R.M. Lodha, J.
1. This Contempt Petition was registered Suo Motu as per our order dated 13th September 2002.
2. We, heard Mr. Goolam Vahanvati learned Advocate General as Amicus Curiae, Mr. V. A. Thorat, learned senior counsel for contemnor -- Ms. Manisha Koirala and Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, learned senior counsel for contemnor -- Shri Shashilal Nair.
3. The background in which the suo motu contempt petition was registered may be immediately noticed. The 1st contemnor -- Ms. Manisha Koirala is original plaintiff in the suit filed by her before this Court against the 2nd contemnor -- Shri Shashilal Nair who is original 1 st defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff prayed for diverse reliefs in the suit, inter alia permanent injunction for restraining the defendants in releasing or using the film 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' with four disputed scenes. According to the plaintiff screening of the film 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' with disputed scenes shall injure her reputation. In the suit she took out Notice of Motion for temporary injunction to the same effect permanent injunction was sought. The learned trial Judge dismissed Notice of Motion on 30th August 2002. Aggrieved thereby Ms. Manisha Koirala filed the appeal which came up before us on 5th September 2002. After hearing learned senior counsel and counsel appearing for the parties we admitted the appeal, fixed the same for hearing on 5th October, 2002 and the ad-interim order in terms of prayer Clause (a) was granted thereby restraining the defendants from exhibiting the film 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' or causing or enabling the exhibition of the said film with objectionable scenes. Despite the ad-interim order granted by us on 5th September 2002 the film 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' was screened in various cinema halls in Mumbai on 6th September 2002. The screening of said film was obstructed and disrupted by Shiv Sainiks on that day. The daily newspapers published from Mumbai in their editions of 7th September 2002 carried reports that Shiv Sainiks disrupted the screening of the film 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' in various Cinema Halls. It was so done as Ms. Manisha Koirala had a meeting with Shiv Sena Chief. As per newspaper reports disruption of the said film was done at the behest of Shiv Sena Chief. On the basis of reports which appeared in various newspapers published from Mumbai, we tentatively formed opinion that Ms. Manisha Koirala by her act and conduct in taking the subjudice matter to third person was guilty of criminal contempt. Her statement reported in Asian Age that her counsel managed to obtain stay on movie's release compounded the contemptuous conduct and was also serious enough for taking cognizance of criminal contempt suo motu. The daily editions of the newspapers published from Mumbai carried the report that Shri Shashilal Nair also requested Shiv Sena Chief to see the film 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' and do justice. He is said to have made statement which was reported in Indian Express newspaper, Mumbai, on 13-9-2002 that he will give scissors in the hands of Shri Thackeray and let him cut off any scene he finds objectionable. The conduct of both the parties in the subjudice matter distressed and disturbed us and by speaking order dated 13th September 2002 we directed registry to issue notice to both of them to show cause why they should not be committed to contempt for their contemptuous act as noted in the order which amounted to interference in due course of justice or atleast has tendency to interfere in due course of justice. The order dated 13th September 2002 reads thus :
'At our direction, the office produced the papers pertaining to Appeal No. 815 of 2002.
2. On 5th September 2002, we passed the following order :--
'After having heard Mr. Satish Maneshinde, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. K.K. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Khimkhabwala, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, we are of the view that matter requires consideration by this Court.
2. Appeal is accordingly, admitted.
3. Mr. Pandya, learned counsel, waives service for respondent No. 1, Mr. Khimkhabwala, advocate waives service for Respondent No. 2. Ms. Castelino, advocate waives service for respondent No. 3.
