ORDER Binod Kumar Roy and P. K. Jain, JJ.
1. Following questions crop up in this case :
(i) Whether respondent No. 1 had committed any criminal contempt in writing pages 137 and 138 of his autobiography 'Na Jivitha Katha' in regard to alleged disclosure of the Judge of his Judgment in the case popularly known as "Mrs. Gandhi's case to Sri Jai Prakash Narain and whether respondent No. 2--the Publisher of that book whose Managing Director is son of respondent No. 1 too has committed any criminal contempt of court in publishing the same?
(ii) Whether any one has a right to know contents of any reserved judgment and order?
(iii) Whether If he/she/or anyone attempts to know contents of any reserved order or judgment, through surveillance commits contempt of court?
(iv) Whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances including the death of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it is a fit case in which a criminal contempt proceeding should be drawn up to find out who had done surveillance and at whose Instance on Mr. Justice J.M.L. Sinha during the period when he had reserved his judgment in the Election Case filed by Sri Raj Narain against Smt. Indira Gandhi?
2. Respondent No. 1 Sri J. Vengal Rao, a former Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh wrote his autobiography in Telugu and got ft published by respondent No 2 herein 'V.J. Financial Services Private Limited' (of which Sri J. Venkat Rao claims to be the Managing Director, and son of respondent No. 1) in form of a book captioned 'Na Jivitha Katha'. Sri Naresh Chandra Rajvanshi, the president of the Bar Association of this Court and Sri Haroon Ahmad, a member of the Bar Association of this Court filed an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as the Act) praying to punish respondent Nos. 1 to 2 under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for committal of gross contempt of this Court by them and for passing such other order which may be deemed fit and necessary in the Interest of justice asserting, inter alia, to this effect :
(i) They are advocates practicing in this Court and keenly Interested in maintenance of its dignity and decorum.
(ii) In the last week of August. 1996, they read in several newspapers about the scurrilous attacks on Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha of this Court, who had decided Election Petition No. 5 of 1971. Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and another, which are disparaging in character and derogatory to the dignity of the Judge and tends to shake confidence of the public in this Court, printed at pages 137 and 138 of the aforesaid book.
(iii) To be sure about the exact text, they obtained copies of that book and found that the news as published in several newspapers in the country as correct.
(iv) Annexure-1 is photostat copy of pages 137 and 138 of that book and Annexure-2 is their true and faithful English translation, which reads as follows :
"Indira Election Annulled In India, for the opposition parties against Indira Gandhi tremendous rise in her popularity was unbearable. A few of them thought to bring her down in any manner. Therefore, an election petition was filed against her on the allegation that Government machineries were misused in her election for Parliament from Raibareli. But Indira Gandhi, her advisors and all other congress leaders without paying any heed, ignored it. But an incident occurred when the Judgment of the Court was yet to come in two-three months. The Judge hearing the election petition filed against Indira Gandhi once met Jai Prakash Narain and told him that the Judgment would be rendered against her. Jai Prakash Narain conveyed this fact to some friend and that friend informed Sri M.V.S. Subba Raju about that. Sri Subba Raju after being elected as M.L.A. from Kottapeta of East Godavari district was chief whip of the congress party while Sri Sanjeeva Reddy was the Chief Minister. He (Raju) claims himself to be very close to Sri Sanjeeva Reddy. The fact that the Judge conveyed to Jai Prakash Narain was correct to what extent or did Jai Prakash really conveyed this matter to his friend--there is no basis to verify all this. Howsoever this news be, Sri Subba Raju immediately wrote a letter to Sanjeeva Reddy and in that, he described literally all that was known to him. Somehow the letter of Sri Subba Raju came to the notice of the intelligence department of the State. The head of that department Sri Vijai Rama Rao brought a copy of the letter and showed to me, I Immediately ordered that the matter be brought to the notice of Indira Gandhi through the C.B.I, but the C.B.I, did not attach any Importance to that ; and the Prime Minister was assured that the Judgment would be in her favour, The congress leaders close to her also gave her the same Impression. Ultimately when the High Court fixed the date in June, 1975, all the congress Chief Ministers were asked to reach Delhi and stay there. We were all in Delhi on that day. At last, the Judge of Allahabad High Court delivered the judgment and annulled the election of Indira Gandhi and for misuse of official machinery in her election also disqualified her from seeking election for six years. It naturally caused strong commotion. Disappointment of all congressmen and jubilance of the opposition was visible. Just on reaching Delhi, I came to know of the news. I immediately met Smt. Indira Gandhi and told her that there was a long story behind that and regarding the letter written by Sri Subba Raju in the past and that the C.B.I, did not convey to the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi immediately called the C.B.I, officer and in my presence itself confronted him with the facts already stated by me. He admitted that what had stated by Sri Vengal Rao was correct and the fact that two or three months earlier copy of the letter had been brought to his notice by the intelligence department of Andhra Pradesh was verified."
(Offending part underlined by us)
(v) Even though respondent No. 1 has himself stated in paragraph I that "there is no basis for verification of the allegations made against the Judge," and despite has own statement in his 'sankalp' printed before commencement of the text that "in 1991. I decided to lead a calm and quiet life after distancing from politics." Yet he chose to make such statements intentionally which enhances seriousness of the guilt committed by them.
(vi) The Judge dubbed the allegations as "utterly false and mischievous" as per his reply as contained in his letter dated 30th August, 1996 addressed to Sri S.N. Upadhyay, senior advocate, the relevant part of which reads as follows :
".....kindly refer to your letter dated nil personally handed over to me this morning. My reply thereto is as under :
According to Mr. Rao, the decision in the election was conveyed to Sri Narayan two months in advance. It would mean even before the arguments were heard in the matter. The allegations made by Sri Vengal Rao are utterly false and mischievous. I never had any concern with Sri Jai Prakash Narayan either in person or through letters. I have seen many political leaders in my life making speeches from the podium but I never had any occasion to see Sri Jai Prakash Narayan even in that capacity. There was consequently no occasion for me to tell or narrate anything to Sri Jai Prakash Narayan about the judgment either before or after.
