A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has decided not to initiate contempt of court proceedings against V.R. Krishna Iyer and V. Balakrishna Eradi, both former Supreme Court Judges, N. Ram, Editor-in-Chief, The Hindu; Kuldip Nayyar, eminent journalist, K. Gopalakrishnan, Editor, Mathrubhoomi; and other respondents for issuing a statement on the incident in which Mr. Gopalakrishnan had to be brought on a stretcher for appearing before the court in a contempt case.
The other respondents against whom contempt proceedings were sought to be initiated were M.P. Veerendra Kumar and P.V.Chandran, Managing Director and Managing Editor respectively of Mathrubhoomi; T.J.S. George, Adviser, The New Indian Express; Cho Ramaswamy, Editor, Thuglak; Dinanath Mishra MP, S. Balaram, former member of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission; P. Ramabhadran, President, Kerala Dalit Federation; Vayalar Ravi and Thelekkunnel Basheer, Congress leaders and J.P. Mathur, BJP leader.
The statements were published in the Mathrubhoomi in 2001. The Mathrubhoomi Editor was brought on a stretcher in November 9, 2001 in a contempt case which was initiated for the publication of a report on the proceedings of the Kollam magistrate's court in the Kalluvathukkal liquor tragedy case.
A Bench in 2001 directed the High Court Registry to register a separate suo motu contempt petition against the former Supreme Court Judges and others when the Judge concerned received a letter from Mr. Krishna Iyer regarding the incident.
Closing the contempt petition, the Judges pointed out that the statements were made when their response to the incident was sought by the media. It was obvious that their reaction and views were based on a misunderstanding about the background and circumstances of the incidents.
The court observed that the persons named had no intention to lower the dignity and prestige of the judiciary.
Of course, they appeared to have reacted to the incident without ascertaining the true facts and expressed their views, using intemperate or improper language. They did not show the maturity or restraint expected from a person of their age and experience. But that did not warrant any action against them under the Contempt of Court Act, the court said.
"No offence"
The Bench added that Mr. Krishna Iyer wrote a letter to the judge with a view to explaining his position and assuring the Judge that he held him in high esteem and that no offence was meant. Such a letter should not be made the basis for any action under the Contempt of Court Act.
The court was of the view that by writing a letter, Mr. Iyer had not intended or attempted to interfere with the course of justice. The Bench also observed that Judges should exercise sufficient restraint in taking action under the Contempt of Court Act and that they should not be too sensitive to the aberrations. The court said that even if some dust was raised by the conduct of respondents, it had now settled and people had forgotten the issue.
It would be unwise and unnecessary to revive the controversy. It would be rather prudent to give a quietus to the whole issue.
The judgment was passed last week by the Bench comprising former Acting Chief Justice Cyriac Joseph (now Uttaranchal Chief Justice) and Justice A.K. Basheer.