4. Printing of paper-book dispensed with.
5. Office is directed to post appeal for final hearing on 5th October, 2002.
6. We considered the matter in respect of interim relief. In the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, it is stated that 97 number of prints have been paid and the said prints have been sent, to the exhibitors both in India and overseas. It is further stated that a cost over Rs. 50 lacs has been incurred for the aforesaid purpose and that excludes the cost of publicity which has been incurred amounting to over Rs. 75 lacs. The various exhibitors have handed over prints to various theatres and for some of the territories in India like Bihar, Assam, Orissa, rights have been created on the basis of outright sale. Advance booking has opened for the film all over the country on or about 2nd September 2002 and tickets have been sold. The exhibitors have booked theatres by paying rentals in advance. DVD rights for USA Canada and Middle East countries have been created and prints have been sent to the DVD rights holders for exploitation. The said rights have been sold on an outright basis. Faced with these facts, the question before us is whether ad-interim relief deserves to be granted since we have admitted the appeal and found that matter required consideration. On the one hand are the facts stated by respondent No. 1 which relate to commercial considerations while on the other hand is a reputation of the plaintiff and if during the pendency of appeal, the respondents are permitted to inhibit the film, irretrievable injustice may be occasioned to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated in terms of money. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that ad-interim order in terms of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion shall remain operative in the meanwhile.
7. Office to post appeal for final hearing high on board on 5th October, 2002.
8. The appellant-plaintiff to file an undertaking as per Rule 148 of the Bombay High Court, Original Side Rules, 1980 within one week from today.
9. We clarify that ad-interim relief granted by us is subject to appellant's filing an undertaking as directed above.'
3. It appears that despite the aforesaid order, the film 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' was screened in various cinema halls in Mumbai on 6th September 2002.
4. The daily newspapers published from Mumbai on 7th September 2002 carried reports that Shiv Sainiks disrupted the screening of 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' in various
cinema halls in Mumbai. It was so done as Ms Manisha Koirala (appellant before us) had a meeting with Shiv Sena Chief and disruption of screening of the film by Shiv Sainiks was at the behest of Shiv Sena Chief.
5. Times of India in its edition of 7th September 2002, inter alia, reported thus :
'Screenings of 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' in most cinema halls here were cancelled as Shiv Sainiks staged demonstrations and set afire posters to protest 'objectionable' Scenes in the movie.
This followed actress Manisha Koirala's meeting with Sena Chief Bal Thackeray on Friday..........'
6. The said edition also carried a story 'Manisha thanks Thackeray for moral support' and in the said story it was reported thus :
'In Thane, Shiv Sainiks led by district party chief Raghunath More, stalled the screening of the film on Friday. The Sainiks, who agitated near Vandana talkies, said that their action was at the behest of the party chief. The sainiks tore posters and disrupted the screening of the movie.7. Another newspaper 'The Asian Age' in its weekend edition of 7th September 2002 reported the story under title 'Manisha goes to Thackeray'. In the said story it was reported thus :
'Actress Manisha Koirala, who plays the lead role in Shashilal Nair's Ek Chhotisi Love Story, met Shiv Sena Chief Bal Thackeray at his residence Matoshree on Friday afternoon and thanked him for supporting her crusade against the controversial film.
It is learnt that Mr. Thackeray called several theatre owners in Mumbai and asked them to stop screening the film........'
The said story also carried the statement said to have been made by Manisha Koirala thus :
' 1. have had a long association with Mr. Thackeray -- right from the time when I worked with his son Binda Thackeray. Mr. Binda Thackeray produced the movie Agnisakshi. I met Balasaheb because I was totally distressed. I talked to him about my problems and he immediately appointed Mr. Satish Maneshinde to fight my case in Court. Mr. Maneshinde presented it correctly and we managed to obtain a stay on the movie's release.'8. The newspapers in their subsequent daily editions have also carried the report that Shri Shashilal Nair (first respondent herein) requested Shiv Sena Chief to see the film 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' and do justice. How could Shri Nair arrange for screening of the film 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' on the face of injunction order dated 5th September 2002. Besides that, Indian Express (Mumbai Newsline) in its edition dated 13th September 2002 (today) has reported that 'it was on (Shri) Nair's repeated pleas that (Shri) Thackeray had agreed to see the film'. Shri Nair is reported to have spoken to Newsline thus :
'He is a big man, I do not. know way he has taken such a decision. I have not been told about it. He had said they would call and let me know when he wants to see the film. I am still waiting for the call'. He is reported to have added 'I will give the scissors in his hands and let him cut off any scene he finds objectionable, but he must see the film in all fairness to me.'9. We were distressed and disturbed by the conduct of Ms. Manisha Koirala (appellant herein) and Mr. Shashilal Nair (respondent No. 1 herein) in taking the matter sub judice before the Court to a third person, a party armed with a judicial order has to have such order enforced through the judicial process and cannot be permitted to take judicial order to streets for enforcement. Arm of law is too long to bring defiant to justice but a litigant to a pending matter cannot be expected to take help of a third party for enforcement of judicial order or to exert pressure on the opposite party. Such conduct or act of the litigant to a pending matter is intolerable, impermissible and unacceptable, as such act and conduct amounts to interfere with the course of justice and also amounts to lower the authority of the Court or tends to lower the authority of the Court. Ms Manisha Koirala (appellant) and Mr. Shashilal Nair (first respondent) by their act and conduct by seeking the help of a third party in the matter pending before the Court have eroded majesty of law and disturbed the free flow of administration of justice.