Yours sincerely, Sd.
(J. M.L. Sinha)"
(Relevant denials underlined by us)
3. The aforesaid petition was placed on 12th September, 1996 before a Division Bench. From the order dated 12.9.1996, it appears that Sri Upadhyay, the learned senior counsel appearing in support of the petition had contended, inter alia, to the following effect :
(i) No doubt the Judge concerned had superannuated long time back but in view of the fact that the allegations have been made recently tending to scandalising this Court, which has lowered Its reputation in the eyes of general public, despite the fact that the judgment of this Court was set aside on appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this petition is for restoration of the confidence in this Institution otherwise the very credibility of its functioning will be at stake.
(ii) There Is yet another serious aspect of the matter. If we accept the correctness of the statements made in the autobiography of respondent No. 1, namely, that the C.B.I., the premier investigating agency of this country had tried to know the contents of the Judgment reserved by this Court, in doing so it has undoubtedly interfered with due administration of it's Justice.
4. By order dated 12.9.1996, notices were issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause why proceeding in contempt be not initiated against them, if the assertions made in regard to the statements occurring in the book 'Na Jivitha Katha' are accepted as correct.
5. Respondent No. 1 filed counter-affidavit dated 22.10.1996, the relevant part of which reads as follows :
"...2. That at the outset, I tender my unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court and undertake to remove the alleged objectionable portions from future publications of the book. I have already given instructions to the publishers to delete the alleged objectionable portions appearing at pages 137 and 138 of the book from the unsold copies. If any, and also in the copies to be printed and published in future in any language including any further edition of the book in Telugu. The book has not been published as yet in any other language. A true copy of my letter dated 26.9.1996 addressed to the publishers is annexed hereto and annexed as Annexure R-1. This letter was written immediately on reading the news of the contempt petition from news paper, Hindu, i.e., without even waiting to receive the notice which was served on 18.10.1996.
3. That I may state in my autobiography, I made a reference to a letter written by one M. V. S. Subba Raju to Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, relating to Smt. Indira Gandhi's election case. It was brought to my notice as Chief Minister by the then Chief of the State Intelligence Department. Sri Vijaya Rama Rao. I directed that the contents of the letter be brought to the notice of Smt. Indira Gandhi through the Central Intelligence Agency. I humbly state that I am in no way responsible for the said letter or its contents. I did not vouchsafe the correctness of its contents. On the other hand, I stated that there is no basis to verify whether the statements attributed to Shri Jai Prakash Narain or to the Hon'ble Judge are true and to what extent. My source of Information was the aforesaid letter ; and I never intended to communicate any impression to the readers of my book that what was written in the letter about Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M.L. Sinha was correct and/or should be taken to be correct. Now, after going through the contempt petition, I have realised that I should not have even referred to the said statement at all. I sincerely regret that the extract from the book contained in Annexure-2 to the petition under reply has given rise to the present proceeding which was wholly intended.
4. I respectfully submit that throughout my life of over 74 years, I always held the Judiciary in the highest esteem. I hail from a rural family with limited education but unlimited respect for law and law courts. There has never been any allegation at any time against me that I had ever disregarded the authority of Courts or showed any disrespect for them or did not hold them in high esteem. I always adhered to the Rule of law. I have had the good fortune of serving the people of my native State A.P. and the people of India in different capacities-first, as a Cabinet Minister and then as the Chief Minister of my home State (1974-1979) and subsequently, as a Cabinet Minister in the Central Government (1986-89). As a constitutional functionary, I always tried to ensure that orders of the Courts were strictly and promptly obeyed and complied with in letter and spirit. I had no Intention whatsoever of doing any act which lowers or tends to lower the authority or dignity of any Court, or any Hon'ble Judge of the Court, much less to scandalise it or him. I could never think of Indulging in any scurrilous attack of a Judge or a Judicial Officer, much less of a Judge of such high eminence of Hon'ble Justice J.M.L. Sinha. When I dictated the passage relating to the Judgment in Smt. Indira Gandhi's case, it did not occur to me that what I stated could possibly be viewed as contempt of this Hon'ble Court. I thought, I was only stating about a letter which came to my notice as the then Chief Minister of the State and the action taken by me thereon.
5. That my apology may be very kindly accepted and further proceedings dropped.
6. Parawise Reply That the contents of paras 1A and 2 of the affidavit do not need any reply. The petitioners, being advocates, must be interested in maintaining the dignity and decorum due to the High Court. I too join the petitioners in this respect.
7. That with regard to the allegations in paras 3 and 4 of the affidavit, I submit that it is a matter of record that newspapers have published certain excerpts from my autobiography in Telugu titled 'Na Jeevitha Katha'. I have great respect for the learned Judge. I deny that I made, or Intended to make, any scurrilous attack on the Judge of this Hon'ble Court who decide the Election Petition No. 5 of 1971. I never even entertained such a thought.
8. That with reference to paras 5 and 6, I never intended to attack any Judge, much less a scurrilous attack, on a Judge of this Hon'ble Court. Annexure-1 of the contempt petition is a matter of record and Annexure of the contempt petition 2 is a translation thereof. I have mentioned the incident while narrating the course of events during my tenure as Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh. As a matter of fact, in the above said book, I clearly stated that there was no basis to verify the contents of the letter. I did not refer to the Hon'ble Judge by name at all in the said publication. This itself shows that I had no intention of making any attack, much less any scurrilous attack, on the Hon'ble Judge of this Hon'ble Court. I did not Intentionally write anything which tends to shake the confidence of the public in this Hon'ble High Court. It was not my intention at all to cast any aspersions or scandalize this Hon'ble Court to create distrust in the people's mind.
