{"id":199904,"date":"1961-01-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-01-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961"},"modified":"2018-01-01T19:55:33","modified_gmt":"2018-01-01T14:25:33","slug":"dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 613, \t\t 1961 SCR (3) 486<\/div>\n
Author: B P Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Das, S.K., Sarkar, A.K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDR. JATISH CHANDRA GHOSH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARI SADHAN MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n16\/01\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nDAS, S.K.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR  613\t\t  1961 SCR  (3) 486\n\n\nACT:\nState\tLegislature-Member,   Powers  and   Privileges\t of-\nPublication  of questions disallowed by\t Speaker-Prosecution\nfor  defamation -Immunity-Constitution of India,  Art.\t194-\nIndian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), ss. 499, 500.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant, who was an elected member of the West  Bengal\nLegislative  Assembly, gave notice of his intention  to\t put\ncertain\t questions  in the Assembly and on  those  questions\nbeing disallowed by the Speaker published them in a  journal\ncalled\tJanamat of Ghatal, his own constituency.  The  first\nrespondent  who\t was then the Sub-Divisional  Magistrate  of\nGhatal\tand whose conduct was the subject-matter of some  of\nthose questions, filed a complaint against the appellant and\ntwo others, the editor and the printer and publisher of\t the\njanamat,  under\t ss. 500 and 501 of the Indian\tPenal  Code.\nThe appellant pleaded privilege and immunity under Art.\t 194\nof  the Constitution as a bar-to criminal prosecution.\t The\ntrial  Magistrate as also the High Court found against\thim.\nOn appeal by special leave it was claimed on his behalf that\nhe  had\t an  absolute  privilege  under\t Art.\t194  of\t the\nConstitution  to publish the disallowed questions and  could\nnot be prosecuted therefor.\nHeld,  that  the claim of immunity under Art.\t194  of\t the\nConstitution must be negatived.\nClause\t(1) of Art. 194 had no application since the  matter\nwas clearly outside the scope of that clause. Clause (2)  of\nthat Article was also inapplicable since it was not the case\nof  the\t appellant  that  the  publication  was\t under\t the\nauthority of the Legislative Assembly and it could not\talso\nbe  said that it came within the expression \" anything\tsaid\nor any vote given \" in that clause.\nThe publication of a disallowed question by a member of\t the\nAssembly  does\tnot come within the powers,  privileges\t and\nimmunities enjoyed by a member of the House of Commons\tand,\nconsequently,  cl.  (3) of Art.\t 194 also cannot be  of\t any\nhelp to the appellant.\tThe immunity enjoyed by a member  of\nthe House of Commons is clearly confined to speeches made in\nParliament  and\t does not extend to the publication  of\t the\ndebate\toutside.   If he publishes his speech, made  in\t the\nHouse,\tseparately from the rest of the proceedings  of\t the\nHouse,\t he  is\t liable\t for  defamation,  in\tcase.it\t  is\ndefamatory.\nAbingdon's case, Espinasse's Reports, Nisi Prius  1793-1810,\n228 and Creevey's case, I Maule and Selwyn's Reports, King's\nBench, 1813-1817, 273, referred to.\n487\nThere is no absolute privilege attaching to the\t publication\nof extracts from the proceedings in the House of Commons and\na  member,  who\t has absolute privilege in  respect  of\t his\nspeech\tin)  the House itself, can claim  only\ta  qualified\nprivilege  in  respect\tof it if he causes the\tsame  to  be\npublished in the public press.\nQuaere:\t  Whether publication of parliamentary\tproceedings,\nnot  authorised by the House, stands on the same footing  as\nthe publication of proceedings in a court of law.\nWason v. Walter, (1868-69) L.R. 4 Q.B. 73, referred to.\nM.   S.\t M.  Sharma  v. Sri Krishna Sinha,<\/a>  [1959]  SUPP.  1\nS.C.R. 806, distinguished.\nDr.   Suresh  Chandra  Banerjee v. Punit  Goala,  (1951)  55\nC.W.N. 745,    referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 65  of
\n1958.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nApril  11,  1956,  of the Calcutta High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nRevision No. 1584 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
N.   C.\t Chatterjee, Arun Kumar Dutta and D.  N.  Mukherjee,
\nfor the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
K.B. Bagchi and S.N. Mukherjee, for the respondents.
