M.V. Jayarajan, a former MLA in Kerala, was sent to jail for 4 weeks by the Supreme Court for having committed contempt of court for calling judges of the Kerala High Court ‘idiots’ or ‘fools’. A bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice C. Nagappan, vide an order dated 30.01.2015, upheld the order of the Kerala High Court holding that the said ex-MLA had committed contempt of court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but reduced his sentence of six months imprisonment to that of simple imprisonment for a period of four weeks.
It may be noted that a Division Bench of Kerala High Court, vide its order dated 23.06.2010, banned the holding of meetings on public roads and road margins in Kerala with the object of ensuring accident-free and uninterrupted traffic along such public roads. On 26.6.2010, the said ex-MLA, who also happens to be an advocate, delivered a speech in a public meeting at Kannur in Kerala, in which he is alleged to have used abusive language towards the judges of the Kerala High Court. He is alleged to have said, “When the Court verdicts go against the country and the people, those verdicts have only the value of grass. … Why should those Judges sit in glass houses and pass verdicts any more? If they have any self respect they should resign and step down from their office. … Unfortunately, what some idiots (fools) occupying our seat of justice say is nothing else. … Today is the day on which the verdict of two senior Judges of Kerala High Court has been given only the value of grass.”
The Supreme Court refused to accept his defence that the word ‘sumbhan’ used by him did not imply ‘fool’ or ‘idiot’; the court held that the said word in its slang, especially to the rural and rustic persons he was addressing, conveyed a strong abuse.
The court observed that “Judges expect, nay invite, an informed and genuine discussion or criticism of judgments, but to incite a relatively illiterate audience against the Judiciary, is not to be ignored”.
The court also observed that “…while he has the right of freedom of speech of expression, this postulates a temperate and reasoned criticism and not a vitriolic, slanderous or abusive one; this right of free speech certainly does not extend to inciting the public directly or insidiously to disobey Court Orders”.
The Supreme Court also took into consideration the fact that at no stage did he tender an apology. In fact, when the Supreme Court gave an opportunity to his Counsel to elucidate his position on the question of apology, he categorically stated that the said ex-MLA Jayarajan did not intend to apologise for any of his statements. Thus, the court took note of the fact that he had shown no remorse or contrition for his conduct.
What this judgment implies is that one can genuinely discuss or criticize the judgment of a court, but it is not permissible to use abusive language against a judge.
The full judgment of the Supreme Court can be seen here.