9. That the contents of para 7 are matter of record.
10. That the contents of para 8 relate to respondent No. 2.
11. That in reply to paragraph No. 9 I respectfully submit that I have already Instructed my publishers to delete the portion objected to in all further publications of the book, including its translations, and also from the unsold copies, if any.
12. That with regard to the allegations in paras 10 and 11 of the affidavit, I respectfully submit that I have not made any statement on my own nor I confirmed any statement nor vouchsafed for the correctness of the contents of the letter shown to me. I only narrated the Incident of interception of the letter and its contents. I deeply regret that I did not realise when I wrote the book that the above narration could be viewed in the manner mentioned in the affidavit under reply. I had no Intention whatsoever to lower the dignity of this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the intention attributed to me is incorrect. It is wholly incorrect that I have resorted to mud-slinging on others including on those who are dead. I have had no such Intention at all. I have never done that. I may state that I served the State of A. P. and our country for long with utmost devotion, honesty and integrity. I respect and reiterate my profound respect for the dignity and authority of courts of law and submit that I never intended to act in derogation thereof. For the unintended contempt of this Hon'ble Court, in which the objectionable matter (Annexure-2) is being viewed, I have earlier submitted, and I am again submitting, my unconditional apology. I pray that the contempt proceedings may kindly be dropped.
13. That I place myself at the mercy of the Hon'ble Court and I am ready to follow and act on any direction which this Hon'ble Court may give in regard to this matter. That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 13 of this affidavit are true to personal knowledge of the deponent. That no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed."
6. Respondent No. 2 also filed its counter-affidavit dated 22.10.1996, sworn by its Managing Director (son of respondent No. 1), the relevant part of which reads as follows :
"1. That I am representing respondent No. 2 (V.J. Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.) in the above contempt petition. I am well acquainted with the facts of the case and I have read the contempt petition and the affidavit filed by the petitioner.
2. That at the outset I tender my unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court.
3. I may state that the respondent No. 1 has already given instructions to me to delete the alleged objectionable portions appearing at pages 137 and 138 of the book from the unsold copies, If any, and also in the copies to be printed and published in future in any language Including any further edition of the book in Telugu. The book has not been published as yet in any other language. The true copy of the letter dated 26.9.1996 received from the respondent No. 1 is annexed as Annexure R-1. I may also state that on receipt of the Instructions from the respondent No. 1, I myself also issued instructions to printer and agent to delete the objectionable portions occurring at pages 137 and 138 of the book before selling any copies vide letter dated 28.9.1996. The copy of the letter dated 28.9.1996 is annexed hereto and annexed as Annexure R-II.
4. I may state that I have published the book on the instructions of respondent 1 and on his instructions the pages 137 and 138 of the book is deleted and undertake to delete from further publications. And this respondent Intentionally did not write anything which tends to shake the confidence of the public in this Hon'ble High Court. It is not the intention of this respondent to cause any aspersions or scandalize this Hon'ble Court or to create distrust in the peoples mind. I again hereby submit my apologies and the proceeding may be dropped against this respondent.
That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge of the deponent and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed."
7. Thereafter this case was listed before the Court on 28.10.1996 and It passed the following order :
"Sri S.P. Gupta has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. One counter-affidavit of Sri J. Venkat Rao son of Sri J. Vengal Rao and other counter-affidavit of Sri J. Vengal Rao himself have been filed and placed on record. Sri S. N. Upadhyaya, who has received the copy of the counter-affidavit to which annexures were not appended, states that annexures have now been supplied to him. After perusing these counter-affidavit, we deem it proper It issue notice to Sri M.V.S. Subba Raju. The reference of Sri M.V.S. Subba Raju is found in the alleged publication. Sri S. P. Gupta, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, after consulting the gentleman who has come to brief him on behalf of the respondents made a statement that the present address of Sri M.V.S. Subba Raju shall be conveyed to the Court by means of a supplementary affidavit within 3 weeks from today. Sri S. P. Gupta also states that the instructions as conveyed through counter-affidavit to delete two objectionable pages have been carried out would be demonstrated by the supplementary counter-affidavit to be filed giving address of Sri M.V.S. Subba Raju. Sri S.N. Upadhyaya has stated that if necessary, he will file a composite rejoinder-affidavit to all the counter-affidavits after receiving copy of the supplementary counter-affidavit also.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, list this petition before the Contempt Bench on 27th November, 1996.
Sri S.N. Upadhyaya further pointed out that the affidavits filed today along with the annexures indicate that the annexures have not been stamped or signed by the persons swearing the affidavits as required by the Rules of this Court. Sri S.P. Gupta has said that even these defects shall be removed and the next supplementary counter-affidavit will make amendments in the mistakes that have crept in the present counter-affidavits as the stamp and signatures are of those persons, who obviously are not aware of the Rules of this Court in the matters of swearing of the affidavits.
Sd. G. Malvlya, J.
Sd. J.C. Mishra, J."
8. Respondent No. 1 filed additional counter-affidavit dated 12.11.1996, the relevant part of which reads as follows :
"1. That I am the respondent No. 1 in the above contempt petition. I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. I pray that my counter-affidavit filed on 22.10.1996 may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
2. I submit that as per the undertaking, I have deleted pages 137 and 138 from my autobiography titled as "Na Jeevitha Katha". My publishers, agents have also informed me that they have deleted/removed from the existing unsold copies pages 137 and 138 and have not sold any book after my Instructions to any reader and I submit that in any further publications also these pages will not contain at all. I may also state that I have got published in local daily Telugu newspapers of Andhra Jyothi stating that the pages 137 and 138 have been deleted/removed from the book. I may state that I have only mentioned the letter which I received in my capacity of the then Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh, I know realise that I ought not to have mentioned the letter or its contents in the book. It is true that I never intended to cast any aspersion or to make any scurrilous attack on the learned Judge, but howsoever unintentional it may be. I did commit the mistake of doing so. I extremely repent for it. I deeply regret for the mistake and apologise for it ....."