\n1961.  January 16.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nSINHA, C.J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against
\nthe  judgment and order of the High Court of  Judicature  at
\nCalcutta,  dated  April 11, 1956,  whereby  the\t appellant’s
\nclaim  of  absolute  privilege as a  member  of\t the  Bengal
\nLegislative  Assembly  was  rejected  and  the\t prosecution
\nlaunched  against him under s. 500, Indian Penal  Code,\t was
\nallowed to proceed.\n<\/p>\n
The  facts of this case are not in doubt or dispute and\t may
\nshortly be stated as follows.  The appellant is a citizen of
\nIndia  and an elected member of the West Bengal\t Legislative
\nAssembly.   He is also a medical practitioner at  Ghatal  in
\nthe  Midnapore District of West Bengal.\t In  January,  1954,
\nthe  appellant gave notice of his intention to\task  certain
\nquestions in the Assembly.  Those questions were  disallowed
\nin accordance with the rules of procedure for the conduct of
\nbusiness of the Assembly.  In February, 1954, the appellant
\nwas  informed  that the questions proposed by him  had\tbeen
\ndisallowed.  The appellant published
\n488<\/span>
\nthe  questions that had been disallowed in a local   journal
\ncalled Janamat, in its issue of February 28, 1955.  In July,
\n1955,  the  first  respondent,\twhose  conduct\tformed\t the
\nsubject-matter of the questions and who was then functioning
\nas  a Sub-divisional Magistrate, filed a  complaint  against
\nthe  appellant and two others, the editor, and\tthe  printer
\nand  publisher respectively of the journal  aforesaid.\t The
\npetition  of complaint alleged that the appellant  had\tmade
\nand  published scandalous imputations against him  intending
\nthem  to  be  read  by members of  the\tpublic,\t that  those
\nimputations were false and unfounded and had been made\twith
\nthe  definite intention of harming or with the knowledge  or
\nhaving reason to believe that they would harm the reputation
\nof  the\t complainant and that the complainant  felt  greatly
\naggrieved  and\tharmed\tin mind\t and  reputation.   He\talso
\nalleged\t that being a Government servant,  the,\t complainant
\nhad  to obtain the necessary permission from the  Government
\nfor instituting legal proceedings for the vindication of his
\ncharacter  as  a public servant and that accounted  for\t the
\ndelay in filing the petition of complaint.  The petition  of
\ncomplaint charged the appellant with an offence under s. 500
\nof  the Indian Penal Code and the second and third  accused,
\nwho  have been cited as respondents 2 and 3 in\tthis  Court,
\nunder  s.  501\tof the Indian  Penal  Code.   After  several
\nadjournments,  the petitioner raised, by way of\t preliminary
\nobjection to the-.criminal prosecution, the question of\t his
\nabsolute  privilege and immunity from prosecution under\t the
\nprovision  of the Constitution.\t The learned  Magistrate  by
\nhis  order dated October II,, 1955, overruled the  objection
\nand  held that the privilege claimed by the accused was\t not
\nan unqualified one.  He relied on a judgment of the Calcutta
\nHigh  Court in the case of Dr.\tSuresh Chandra\tBanerjee  v.
