499  of\t the
\nIndian Penal Code is wide enough to cover a case of contempt
\nof  court.   What is said is, that if a libel  is  published
\nagainst\t a judge in respect of his judicial functions,\tthat
\nalso is defamation within the meaning of section 499 of\t the
\nIndian\tPenal Code and as such libel constitutes a  contempt
\nof  court, it may be said with perfect propriety that  libel
\non a judge is punishable as contempt under the Indian  Penal
\nCode.  We do not think that this contention can be  accepted
\nas  sound.   A libellous reflection upon the  conduct  of  a
\njudge  in respect of his judicial duties may certainly\tcome
\nunder  section\t499 of the Indian Penal Code and it  may  be
\nopen to the judge to take steps against the libeller in\t the
\nordinary  way for vindication of his character and  personal
\ndignity as a judge; but such libel may or may not amount  to
\ncontempt of court. As the Privy Council observed in Surendra
\nNath  Banerjee v. The Chief Justice and Judges of  the\tHigh
\nCourt,(1) “although contempt may include defamation, yet  an
\noffence\t of contempt is something more than mere  defamation
\nand is of a different character.” When the act of defaming a
\njudge  is calculated to obstruct or interfere with  the\t due
\ncourse\tof  justice or proper administration  of   law,\t  it
\nwould  certainly amount to contempt.  TIle offence  of\tcon-
\ntempt is really a wrong done to the public by weakening\t the
\nauthority  and\tinfluence of courts of law which  exist\t for
\ntheir good.  As was said by Willmot, C.J.(2)
\n     “attacks  upon  the judges excite in the minds  of\t the
\npeople a general dissatisfaction with all judicial  determi-
\nnations……  and whenever man’s allegiance to the laws  is
\nso  fundamentally shaken it is the most fatal and  dangerous
\nobstruction  of\t justice and in my opinion calls out  for  a
\nmore rapid and immediate redress than any other\t obstruction
\nwhatsoever; not for the sake of the judges as private  indi-
\nviduals\t but  because  they are the channels  by  which\t the
\nKing’s justice is conveyed to the people”.
\n(1) I.L.R. 10 Cal. 109 at 131.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Willmot’s\tOpinions page 256; Rex v. Davies  30  at  p.
\n40–41.\n<\/p>\n
434<\/span><\/p>\n
  What\tis made punishable in the Indian Penal Code  is\t the
\noffence of defamation as defamation and not as. contempt  of
\ncourt.\tIf the defamation of a subordinate court amounts  to
\ncontempt of court, proceedings can  certainly be taken under
\nsection\t 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, quite\t apart\tfrom
\nthe  fact  that other remedy may be open  to  the  aggrieved
\nofficer under  section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.  But  a
\nlibel  attacking  the integrity of a judge may\tnot  in\t the
\ncircumstances  of a particular case amount to a contempt  at
\nall,  although it may be the subject-matter of a libel\tpro-
\nceeding.  This is clear from the observation of the Judicial
\nCommittee  in the case of The Matter of a Special  Reference
\nfrom  the  Bahama Islands(1). The first\t contention  of\t Mr.
\nSinha, therefore, fails.\n<\/p>\n
   The\tsecond point raised by the learned counsel does\t not
\nappear\tto  us to have any real substance.  The\t article  in
\nquestion is a scurrilous attack on the integrity and honesty
\nof  a judicial officer.\t Specific instances have been  given
\nwhere the officer is alleged to have taken bribes or behaved
\nwith  impropriety to the litigants who did not\tsatisfy\t his
\ndishonest  demands. If the allegations were true,  obviously
\nit  would  be to the benefit of the public  to\tbring  these
\nmatters into light.  But if they were false, they cannot but
\nundermine the confidence of the public in the administration
\nof  justice and bring judiciary into disrepute.\t The  appel-
\nlant,  though\the took sole  responsibility  regarding\t the
\npublication  of the article, was not in a position  to\tsub-
\nstantiate  by evidence any of the allegations made  therein.
\nHe  admitted that the statement was based on  hearsay.\t Ru-
\nmours may have reached him from various\t sources, but before
\nhe  published  the article it was incumbent upon  him  as  a
\nreasonable  man\t to attempt to verify  the  informations  he
\nreceived  and  ascertain, as far as he\tcould.\twhether\t the
\nfacts were true or mere concocted lies.\t He does not  appear
\nto have made any endeavour in this direction.  As the appel-
\nlant did not act with reasonable care and caution, he cannot
\nbe said to have acted
\n(1) [1893] A.C. 138.\n<\/p>\n
435<\/span><\/p>\n
bona fide, even if good faith can be held to be a defence at
\nall in a proceeding for contempt.  What is more, he did\t not
\nexpress\t any regret for what he had done either in the\tHigh
\nCourt or before us and his behaviour does not show the least
\ntrace of contrition.  In these circumstances, we think\tthat
\nthe appeal cannot succeed and must be dismissed.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellant: S. Subrahmanyam.
\nAgent for the respondent: P.A. Mehta.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952 Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 149, 1952 SCR 425 Author: B Mukherjea Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara PETITIONER: BATHINA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADRAS. DATE OF […]<\/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-19097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952 - 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\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952\" \/>\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=\"1952-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-19T06:49:58+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952\",\"datePublished\":\"1952-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-19T06:49:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952\"},\"wordCount\":3401,\"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\\\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952\",\"name\":\"Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1952-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-19T06:49:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952\"}]},{\"@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":"Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952 - 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\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1952-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-19T06:49:58+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952","datePublished":"1952-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-19T06:49:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952"},"wordCount":3401,"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\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952","name":"Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1952-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-19T06:49:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bathina-ramakrishna-reddy-vs-the-state-of-madras-on-14-february-1952#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Madras on 14 February, 1952"}]},{"@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\/19097","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=19097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}