9. Respondent No. 2 also filed an additional counter-affidavit dated 12.11.1996, the relevant part of which reads as follows :
"1. That I am representing respondent No. 2 Firm (V.J. Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.) in the above contempt petition. I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. I pray that my counter-affidavit filed on 22.10.1996 may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
2. I submit that as per the instructions of the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 26.9.1996, I have given instructions to printer and agent to delete the objectionable portions occurring at pages 137 and 138 of the autobiography of the respondent No. 1 before selling any copies vide letter dated 28.9.1996. The copies of both the letters are filed herewith as Annexures-1 and 2. I may also state that I have got deleted pages 137 and 138 from all the unsold books available with me and also with the agents and since then no copy has been sold so far without deleting the said pages. I have already issued instructions to the printer, in the event of any further publication of copies, the said publication will not contain material contained in pages 137 and 138 of the book, and I may also mention that R.I, has also got it published in the Telugu Newspaper having wide circulation in Andhra Pradesh namely Andhra Jyothi, that the pages 137 and 138 have been deleted/removed from the autobiography of the respondent No. 1 (copy of the same is enclosed herewith as Annexure-3) and I pray that the contempt proceedings may be dropped against this respondent.
That the contents of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge of the deponent and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed."
10. After going through these counter-affidavits, the Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioners to implead M.V.S. Subba Raju as respondent No. 3 to whom notices were sent to show cause why in view of the evidence on the record, proceedings in contempt be not Initiated against him.
11. Respondent No. 3 filed counter-affidavit dated 27.1.1998, the relevant part of which reads as follows :
".....3. That at the outset. I tender my unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court. I submit that I have got utmost respect for and immense faith in the Judiciary. Never in my life I have ever made any disparaging remarks against any judicial officer, judiciary or any Hon'ble Judge of this Hon'ble Court.
7. That I am aged about 73 years and chronic Diabetic and I am also suffering from prostate gland enlargement. I am also suffering from high blood pressure. As such I could not undertake journey immediately so as to present myself before this Hon'ble Court.
8. That ..... I further most humbly submit that I have got immense faith and respect towards judiciary as well as this Hon'ble Court and I offer my unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court.
9. That I was in active public and political life since 1942. I was elected to Legislative Assembly from Kothapeta Constituency in East Godavari district in Andhra Pradesh for four times and I was also elected to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council two times. After I completed my term as the Member of the Legislative Assembly in the year 1983, I retired from active political life and I am devoting the rest of my life for propagating Gandhian Principles and Philosophy.
10. That I further submit that during 1975 to 1977, when internal Emergency was promulgated in India by late Smt. Indira Gandhi. I was detained in prison by the Government.
11. That during the year 1975 to 1977, Sri Jalagam Vengal Rao, the respondent No. 1 was the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.
12. That during my political life.
both as M.L.A. and M.L.C.. I was staunch follower and disciple of late Sri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy. I have also taken active part in "Total Revolution" movement launched by Lok Nayak late Sri Jai Prakash Narayan.
During the movement of Total Revolution" launched by Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan. I was the Secretary for some time and President later, for Andhra Pradesh Unit of "Sampoorna Viplava Santhi".
13. That right from the beginning of my political life, the respondent No. 1 was in my opposite group in fact, only with a view to wreck vengeance against me and to harass and humiliate me, he made false charges and got detained me in prison under the Preventive Detention.
14. That I came to know about narration of events by the respondent No. 1 regarding setting aside of the Election of Smt. Indira Gandhi, in his autobiography only through news items published in Telugu Dallies of Andhra Pradesh. Immediately thereafter I had written an open letter to the respondent No. 1 condemning the said fact and stated in unequivocal terms that no such instances took place and I had never written any letter to late Sri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy or anyone else. I submit that the contents of the open letter written by me to the respondent No. 1 denying the various allegations mentioned in his autobiography, are published prominently in most of the Telugu Dallies. I submit that my version is also published in 'Andhra Bhoomi', Telugu Daily dated 10.9.1996. I submit that this itself proves that I have condemned the false statements made by the respondent No. 1 in his autobiography at the earliest point of time, i.e., on 10.9.1996 and by that time, I was not at all aware of the contempt proceedings instituted against me in this Hon'ble Court. A true copy of English translation of my aforesaid open letter dated 2.9.1996 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure-Counter-Affidavit-1 to this affidavit.
A photo copy of my version as published in the news paper "Andhra Bhoomi", Telugu Daily on 10.9.1996 is also annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-Counter-Affidavlt-2 to this affidavit.
15. That the respondent No. 1 deliberately and with dishonest Intentions, created false story arid mentioned the same in his autobiography.
16. That I have also carefully gone through the counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 and on going through the aforesaid counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 1, I came to know that Initially contempt petition was filed only against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, in the additional counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 1, he deliberately and with a view to harass, humiliate and Inconvenience me, gave my particulars.
17. That when the letter alleged to have been written by me was allegedly seized by the State C.I.D.. the respondent No. 1 was at the helm of affairs in the State, being its Chief Minister. Further late Smt. Indira Gandhi was at the height of her power by proclaiming Internal emergency. Had I written a letter and had it been seized by the State C.I.D., the respondent No. 1 as the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and late Smt. Indira Gandhi as the then Prime Minister of India, would not have allowed myself, late Sri Neelam Sanjiva Reddy and late Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan go unscathed. They would have definitely made use of such letters and implicated us in criminal and other cases.