\nPunit Goala (1) in support of his conclusion that the  first
\naccused\t before him, now appellant, was not entitled to\t the
\nprivilege  and\timmunity claimed by  him.   Thereafter,\t the
\nappellant  moved  the  High  Court under  Art.\t228  of\t the
\nConstitution for having the case withdrawn to the
\n(1)  (1951) 55 C.W.N. 745.\n<\/p>\n
High Court for determination of the constitutional  question
\nraised\tby him by way of defence, but that, application\t was
\ndismissed by a Bench of the High’ Court on November 9, 1955,
\npresumably on the ground that the. case did not involve\t any
\nsubstantial question of law as; to the interpretation of the
\nConstitution.  Not daunted by the adverse order aforesaid of
\nthe Bench of the High Court, the petitioner again moved\t the
\nHigh Court and obtained a rule on several grounds  including
\nthe  question  of  the\tproceedings  being  barred  by\t the
\nprovisions  of\tArt. 194 of the Constitution.\tThe  learned
\nSingle\tJudge,\twho dealt with the case\t on  this  occasion,
\nnoticed\t  the\tposition   that\t  strictly   speaking\t the
\nconstitutional\t question  could  not  be  allowed   to\t  be
\nreagitated in view of the Bench decision aforesaid.  But the
\nlearned\t Judge all the same dealt with the points raised  by
\nthe appellant including the question arising under Art.\t 194
\nof  the\t Cotistitution.\t  The learned  Judge  dismissed\t the
\napplication  holding  that  a  member  of  the\t Legislative
\nAssembly  had  no  absolute  privilege\tin  respect  of\t the
\nquestions  sought  to  be  asked  by  him,  which  had\tbeen
\ndisallowed  but he had published them all the same.  It\t was
\nalso pointed out that the questions had never been asked  in
\nthe  House  and that, therefore, could not be said  to\tform
\npart of the proceedings of the House.  He further held\tthat
\nthe  publication  in  the journal at  the  instance  of\t the
\nappellant  could by no means be said to have been under\t the
\nauthority  of  the House.  The appellant moved\tthe  learned
\nJudge\tfor   a\t certificate  under  Art.  132(1)   of\t the
\nConstitution,  but that application was also refused on\t the
\nground\tthat  the  case\t did  not  involve  any\t substantial
\nquestion  of  law  as respects\tthe  interpretation  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThe  appellant\tthen moved  this  Court\t and
\nobtained  special leave to appeal from the judgment  of\t the
\nHigh  Court  refusing  the  claim  of  privilege.   He\talso
\nobtained  stay of fur. ther proceedings in the Court of\t the
\nMagistrate.   The  hearing of the appeal was ordered  to  be
\nexpedited  That\t order was passed on October  1,  1956,\t but
\nnotwithstanding the order of expedition, the case came to be
\nheard only four years later,
\n490<\/span>
\nIn  this  Court,  it has been contended\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  that\t the learned Judge below had  erred  in\t his
\ninterpretation\tof  the\t provisions  of\t Art.  194  of\t the
\nConstitution  and that on a proper construction’  of;  those
\nprovisions  it\tshould\thave been held\t(1)  that  questions
\nsought\tto be asked by a member of a  Legislative  Assembly,
\neven  though disallowed by the Speaker, formed part  of\t the
\nproceedings  of the House, and, as such,  their\t publication
\nwould  not attract the provisions of the Indian Penal  Code;
\n(2) the provisions of Art. 194 should be liberally construed
\nin  favour of persons like elected members of  the  Assembly
\nwho are rendering public service not only by making speeches
\nand asking questions in the Assembly, but also by publishing
\nthem  in  the  public press with a  view  to  apprising\t the
\ncountry and, particularly the constituency of what had\tbeen
\nhappening in the House.\t In other words, it Was claimed that
\nthere  was an absolute privilege in favour of a\t member\t and
\nthat,  therefore,  he  could not be  prosecuted\t for  having
\npublished  the\tquestions  he sought to put,  but  had\tbeen
\ndisallowed by the Speaker.\n<\/p>\n
Do  the provisions of Art. 194 of the Constitution lend\t any
\nsupport to the contentions aforesaid raised on behalf of the
\nappellant?   The first clause of Art. 194 does not call\t for
\nany  comment  in, this case because no question\t as  regards
\nfreedom\t of  speech in the Legislature of a State  has\tbeen
\nraised.\t Clause (2) of the Article has, firstly, laid down a
\nbar against any proceedings, civil or criminal against\tany”
\nmember\tof a Legislature of a State in respect\tof  anything
\nsaid or any vote given by-him in the Legislature or any Com-
\nmittee thereof; and secondly, that no person shall be liable
\nin  a  civil  or  criminal  proceeding\tin  respect  of\t the
\npublication of any report, paper, votes or proceedings under
\nthe  authority of a House of such a Legislature.  It is\t not
\ncontended  that the publication complained against  in\tthis
\ncase was under the authority of the Legislative Assembly  of
\nWest  Bengal.  So the second part of the second\t clause\t of;
\nArt.  194  cannot  be  pressed\tin  aid\t of  the  appellants
\ncontention.  As regards the first part of the second clause,
\ncan  it\t be  said  that the  publication,  which  forms\t the
\nsubject-matter of the
\n491<\/span>
\nprosecution  in,, this case, can come within the purview  of
\n‘,-anything  said  or any vote given ” by a member  of.\t the
\nLegislative Assembly?  The answer must be in the’  negative.
