"Internal Notes Are Fair Criticism": MP High Court Dismisses Contempt Proceedings Against Revenue Officials For Remarks On Trial Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, at Indore, dismissed contempt proceedings initiated against revenue officials for allegedly making adverse comments on a judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court. The case focused on whether the comments made by the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) regarding the appellate court's decree constituted contempt of court. The Court concluded that...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, at Indore, dismissed contempt proceedings initiated against revenue officials for allegedly making adverse comments on a judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court.
The case focused on whether the comments made by the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) regarding the appellate court's decree constituted contempt of court. The Court concluded that the comments were internal notings intended for bureaucratic purposes and did not amount to contempt.
“The notings are only internal communications and it is not the case that authority refused to comply the order stating that the order of Court is not proper in law,” a bench of Justice Vivek Jain held.
The court also stated that since the Government functions in a bureaucratic manner, each and every opinion is recorded in writing. The permission for granting appeal was also given in written form. It said:
“Unless the authority guides the subordinate authority to file appeal on particular grounds, merely mentioning the proposed grounds cannot be said to be a contemptuous act on the part of the authority who is seized of the matter to take decision to file appeal.”
Justice Jain further highlighted that under Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, fair criticism of a judicial act is not considered contempt, especially when such criticism is made internally and not published.
"Official notings of this nature mentioning grounds of appeal can be said to be fair criticism in terms of Section 5,"
Background
The suit was filed by the plaintiffs to seek a declaration of title and a permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the plaintiffs appealed, which led to a judgement in their favour.
The plaintiffs were declared as the owners of the disputed land and allowed for the mutation of their names in the land records. Afterwards, the trial court referred the case for contempt proceedings, contending that the Tehsildar and SDO made comments in note sheets dated July 19, 2006, and July 22, 2006, and they criticized the appellate court's judgment and decree. Those comments were considered undermining of the judicial process and a potential contempt of the appellate court.
Amit Seth, the Additional Advocate General, argued that the comments made by the Tehsildar and SDO did not intend to criticize the appellate court's judgment but were instead part of the process of drafting an appeal. The comments were internal notings meant to guide the drafting of an appeal and were not communicated to the litigants.
The Additional Advocate General contended that Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, allows fair criticism of a judicial act and does not amount to contempt. It was said that the comments were not malicious but were made to ensure that the grounds for appeal were properly documented. It was argued that it is an internal communication and that it is not a malicious criticism of the appellate Court so as to attract action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Justice Vivek Jain examined the note sheets and stated that the comments made by the Tehsildar and SDO were part of the bureaucratic process. He observed that the comments were intended to guide the drafting of an appeal and were not communicated to the litigants or the public.
The Court emphasized that the notings did not amount to a refusal to comply with the appellate court's judgment but were merely internal discussions aimed at ensuring that the appeal was filed on solid grounds.
Court noted “that in the note sheets the Collector is referred to with greater respect than the Civil Court or the Appellate Court. Though it cannot be said to be contempt, but it is expected that the respondents shall take care even in official notings to address the Court with proper respect.”
Case Title: In Reference Versus Shri R.N. Dwivedi And Others
Citation: MISC. CIVIL CASE NO.2352 of 2015