18. That the respondent No. 1, in order to wriggle himself out of the criminal contempt proceedings, dragged me into the case. I submit that in the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 1, he has stated that based on the letter alleged to have been seized by the State C.I.D., he made mention about the judgment setting aside the election of Smt. Indira Gandhi. It is for the respondent No. 1 to prove that during his tenure as the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, how he came into possession of the alleged letter alleged to have been written by me. Had the letter been really seized, there would have been definitely the records, to prove the same. I have never written any such letter and the narration of events mentioned by the respondent No. 1 in his autobiography and the allegations to the contrary are false, baseless and incorrect. It is for the respondent No. 1 to prove that he ever came into possession of any alleged letter alleged to have been written by me. Without discharging this burden, the respondent No. I cannot escape his exclusive liability.
PARAWISE REPLY OF THE AFFIDAVIT
19. That the contents of paragraphs No. 1. 1 (a) and 2 of the affidavit need no reply.
20. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 3 of the affidavit, it is stated that the averments made in the paragraph under reply relate to the conduct and actions of the respondent No. 1 and not myself.
21. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit, it is stated that any publication of alleged news in the columns of daily newspapers may have been in existence, but this alleged news on account of the alleged autobiography of the respondent No. 1 mentioning some alleged letter alleged to have been written by me, is absolutely baseless, false and frivolous.
22. That the contents of paragraph No, 5 of the affidavit relate to the contents of the two pages of the published book of the autobiography of the respondent No. 1. It may be stated here that on pages 137 and 138 of the alleged book of autobiography of the respondent No. 1 my name has been maliciously and baselessly, with ulterior motive, mentioned. As stated hereinabove, the sooner I knew about it through newspapers, I had immediately expressed my resentment, condemnation and denial through my aforesaid open letter dated 2.9.1996 true copy of which is already annexed herewith as Annexure-C.A.-1.
23. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit, it is stated that the respondent No. 1 himself is the sole author and concerned person with regard to the book of his autobiography and I am in no manner concerned or connected with the same. I have never written any alleged letter to Sri Sanjiva Reddy or anybody else. Even the respondent No. 1 himself has written in his autobiography that 'there is no basis to verify all these'.
24. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit it is stated that the allegations contained in the paragraph under reply relate to some personal correspondence between the petitioner's counsel and an Hon'ble Judge (retired) of this Hon'ble Court and I have got no knowledge about the same except that it has been annexed with the above noted contempt petition.
25. That no reply with respect to the contents of paragraph No. 8 of the affidavit is required because the allegations contained in the paragraph under reply do not relate to me.
26. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit it is stated that for publication of the book of autobiography of the respondent No. 1 or its proposed translation and publication of its translated part, is the sole responsibility of the respondent No. 1 and I have got no connection or relation therewith.
27. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 10 of the affidavit, it is stated that the statement of the respondent No. 1 as the author of his autobiography that "there is no basis for verification of the allegations", itself proves that the entire story developed in the alleged published autobiography was the own and sole creation of the respondent No. 1 and my name has been maliciously, baselessly and falsely brought into picture.
28. That the contents of paragraph No. 11 of the affidavit do not relate to me, therefore, no reply/statement is being made against the same.
29. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 12 of the affidavit, it is stated that since my name has been mentioned in the book of autobiography of the respondent No. 1 with mala fide designs without any basis and falsely, therefore, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to discharge the notice of the above mentioned contempt petition, issued to me.
30. That I again, in good faith and with bond fide belief, tender my unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court. I have got highest respect for and immense faith in this Hon'ble Court as well as all the Hon'ble Judges of this Hon'ble Court. I have never made any statement-orally or in writting, which would have ever been derogatory to the faith and dignity of this Hon'ble Court."
12. Thereafter, these proceedings were placed before our Bench and on 10th March, 1998 we had heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and passed orders for Issuance of notice under Article 215 of the Constitution to respondent No. 4 and called upon the present Director, C.B.I. to disclose whether vigilance on Judges are being done and to stop it observing, infer alia, as follows :
"..... In regard to the alleged letter of contemnor No. 3 respondent No. 1 has stated that it came to the notice of intelligence of the State of Andhra Pradesh of which Sri K. Vijaya Rama Rao was head and had brought a copy of that letter which was showed to respondent No. 1 on which he immediately ordered that letter be brought to the notice of Smt. Indira Gandhi through C.B.I, but the C.B.I, did not attach any importance to that letter and assured the Prime Minister that the Judgment would be in her favour which were noticed by one of us (B.K. Roy, J.) and D. C. Srivastava, J. (since transferred to Gujarat High Court) while Issuing notices at the first instance to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It appears that the Union Government was having surveillance on Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M.L. Sinha and it Intended to know what are the contents of the reserved Judgment. Even under codified contempt, an action tending to Interfere with the administration of Justice will constitute criminal contempt vide Section 2(c)(iii). If in our constitutional scheme, the Judges are kept on surveillance by the Union Government or State Government in power to know the contents of a reserved order or judgment, that will not only bring the Government but even the authority under command of the Government concerned within the purview of gross committal of criminal contempt of court. Independence of judiciary is one of the touchstone of our constitutional framework. If some one has attempted to whittle it out, there is no doubt in our mind that he or they are to be appropriately punished under codified Act or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. This proceeding in contempt was Initiated after having been appraised of the publication of the offending contents in the book....."
"We are not sure as to whether the stand taken by one or the other is true or untrue but in order to stop vigilance on the Judge of this Court, if any, and the Court possesses such power, we call upon the present Director of C.B.I.. New Delhi, as to whether such course is being followed by his organisation which is the premier Investigating agency of the country, in which this Court and the Apex Court both have shown immense faith to throw light.