\nIt  is,\t therefore,  manifest that el. (2) of  Art.  194  is
\nequally\t of  no\t assistance to\tthe  appellant.\t  Naturally,
\ntherefore, reliance was placed in the course of arguments in
\nthis  Court on the provisions of cl. (3) of Art. 194.\tDoes
\nthe  publication of a disallowed question by a member of  an
\nAssembly  come within the powers, privileges and  immunities
\nof  the members of the House ? The answer to  this  question
\ndepends\t upon finding out what are the\tpowers,\t privileges.
\nand immunities of the members of the House of Commons of the
\nParliament of the United Kingdom at the commencement of\t the
\nConstitution.  This Court in the case of M. S. M. Sharma  v.
\nShri  Sri Krishna Sinha<\/a> (1) has considered in  great  detail
\nthose  immunities  with\t respect to  the  publication  of  a
\nportion of a speech which was directed by the Speaker to  be
\nexpunged from the proceedings of the House.  This Court\t has
\nheld  that  the\t publication  of  such\ta  portion  of\t the
\nproceedings  is\t not within the privilege attaching  to\t the
\npublication  of\t a faithful report of the proceedings  of  a
\nHouse of the State Legislature.\t That case was not concerned
\nwith  the penal law of the country.  In that case the  Court
\nwas  concerned with ascertaining the powers of the  Assembly
\nto  punish for contempt of the House with reference  to\t the
\nprivileges and immunities of a House of the Legislature of a
\nState.\t  Hence,  that\tdecision  does\tnot  assist  us\t  in
\ndetermining the present controversy.\n<\/p>\n
If  we turn to the legal position in England with  reference
\nto the House of Commons, it is clear that the immunity of  a
\nmember of the House of Commons is in respect of the speeches
\nmade  by  him in Parliament, but it does not extend  to\t the
\npublication  of the debate outside Parliament.\tIf a  member
\nof  a  House of Commons’ _publishes his speech made  in\t the
\nHouse  separately  from the rest of the proceedings  in\t the
\nHouse,\the  will  be liable for\t defamation  if\t his  speech
\ncontains   matters  defamatory\tof  any\t person.    In\t the
\ncelebrated case of R. v. Lord Abingdon (2),,Lord Kenyon\t had
\ndecided that a speech which had been made in
\n(1) [1959] Suppl.  1 S.C.R. 806,  (2) (1794) 1 ESP. 226; 170
\nE.R.337,
\n492<\/span>
\nthe   House  of\t Lords\twas  not  privileged  if   published
\nseparately   from   the\t rest  of  the\t debate.    In\t May
\nParliamentary Practice, 16th Edition, by Lord Campion, occur
\nthe  following statements in respect of the  two  well-known
\ncases  of Abingdon (1) and Creevey, Journal of the House  of
\nCommons (1912-13) 704:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Abingdon’s  case,  (1).-An  information\t was
\n\t      filed  against Lord Abingdon for a libel.\t  He
\n\t      had   accused   his   attorney   of   improper
\n\t      professional conduct,, in a: speech  delivered
\n\t      in  the  House of Lords, which  he  afterwards
\n\t      published\t in  several newspapers at  his\t own
\n\t      expense.\t Lord Abingdon pleaded his own\tcase
\n\t      in  the Court of King’s Bench,  and  contended
\n\t      that  he had a right to print what he had,  by
\n\t      the  Law of Parliament, a right to speak;\t but
\n\t      Lord  Kenyon said that a member of  Parliament
\n\t      had certainly a, right to publish his  speech,
\n\t      but  that speech should not be made a  vehicle
\n\t      of slander against any individual; if it\twas,
\n\t      it was a libel.  The Court gave judgment\tthat
\n\t      his  lordship should be imprisoned  for  three
\n\t      months,  pay  a fine of pound 100,  and  find,
\n\t      security for his good behaviour.