10. The learned Advocate General who was requested by us to assist in the matter as amicus curiae, invited our attention to, the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Nalin Chandra Pal v. Sejoy Ranjan Ganduly : AIR1953Cal53 of the report read thus :
'9. The petitioner was upholding the orders of the Courts below which exonerated him from all criminal liability. If the Congress President had attempted to bring pressure on him and I may say at once that it is not suggested that the Congress President ever acted in that manner it might have had serious consequences. The opposite-party certainly wished and expected the Congress President to bring pressure on the petitioner, and had he done so the whole course of events might have been completely changed. Fortunately, it would appear that the Congress President took the right course and reported the matter to the petitioner leaving it to him to take what action be thought proper.
10. Attempting in this way to bring pressure upon a party to proceedings, undoubtedly tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. Here the petitioner may have been so Coerced as to admit liability in a case in which he might well be not liable. It appears to me that this letter, Exhibit B, is clearly contempt of Court in that it tended to interfere with the due course of justice in this Court. It was written with the object of making the petitioner withdraw and admit the justice of the opposite-party's claim.'
11. That was a case where one of the parties to the litigation attempted to bring pressure on the other party through the President of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee, via the Secretary of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee and in that backdrop the Division bench of Calcutta High Court held that attempting in this way to bring pressure upon a party to proceedings, undoubtedly tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.
12. Mr. Vinod A. Bobde, learned Senior Counsel who was sitting in the Court in some other matter, invited our attention to the judgment of the Apex court in Pratap Singh v. Gurbaksh Singh, : AIR1962SC1172 where the Apex Court referred to Oswald's Contempt of Court, 3rd Edition and observed in para 10 thus :
'.........This, in our opinion, undoubtedly amounted to contempt of Court. There are many ways of obstructing the Court and 'any conduct by which the course of justice is perverted, either by a party or a stranger, is a contempt; thus the use of threats, by letter or otherwise, to a party while his suit is pending; or abusing a party in letters to persons likely to be witnesses in the cause, have been held to be contempts.' (Oswald's Contempt of Court, 3rd Ed., P. 87). The question is not whether the action in fact interfered, but whether it had a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice, The action taken in this case against the respondent by way of a proceeding against him can, in our opinion, have only one tendency, namely, the tendency to coerce the respondent and force him to withdraw his suit or otherwise not press it. If that be the clear and unmistakable tendency of the proceedings taken against the respondent, then there can be no doubt that in law the appellants have been guilty of contempt of Court, even though they were merely carrying out the instructions contained in the circular letter.'13. Having considered the matter thoughtfully, we are of the view, prima facie, that suo motu proceedings of criminal contempt should be initiated against the appellant Ms. Manisha Koirala as well as the first respondent, Mr. Shashilal Nair.
14. We, accordingly, direct the office to register suo motu contempt petition against Ms Manisha Koiralal, residing at 1402, Beachwood Towers, Yari Road, Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 061 and Mr. Shashilal Nair, Sole Proprietor M/s. Paragon Pictures, having his office at D-35/322, M.I.G. Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 and issue notices to them to show cause why they should not be committed to contempt by their act and conduct as noted above which amounts to interference in due course of justice or tends to interfere in due course of justice or lowers the authority of Court or tends to lower the authority of the Court and punished accordingly. Notice is made returnable on 5th October 2002.