Let a copy of this order be served by Monday dated 16.3.1998 on Sri Giridhar Nath, the learned counsel of the C.B.I, in this Court.
Sd. Binod Kumar Roy, J.
Sd. P.K. Jain, J."
13. On 15th April, 1998, Sri Giridhar Nath, the standing counsel of the C.B.I, showed us a xerox copy of the fax message sent by the C.B.I, to him Intimating that 'Central Bureau of Investigation has never exercised any vigilance on the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court of U. P. in any form.' We kept the aforementioned fax message on the record and discharged the limited Rule Issued to the C.B.I.
14. On 28th May, 1998, respondent No. 4 Sri K. Vijaya Rama Rao filed his affidavit dated 11.5.1998 stating inter alia, as follows :
1. I was recruited to Indian Police Service in 1959 and allotted to A.P. Cadre and served as A.S.P., Superintendent of Police, D.I.G., Commissioner of Police. Home Secretary before my appointment as Director, Central Bureau of Investigation. I have worked in several field positions, State Intelligence. C.I.D., etc. besides management and administrative assignments, and am a recipient of Indian Police Medal for Meritorious Service and President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service. Throughout my career. I had blemishless record and sincerely, honestly and correctly discharged, assigned duties besides assisting Courts on several occasions including the Apex Court, and acquitted myself to their satisfaction. I have never been reprimanded, or censured by any Court of law.
During my tenure as Director, C.B.I., I had, to the best of my ability, handled some of the most difficult and complicated cases following strictly the principles of law and Justice.
2. I submit that retired as Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi on 30.7.1996. During the period 1975 to 1978 I worked as D.I.G., Intelligence, A.P., Hyderabad.
3. The police duties include collection and communication of intelligence in accordance with law and instructions of Government. The State Intelligence is entirely independent of Central Intelligence. The former works under administrative control of State Government while the latter of the Union Government. The Central Intelligence Bureau has its own units under its control in States but they have no control over the State Intelligence outfit which is entirely and exclusively under the State Government's control. The State Intelligence works within the State and in respect of matters pertaining to the State only. Whenever any Intelligence or information in the discharge of its normal duties comes to notice which requires to he passed on to Central Intelligence, it is so done by the State Intelligence. The Central Bureau of Investigation is an investigating agency and its functions are different from, Central Intelligence Bureau.
The Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi, deals with matters pertaining to intelligence. In the State Intelligence wing, all intelligence which comes to notice and collected is communicated to certain authorized persons and the Government. The communication meant for Government is addressee to Chief Secretary under Intimation to the D.G.P. of the States. Some of these matters which are either urgent or important are also Informed to Chief Minster and Home Minister of the State.
4. I submit that I received the first notice of this Hon'ble Court in this contempt case on 4.4.1998 asking me to be present in person or through an advocate on 3.4.1998. Immediately on receipt of the said notice I tried to engage an advocate in Allahabad and also was trying to gather information pertaining to the subject-matter. Meanwhile I received a notice dated 16.4.1998 on 22.4.1998 directing me to appear in person or through an advocate on 28.4.1998. I have perused the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 10.3.1998 and also 15.4.1998.
5. At the outset I would like to submit that the State Intelligence Wing of A. P. has not done anything to lower, denigrate or obstruct the judiciary or its officers and on the contrary had been assisting in all possible manner the judiciary in all its functions. There had never been any instance of the A. P. Intelligence wing trying to get prior Information with regard to judgments anywhere in the country. I submit that there was no such attempt; in respect of EP. 5/71 relating to Smt. Indira Gandhi which was pending in the Allahabad High Court. Moreover, the State Intelligence has absolutely no Jurisdiction as far as this matter is concerned and it is also outside the area of Its operation. I would like to categorically state that the State Intelligence has never mounted any surveillance or made any attempt to get information in this matter, and had not done anything that would amount to interference in the administration of justice.
6. I submit that admittedly the incident took place nearly 23 years ago and it is very difficult for me to recollect all the details that pertain to this matter. However, this being an important information I could remember faintly the gist of it though I may not be able to state in detail all the particulars pertaining to the case. Moreover, I am not at present having access to the records, since I have retired from service a couple of years ago.
7. I submit that to the best of my knowledge and memory I remember that one of the officers then working in Intelligence Wing came across information through a source that respondent 3 came to know through some friends of the likely adverse verdict in the election case and the repercussions that might follow and Informed other senior leaders. As per prescribed procedure. I remember this information was communicated to the Chief Secretary with a copy to the concerned officer in the Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi. After the above communication to the Chief Secretary, I brought this to the notice of the D.G.P. and the Chief Minister as the matter was important. This was done in the course of discharge of my official duties and functions. The communication was a classified document and formed part of the unpublished official records of the State Intelligence Branch. At this distance of time, it is difficult to give exact details of information contained therein without seeing the records. Barring this, there was nothing further to communicate to the then Chief Minister. I submit that this was only a chance information secured by an officer of the Branch through a source in Andhra Pradesh. I was duty bound to communicate to the concerned authorities which is what I have done. This was not due to any surveillance or efforts made by the State Intelligence or at the instance of any one. This may as well be emphatically stated that myself at any stage had no role to play in the publication "Na Jeevitha Katha" authored by Shri J. Vengal Rao and that such publication was neither at my behest nor within my knowledge and that I could only be aware of such publication on seeing news papers and more specifically on receipt of notice from this Hon'ble Court concerning the instant contempt petition.
8. I submit that I have not done any act which would amount to contempt and if the Hon'ble Court feels that I committed any contempt, I hereby tender my unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court, it may also be emphasized that the role I was duty bound to undertake, as State Intelligence Chief, as stated above, by any stretch of construction could be construed to be disparaging in character and/or derogatory to the Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M.L. Sinha and also that such conduct of mine as aforesaid could not at all be deemed to be an escalation of the guilt of criminal contempt of this Court. I may further reiterate that all through my career, I have held the judiciary in the highest esteem and even remotely did not conduct myself in any such manner which may denigrate the citadel of justice.
