C. K. DAPHTARY & ORS. versus O. P. GUPTA & ORS.

C. K. DAPHTARY & ORS. versus O. P. GUPTA & ORS.

The pamphlet contained scurrilous attacks on a sitting and (then) retired judge of the Supreme Court and the judgment they delivered, including accusations of dishonesty and bias, which clearly amounted to gross contempt of court. The existing law of contempt, as recognized by Article 129 in conjunction with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), does not violate freedom of speech. Neither Article 105(2) nor the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956 protects such publication. The court held that a petition for contempt can be validly moved by advocates and not only by the Attorney-General, and due process requiring fair opportunity to respond was provided....

Parties
Petitioner: C. K. Daphtary and others; Respondent: O. P. Gupta; Respondent: Rising Sun Press, Delhi, through its proprietor Mela Ram; Respondent: M/s Kanak Book Depot; Intervenor: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 March 1971
Procedural Posture
Criminal Misc. Petition Under Article 129 of the Constitution of India / Final Judgment
Outcome
Guilty of contempt; sentenced
Legal Topics
Freedom of Speech, Contempt of Court—criminal, Scope of Article 105 and Parliamentary Privileges, Punishment for Contempt, Reasonableness of Restrictions Under Article 19(2)
Constitutional Law Contempt of Court Freedom of Speech Contempt of Court—criminal Scope of Article 105 and Parliamentary Privileges Punishment for Contempt Reasonableness of Restrictions Under Article 19(2)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. K. Daphtary and others

Petitioner

O. P. Gupta

Respondent

Rising Sun Press, Delhi, through its proprietor Mela Ram

Respondent

M/s Kanak Book Depot

Respondent

Union of India

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Misc. Petition Under Article 129 of the Constitution of India / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the law of contempt of court violates freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether evidence can be permitted to justify allegations amounting to contempt.
  3. 3 Whether the publication of a pamphlet prepared for impeachment of a Judge and containing scurrilous attacks is protected under Article 105 of the Constitution or the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956.

Ratio Decidendi

The pamphlet contained scurrilous attacks on a sitting and (then) retired judge of the Supreme Court and the judgment they delivered, including accusations of dishonesty and bias, which clearly amounted to gross contempt of court. The existing law of contempt, as recognized by Article 129 in conjunction with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), does not violate freedom of speech. Neither Article 105(2) nor the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956 protects such publication. The court held that a petition for contempt can be validly moved by advocates and not only by the Attorney-General, and due process requiring fair opportunity to respond was provided....

Court Disposition

Guilty of contempt; sentenced

Orders

  • Respondent No. 1 (O. P. Gupta) sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months; to be arrested and committed to civil prison.
  • Registrar directed to take all necessary steps for enforcement.