Maximum punishment awarded to CPI M leader Jayarajan for overstepping the boundary with the Judiciary

Senior Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader M. V. Jayarajan has been sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment for charges of contempt of court by calling the judges idiots. A fine of Rs. 2,000 has also been imposed on him..Senior Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader M. V. Jayarajan has been sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment for charges of contempt of court by calling the judges idiots. A fine of Rs. 2,000 has also been imposed on him..A division bench of Kerala High Court comprising of Justice V. Ramkumar and Justice P. Q. Barkath Ali gave the maximum punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972. The same bench also declined Jayarajan’s plea for suspending the sentence so that he could file an appeal to the Supreme Court. He was subsequently sent to Poojappura Central Jail..All this drama enfolded due to the judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court banning holding of public meetings on road and road sides. This decision was upheld by division bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices D. K. Jain and H. L. Dattu..The decision banning the rallies was widely criticised by major political parties in Kerala including Jayarajan, who had made derogatory remarks against the judges at a public meeting held in Kannur last year. The High Court had suo motu initiated the proceedings. The Court said that it was concerned not about the criticism of the judgment but of the judges..The judges admonished the CPI (M) leader by observing that the terminologies used by him to describe judges were intended to “humiliate, scandalise and lower the authority” of the court in the eyes of public. The judges observed this statement further interfered with the administration of justice. Also, Kerala High Court stayed the newly enacted Kerala Public Ways Restriction of Assemblies and Procession Act 2011 that permitted meetings on roads and roadsides on November 2, 2011, reports Khaleej Times..This is the first time that the court has awarded the maximum punishment of six months imprisonment to a politician in a contempt case..Bar & Bench spoke to several people from the legal fraternity regarding this issue and here’s what they had to say about the matter..Former Chief Justice of Guwahati High Court, Justice U.L Bhat said, “I have not read the judgment, neither have I read the facts of the case nor do I know the reasons, all that I can say is that I am saddened by the judgment of the High Court”. When asked whether contempt powers should be taken away from courts, Justice Bhat said, “No, courts must have contempt powers; possibly some restrictions should be made, some changes should be made in the Act so that it can be used for extreme cases like public and institutional care”. Justice Bhat has served as acting Chief Justice of Kerala High Court for a short while..Vishnu Sivanandan, lawyer based in Bangalore said, “this is the first time that a Court has awarded a politician the maximum punishment for contempt of Court. So, it should be treated as an eye-opener for the politicians not to take the judicial system for granted, especially when passing judgments over the verdicts of the Courts. Politicians should always keep in mind there is a thin line between criticism of a judgment and passing derogatory comments about the judiciary and that no court is ready to accept the latter. Looks like M. V. Jayarajan overstepped the boundary this time around”..P. George Giri, Advocate-On-Record in Supreme Court, further elaborates on the matter by stating, “all are equal before the law. To be a veteran political leader is neither a license nor a privilege to disobey the law. Unfortunately, the so called social engineers (irrespective of political party to which such person belongs) consider themselves that they are above the law. They take that the law is only for the common man who has once the option to exercise his right to vote and has to keep quiet for the next five years. Moreover, disrespecting the Hon’ble Judge is equal to disrespecting the Hon’ble Court and is severe and such persons are to be barred permanently from holding any constitutional office in his life time”..Giri added, “To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt: 1) Existence of a lawful order; 2) The contemnor’s knowledge of the order; 3) The contemnor’s ability to comply; 4) The contemnor’s failure to comply. In this case, these four elements are complied with. Therefore, the contemnor Jayarajan deserves the punishment he got. This will be a lesson to all politicians who takes the law in their hands and also who water down the judiciary by narrowing down the powers of the judiciary”..Arjun Sheoran, who is presently a practicing Advocate in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, opined, “the decision by the High court is very correct, given Jayarajan’s scandalous statement. If a public leader is allowed to get away even after making such irresponsible comments then which common man can be brought under the ambit of law? Therefore, the Court was right in taking up the matter suo motu. Jayarajan had the constitutional machinery which he could have utilised to address any grievances he had against the judgment yet he chose not to do so. So, even though the punishment may seem harsh, it is most definitely not and even appears to be very moderate to me”..Rashid M.A, academician and chief mentor at Answeringlaw, however differs in his opinion when he says, “the order has prima facie exceeded the contempt jurisdiction of the Court. The object of the law of contempt is not to vindicate the prestige and position of a Judge but to preserve the status and dignity of the Court. This type of exercise of contempt jurisdiction in anger or irritation would not help to sustain the status and dignity of the Court but affect it adversely. As Gajendragadkar, C. J. observed “wise Judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they observe in their judicial conduct”. The key word is “justice”, not “judge”; the key note thought is unobstructed public justice not the self defence of a judge; the cornerstone of the contempt law is the accommodation of two constitutional values the right of free speech and the right to independent justice. The ignition of contempt action should be substantial and mala fide interference with fearless judicial action, not fair comment or trivial reflections on the judicial process and personnel”..Ananth Padmanabhan lawyer practising before the Madras High Court said, “attacking the judge personally can fall within the power of contempt. But I am more on the general principles of contempt. Contempt law as of today is outdated. Where the public is largely affected by the order of a Court, there is right to criticize the order and even the judges. It’s time we took a relook on contempt powers. People like Justice Krishna Iyer have also criticized the judiciary and no action has been taken against him as he is a very learned man. The Courts’ stand that when you are not someone within the system, you cannot criticise is wrong”..With appeal a definite next step from Jayarajan, it will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court will uphold the Order of the High Court.