\n\t      Creevey’s\t case  (2),  1813.-Mr.\tCreevey,   a
\n\t      member  of  the House of Commons, had  made  a
\n\t      charge against an individual in the House, and
\n\t      incorrect\t  reports  of  his   speech   having
\n\t      appeared\tin several newspapers,\tMr.  Creevey
\n\t      sent  a  correct\treport to the  editor  of  a
\n\t      newspaper,  with\ta  request  that  he   would
\n\t      publish it.  Upon an information filed against
\n\t      him,  the jury found the defendant  guilty  of
\n\t      libel,   and  the\t King’s\t Bench\trefused\t  an
\n\t      application   for\t a  new,  trial\t (See\tLord
\n\t      Ellenborough’s  judgment\tin  Rex\t v.  Creevey
\n\t      (2)).   Mr. Creevey, who had been fined  pound
\n\t      100,   complained\t  to  the   House   of\t the
\n\t      proceedings of the King’s Bench; but the House
\n\t      refused  to admit that they were a  breach  of
\n\t      privilege.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is clear on a reference to the law in England in  respect
\nof  the\t privileges and immunities of the House\t of  Commons
\nthat  there  is\t no  absolute  privilege  attaching  to\t the
\npublication  of\t extracts from proceedings in the  House  of
\nCommons.   So  far as a member of the House  of\t Commons  is
\nconcerned, he has an absolute privilege
\n(1)  (1794) Esp. 226; 170 E,R, 337(2).(1813)1 M, &S. 2\t 73;
\n195 E.R, T02.\n<\/p>\n
493<\/span><\/p>\n
in  respect of what he has spoken within the four  walls  of
\nthe  House, but there is only a qualified privilege  in\t his
\nfavour\teven in respect of what he has himself said, in\t the
\nHouse,\tif he causes the same to be published in the  public
\npress.\t  The\tcase  of  publication  of   proceedings\t  of
\nParliament, not under the authority of the House, stands  on
\nthe same footing as the publication of proceedings in courts
\nof  justice.  That was made clear by Cockburn, C.J.  in\t the
\ncase of Wason v. Walter (1).  Explaining why the publication
\nof a single speech in the proceedings in the House would not
\nbe   absolutely\t privileged,  the  learned   Chief   Justice
\nobserved:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t It  is\t to be\tobserved  that\tthe  analogy
\n\t      between the case of reports of proceedings  of
\n\t      courts of justice and those of proceedings  in
\n\t      Parliament being complete, all the limitations
\n\t      placed  on  the one to  prevent  injustice  to
\n\t      individuals  will\t necessarily attach  on\t the
\n\t      other;  a\t garbled or partial  report,  or  of
\n\t      detached parts of proceedings, published\twith
\n\t      intent to injure individuals, will equally  be
\n\t      disentitled to protection.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So  long  as  Parliament  does\tnot  crystallise  the  legal
\nposition by its own legislation, the privileges, powers\t and
\nimmunities  of a House of a State Legislature or  Parliament
\nor  of\tits members are the same as those of  the  House  of
\nCommons, as stated above.  In the present case the appellant
\nsought to put certain questions bearing upon the conduct  of
\nthe  complainant,  the\tfirst  respondent,  in\tthis   case.