In view of the above stated facts, I pray this Hon'ble Court to drop the contempt proceedings as far as I am concerned and be pleased to pass such further or other order(s) as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
On the facts and circumstances of the instant case I most humbly pray this Hon'ble Court that the notice of the above noted contempt petition Issued to me may graciously be discharged."
15. On 6th July, 1998, counter-affidavit was filed by respondent No. 3 to the affidavit of respondent No. 4 Sri K. Vijaya Rama Rao, the relevant part of which reads as follows :
"...3. That the content of paragraph No. 1 of the affidavit are not in the knowledge of the deponent. As such, he is unable to make any comment with respect to the averments of Shri K. Vijay Rama Rao contained in the paragraph under reply.
4. That the contents of paragraph No. 2 of the affidavit relates to the concerned department and its record, as such, they may be verified therefrom.
5. That the contents of paragraph No. 3 of the affidavit need no reply.
6. That the contents of paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit relates to the contents of notices Issued by this Hon'ble Court to Shri K. Vijay Rama Rao, as such the contents of paragraph under reply may be verified from the record of this Hon'ble Court.
7. That the contents of paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the affidavit need no reply.
8. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No, 7 of the affidavit, it is stated that Shri K. Vijay Rama Rao has not averred a single word about the alleged letter of the deponent, as has been published in the book, the alleged true copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the contempt petition.
There is serious contradiction in the contents of Annexure-2 to the contempt petition and the contents of paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit, which is under reply.
Though nothing has been said about the alleged letter of the deponent, yet Shri K. Vijay Rama Rao has vaguely stated that "one officer, who then working in the Intelligence Wing come across information through a source". Here again through a source remained undisclosed and unspecified. Further, it is again vaguely alleged that "respondent No. 3 came to know through some friends". Again, information of such friends of the deponent has not been disclosed in the paragraph under reply in the further allegations word "concerned officer" is again vague and misleading.
Shri K. Vijay Rama Rao has described the "information" as classified document and part of unpublished record of the State Intelligence Branch, in this background, if this Hon'ble Court deems expedient the alleged classified document may be summoned for its examination.
It may be reiterated that the deponent had never written any alleged letter, which is alleged to have been intercepted by the State Intelligence Department. It is also reiterated that the contents of Annexure-2 to the contempt petition and the contents of paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit under reply have serious contradictions, making the allegation of the alleged letter of the deponent, absolutely baseless and false.
Rest of the contents of the paragraph under reply relate to the conduct and behaviour of Shri K. Vijay Rama Rao and, therefore, the deponent has nothing to say about the same.
9. That the contents of paragraph No. 8 of the affidavit are subject-matter of determination and examination of this Hon'ble Court. As such, the deponent cannot make any statement with respect to the allegations contained in the paragraph under reply.
That the allegation about the deponent's letter, as mentioned in Annexure-2 to the contempt petition, which is alleged to be a true copy of the published book authored by Shri J. Vengal Rao, is absolutely false and baseless Inasmuch as the deponent had already openly and publicly disputed and denied writing of the alleged letter. In fact also, the deponent had never written the alleged letter and the alleged publication authored by Shri J. Vengal Rao is absolutely false and baseless.
That the deponent again tenders his unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court and most humbly prays that the notice(s) or the above noted contempt petition served on him may graciously be discharge and the above noted contempt petition may also be graciously dismissed, so far as the deponent (respondent No. 3) is concerned."
16. On 7.7.1998 respondent No. 1 filed reply-affidavit to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 3, the relevant part of which reads as follows :
"...2. With regard to the allegations in paras 2 to 8 of the affidavit, are within the knowledge of the respondent No. 3, and this respondent has nothing to say.
3. With regard to the allegations in paras 9 to 12 of the counter-affidavit, it is true that the respondent No. 3 was elected to Legislative Assembly from Kothapeta Constituency in East Godavari district. He was also elected to Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council twice. It is also true that the respondent No. 3 had been in politics and public life and he was detained during the period of internal emergency.
4. With regard to the allegations in para 13 of the affidavit that right from the beginning of 3rd respondent's political life he was in opposite group and with a view to wreck vengeance against the respondent No. 3, the answering respondent made false charges and got detained 3rd respondent in prison under the preventive detention. I submit that I was in no way responsible for the arrest and detention of the respondent No. 3 during the internal emergency period. I submit that as far as the detention of 3rd respondent during the emergency is concerned, it was for the respective District Collector to take a decision, taking into consideration of all the relevant circumstances in accordance with law. As a matter of fact, after his detention as a Chief Minister. I granted parole to 3rd respondent number of times till the end of emergency. This Itself proves that I was in no way responsible for the detention of 3rd respondent.
5. With regard to the allegations in paras 14 to 30 of the affidavit, it may be true that the respondent No. 3 came to know about the narration of the incident in the autobiography written by me. As I stated in the book. I was shown a copy of the letter purported to have been written by respondent No. 3, having not seen the original letter myself, I believed that the copy of the letter shown by Sri Vijaya Rama Rao was correct and true copy of the letter written by respondent No. 3 to late Sri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy. The allegation that the answering respondent with a dishonest intention created a false story mentioned in the autobiography is incorrect and baseless. The other allegation that this respondent in the additional counter-affidavit has deliberately with a view to harass and humiliate and inconvenience the respondent No. 3 gave the particulars of 3rd respondent is Incorrect. It is submitted that the particulars of 3rd respondent have been furnished as per the observations of this Hon'ble Court during the course of contempt proceedings, and this respondent did not file any petition to bring the 3rd respondent into the contempt case. I humbly state that in the page 137 of (Na Jeevitha Katha), autobiography written by me, I have only mentioned the incident, brought to the notice by State Intelligence Department headed by Sri Vijaya Rama Rao, while narrating the course of events during my tenure as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.
