PETITIONER: DR. D.C. SAXENA Vs.

RESPONDENT: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/07/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY

Case Name:Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of IndiaCitation: 1996 SCC (5) 216Date of Judgment: 19 July 1996Bench: K. Ramaswamy, J. (Supreme Court of India)

Background:

This case is a Contempt of Court matter involving Dr. D.C. Saxena, who made scandalous allegations against the then Chief Justice of India.

Facts of the Case:

• Dr. D.C. Saxena filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

• In his petition and communications, he accused the Chief Justice of India of acting dishonestly and alleged serious misconduct, questioning his integrity and impartiality.

• The language used was highly derogatory, offensive, and disrespectful toward the judiciary.

  
  

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the remarks made by Dr. Saxena amount to criminal contempt of court?

2. Can freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) be used as a defense in cases of scandalizing the judiciary?

   
   

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court held that the statements made by Dr. Saxena were a direct attack on the integrity of the Chief Justice of India and were intended to scandalize the court.

• Such acts lower public confidence in the judiciary, which is essential for the rule of law.

• The Court reiterated that freedom of speech is not absolute, especially when it comes to defamatory and contemptuous attacks on the judiciary.

• The Court found Dr. D.C. Saxena guilty of criminal contempt.

  
  

Key Observations by the Court:

• “Scandalizing the court” is a recognized form of contempt. Any statement which tends to undermine the dignity or authority of the judiciary is punishable.

• The judiciary is not immune to criticism, but such criticism must be fair, temperate, and made in good faith.

• Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including contempt of court.

Conclusion:

Dr. D.C. Saxena was held guilty of criminal contempt of court for making scandalous and baseless allegations against the Chief Justice of India. The case reinforced the principle that while criticism of the judiciary is allowed, malicious attacks that erode public confidence in judicial integrity are punishable.