\nAccording to r. 27 of the Assembly Procedural Rules, certain
\nconditions have to be fulfilled in order that a question may
\nbe admissible.\tAmongst other requirements of the rule,\t one
\nof the conditions is that it must not contain any imputation
\nor imply a charge of a personal character.  Rule 29 of those
\nrules authorises the Speaker to decide on the  admissibility
\nof a question with reference to the provisions of the  rules
\nand lays down that the Speaker ” shall disallow any question
\nwhen,  in  his\topinion,  it is an abuse  of  the  right  of
\nquestioning, or is in contravention of those provisions.   ”
\nIn  view of the conclusion we have already reached,  namely,
\nthat  there  is no absolute privilege, even in favour  of  a
\nmember\tof the Legislature, in respect of a publication\t not
\nof the entire
\n63\t       (1) (1868) L.R. 4 Q.B. 73, 94.\n<\/p>\n
proceedings, but of extracts from them, it is not  necessary
\nfor  us to decide the question whether disallowed  questions
\ncan  be said to form part of the proceedings of a  House  of
\nLegislature.\n<\/p>\n
In this connection, it is also relevant to note that we\t are
\nconcerned  in  this  case with a  criminal  prosecution\t for
\ndefamation.   The law of defamation has been dealt  with  in
\nss.  499  and  500 of the Indian Penal\tCode.\tSection\t 499
\ncontains a number of exceptions.  Those specified exceptions
\nlay down what is not defamation.  The fourth exception\tsays
\nthat  it is not defamation to publish a\t substantially\ttrue
\nreport\tof the proceedings of a court of justice,  but\tdoes
\nnot make any such concession in respect of proceedings of  a
\nHouse of Legislature or Parliament.  The question  naturally
\narises\thow far the rule in Wason’s case (1) can be  applied
\nto criminal prosecutions in India, but as this aspect of the
\ncontroversy  was not canvassed at the Bar, we need  not\t say
\nanything  about it, as it is not necessary for the  decision
\nof this case.\n<\/p>\n
The  legal position is undisputed that unless the  appellant
\ncan  make out an absolute privilege, in his own\t favour,  in
\nrespect\t of the publication which is the  subject-matter  of
\nthe charge in this case, the prosecution against him  cannot
\nbe  quashed.  As we have held, that he has no such  absolute
\nprivilege,  in agreement with the High Court, he  must\ttake
\nhis  trial and enter upon his defence, such as he may  have.
\nAs  the evidence pro and con has not been recorded in  full,
\nthe arguments at the Bar had naturally to be confined to the
\npurely legal question of the absolute privilege claimed.  It
\nneed  hardly be added that we do not express any opinion  on
\nthe merits of the controversy which will now be gone into by
\nthe learned Magistrate before whom the case has been pending
\nall these years.\n<\/p>\n
For  the reasons given above, it must be held that there  is
\nno merit in this appeal.  It is accordingly dismissed.\t The
\npending prosecution, which has been held up for so long,  it
\nis  expected,,\twill  now  be  proceeded  with\twithout\t any
\navoidable delay.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) (1868) L.R. 4 Q.B, 73.\n<\/p>\n
495<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 613, 1961 SCR (3) 486 Author: B P Sinha Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Das, S.K., Sarkar, A.K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: DR. JATISH CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. RESPONDENT: HARI SADHAN MUKHERJEE AND […]<\/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-199904","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961 - 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\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-01T14:25:33+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-01T14:25:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961\"},\"wordCount\":2904,\"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\\\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961\",\"name\":\"Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-01T14:25:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961 - 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\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-01T14:25:33+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961","datePublished":"1961-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-01T14:25:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961"},"wordCount":2904,"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\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961","name":"Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-01T14:25:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-jatish-chandra-ghosh-vs-hari-sadhan-mukherjee-and-others-on-16-january-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh vs Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others on 16 January, 1961"}]},{"@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\/199904","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=199904"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199904\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199904"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}