In 1987, Law Minister Shri P. Shiv Shankar delivered a speech on the Silver Jubilee Celebration of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad where the audience consisted of Judges and Lawyers. On that occasion he made a speech on the subject of accountability of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.
During the speech, he made comments on the accountability of the three organs and theoretical implications thereof.
After this speech, a practicing advocate of the Supreme Court P.N. Duda drawn attention of the Supreme Court towards that speech. According to him, by that speech P. Shiv Shankar made statements against the Supreme Court which were derogatory to the dignity of the Court, attributing the Court with partiality towards economically affluent sections of the people and used language which was extremely intemperate, undignified, and unbecoming of a person of his stature and position.
Observations and Decisions of the Court
The court considered the issue and observed the matter as follows-
“The speech of the Minister has to be read in its entirety. In the speech it appears that Shri P. Shiv Shankar was making a study of the attitude of this Court. In the portion set out hereinbefore, it was stated that the Supreme Court was composed of the element from the elite class. Whether it is factually correct or not is another matter.
In our public life, where the champions of the down-trodden and the politicians are mostly from the so-called elite class, if the class composition is analyzed, it may reveal interesting factors as to whether elite class is dominant as the champions of the oppressed or of social legislations and the same is the position in the judiciary. But the Minister went on to say that because the Judges had their ‘unconcealed sympathy for the haves’ interpreted the expression ‘compensation’ in the manner they did. The expression ‘unconcealed’ is unfortunate. But this is also an expression of opinion about an institutional pattern.
Then the Minister went on to say that because of this the word ‘compensation’ in Article 31 was interpreted contrary to the spirit and the intendment of the Constitution. The Constitution therefore had to be amended by the 1st, 14th and 17th Amendments to remove this ‘oligarchic’ approach of the Supreme Court with little or no help. The inter-action of the decisions of this Court and the Constitutional amendments have been viewed by the Minister in his speech, but that is nothing new. This by itself does not affect the administration of justice. On the other hand, such a study perhaps is important for the understanding of the evolution of the constitutional development.
The next portion to which reference may be made where the speaker has referred to Holmes Alexander in his column entitled ‘9 Men of Terror Squad’ making a frontal attack on the functions of the U.S. Supreme Court. There was a comparison after making the quotation as we have set out hereinbefore: “one should ask the question how true Holmes Alexander was in the Indian context. ” This is also a poser on the performance of the Supreme Court.
According to the speaker twenty years of valuable time was lost in this confrontation presented by the judiciary in introducing and implementing basic agrarian reforms for removal of poverty what is the ultimate result. The nation did not exhibit the political will to implement the land reform laws. The removal of the Maharajas and Rajas and privy purses were criticised because of the view taken by this Court which according to the speaker was contrary to the whole national upsurge. This is a study in the historical perspective.
Then he made a reference to the Keshavananda Bharati’s and Golaknath’s cases and observed that a representative of the elitist culture of this country, ably supported by industrialists and beneficiaries of independence, got higher compensation by the intervention of the Supreme Court in Cooper’s case. This is also a criticism of the judgment in R.C. Cooper’s case. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter, but criticism of judgments is permissible in a free society.
There is, however, one paragraph which appears to us to be rather intemperate and that is to the following effect: “Anti-social elements i.e. FERA violators, bride burners and a whole horde of reactionaries have found their heaven in the Supreme Court”. This, of course, if true, is a criticism of the laws.
The Supreme Court as it is bound to do has implemented the laws and in implementing the laws, it is a tribute to the Supreme Court that it has not discriminated between persons and persons. Criminals are entitled to be judged in accordance with law. If anti-social elements and criminals have benefited by decisions of the Supreme Court, the fault rests with the laws and the loopholes in the legislation. The Courts are not deterred by such criticisms.
Bearing in mind the trend in the law of contempt as noticed before, as well as some of the decisions noticed by Krishna Iyer, J. m S. Mulgaokar’s case the speech of the Minister read in its proper perspective, did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute or impair administration of justice. In some portions of the speech the language used could have been avoided by the Minister having the background of being a former Judge of the High Court.
The Minister perhaps could have achieved his purpose by making his language mild but his facts deadly. With these observations, it must be held that there was no imminent danger of interference with the administration of justice, nor of bringing a institution into disrepute. In that view it must be held that the Minister was not guilty of contempt of this Court.”
Reference
P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar (1988)