As a matter of fact, in the said page Itself, I have clearly stated that there was no basis to verify the contents of the letter. I did not refer to the Hon'ble Judge by name at all in the said publication. This itself shows that I had no intention of making any disrespect to the learned Judge or the Hon'ble High Court, and I did not intentionally write anything to attribute any objectionable statement either to the learned Judge or to 3rd respondent. The allegation that I brought 3rd respondent in order to wriggle out myself from the contempt proceedings is incorrect. The other allegation that the incident referred is false and baseless and the 3rd respondent's name has been brought maliciously, baselessly with ulterior motives is incorrect.
6. I submit that I had no intention whatsoever to lower the dignity of this Hon'ble Court nor cause any aspersions on the learned Judge who decided the Election Petition No. 5 of 1971. I can never think of indulging in any scurrilous attack on a Judge or any Judicial Officer, much less of a Judge of such high eminence as Hon'ble Justice J. M. L. Sinha. I reiterate that I have profound respect for the dignity and authority of the Court of Law, I have narrated the incident incidentally, while narrating the course of events during my tenure as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh without realising its legal Implications. However, it may be appreciated that the said events related to the year 1975, and I was trying to recapitulate the same after a lapse of two decades. I have already deleted/removed the objectionable portions from all the existing unsold copies pages 137 and 138 and I have at the earliest opportunity after realising my bona fide mistake offered my unconditional apology at the very outset. I nearly humbly pray that by accepting my sincere apologies made in the counter-affidavit dated 20.10.1996, I may be discharged from the contempt proceedings."
17. We had heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents earlier at length who supported their versions. We had permitted them to refresh their arguments today.
18. The facts stated in the aforementioned letter of Mr. Justice J. M.L. Sinha, affidavits (counters-affidavits and reply) speak for themselves. The proceeding of the election case were widely published in the newspapers throughout the country and even abroad. It appears prima facie that surveillance was done but it was incorrectly reported that the judgment is going to be in favour of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, in the book, the reference is of Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha of our Allahabad High Court. The allegation that the Judge had met Sri Jai Prakash Narain and had told him that the judgment would be rendered against Mrs. Gandhi which was yet to come within two-three months has definitely brought the Court in disrepute which functions even through a single Judge. Mens rea is not relevant in a contempt proceeding.
19. In his affidavits respondent No. 1 talks of the letter written by respondent No. 3, which came to the notice of the State Intelligence headed by respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 denied to have written such a letter and attributed mala fides to respondent No. 1 by writing letters at the earliest which were published in Andhra Pradesh newspapers. Respondent No. 1 claims to have brought it to the knowledge of Mrs. Gandhi through the C.B.I, which appears to have assured her that the judgment will be in her favour, which was apparently incorrect as the judgment had went against her. The said assurance shows the hollowness of the alleged surveillance. Respondent No. 1 also talks of calling of C.B.I, officer by Mrs. Gandhi in his presence, who admitted that the facts reported to by him were correct, which were also verified by the Intelligence Department of the Andhra Pradesh. Respondent No. 4 talks of that letter as a classified and unpublished document a copy of which he sent to I.B. New Delhi. Respondent No. 3 has come up with a prayer to summon the alleged letter. Even assuming that respondent No. 3 had written the alleged letter to Sri Neelam Sanjeev Reddy, that by Itself does not amount to committal of contempt unless it is published.
20. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, however, have not come with a plea that the contents of the letter of Mr. Justice J.M.L. Sinha are not true, We accept the correctness of the statements made by Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha in his letter (Annexure-3).
21. The Constituent Assembly Debates show that the independence of judiciary was considered to be sacred by the founding fathers of the Constitution of India. Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 have undoubtedly committed criminal contempt of court. However, taking into account the fact that respondent Nos. 1 and 3 had died, who had shown sincere repeated regrets and tendered apologies and all respondents had reiterated their faith in the judiciary coupled with the fact that the offending chapter has been deleted, we do not consider expedient to summon the alleged letter of respondent No. 3 by overruling privilege, etc. and cross-examine respondent No. 4 and further that the alleged surveillance was done by someone about 25 years ago, expressing our deep anguish, we do not consider now expedient in the Interest of justice to protract this proceeding any more to find out the identity, etc. of the concerned persons or to find out whether the stand of the Director, C.B.I, in the fax letter is correct or incorrect and discharge the Rules, however, with this caution to all and sundry holding that any attempt to know contents of any reserved judgment or order is not a fundamental right of anyone be he/ it a litigant, a counsel on duty of any State or Central Government Employee by Surveillance on the Judges for the reason that it will amount to obstruction in the independent and fearless administration of justice of the Courts, which are the basic features of our constitutional system which has to be maintained at all costs which shall constitute grossest contempt of court, and any attempt by any one howsoever high may be, shall be viewed with all seriousness and shall be dealt with severely under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and/or Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Question Nos. 2 and 3 are answered accordingly.
With these clear-cut messages of caution and warning and expressing thanks for the concern expressed by the petitioners and their senior counsel Sri Updhyay in regard to the functioning, etc. of this Institution, this proceeding is disposed of.
22. Let a copy of this order be handed over to (i) Sri S.N. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners (ii) Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Additional Government Advocate for information to the Chief Secretary of the State of U. P. and (iii) Sri Giridhar Nath, the standing counsel of the Central Bureau of Investigation for intimation to the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, within one week.
23. Let a copy of this order be also sent within one week for information to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.