Office to take steps for Issuance of notice to the contemners and service on them without any further delay.
15. We have requested Mr. Goolam Vahanvati, learned Advocate General to assist us in the proceedings and we appreciate his gesture in accepting the same.
16. We observe that along with notice to the contemners, office shall annex copy of this order. We further direct office to provide copy of the contempt petition along with annexure to the office of Advocate General.'
4. In response to show cause notices both the contemnors Ms. Manisha Koirala and Shri Shashilal Nair have put in appearance. When the matter came up before us on 5th October 2002, in so far as Mr. Manisha Koirala was concerned an application was made seeking exemption from personal appearance in the Court as she was undergoing medical treatment at a city hospital for multiple injuries sustained by her and Shri Shashilal Nair appeared before us personally. In the reply affidavit, Shri Nair tendered unconditional apology without justifying his action and assured that he would not repeat such conduct in future. He personally appeared and stated before us that he was sorry for what had happened and did not justify his action or conduct in any manner whatsoever. Ms. Manisha Koirala has filed her reply affidavit on 10th October 2002. She also expressed in her affidavit her sincere regret for what had happened and tendered unconditional, unjustified and unqualified apology.
5. Before we consider the apology tendered by Ms. Manisha Koirala and Shri Shashilal Nair, we record the finding that both contemnors namely Ms. Manisha Koirala and Shri Shashilal Nair had committed criminal contempt of this Court. It is not disputed before us that Ms. Manisha Koirala met Shiv Sena Chief Chri Bal Thackeray on 6th September 2002. The material placed before us leave no manner of doubt that meeting of Mr. Manisha Koirala with Shiv Sena Chief Shri Bal Thackeray led to disruption of screening of the film 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' on 6th September 2002 in various theatres of Mumbai by Shiv Sainiks. Though the screening of the film 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story' in various theatres and cinema halls in Mumbai may amount to disobedience and disregard to the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 5th September 2002, save and except legal process, the party in whose favour such order was passed cannot be permitted to act extra legally, extra constitutionally and extra judicially by seeking help of third person in enforcement of the Court's order. If the screening of the film despite injunction order was in violation of the Court's order it was for the aggrieved party to move this Court for appropriate action. The meeting of Ms. Manisha Koirala with Shiv Sena Chief Shri Bal Thackeray in a subjudice matter before this Court has given an impression to the public at large that though the Court's order may be ineffective but the words of Shiv Sena Chief are more effective and when the writ of the Court may fail to work, the writ of Shiv Sena Chief shall run in the city of Mumbai. The dignity of Court in the esteem of public has, thus, been definitely lowered down by such conduct of Ms. Manisha Koirala.
6. Her statement reported in the newspaper 'Asian Age' that her counsel managed to obtain the stay order has compounded her contemptuous conduct. The statement reported in 'Asian Age' reads thus :
'..............I talked to him about my problems and he immediately appointed Mr. Satish Maneshinde to fight my case in Court. Mr. Maneshinde presented it correctly and we managed to obtain a stay on the movie's release.'
By this statement an impression has been sought to be created by Ms. Manisha Koirala in the mind of the public at large that the order passed by this Court on 5th September 2002 was based on a consideration other than merit. By this act, Ms. Manisha Koirala has scandalised the Court. Her meeting with Shiv Sena Chief Sri Bal Thackeray also clearly seems to have been an attempt to bring pressure upon Shri Shashilal Nair, party to the proceedings which undoubtedly tends to interfere with the due course of justice. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that Ms. Manisha Koirala is guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
7. The conduct of contemnor No. 2 Shri Shashilal Nair is no better. The material placed before us clearly suggest that after Ms. Manisha Koirala had meeting with Shiv Sena Chief on 6th September 2002 and the screening of film was disrupted in various theatres of Mumbai and Thane, Shri Shashilal Nair also met Mr. Thackeray and requested him to see his film 'Ek Chhotisi Love Story'. Shri Shashilal Nair insisted Shri Bal Thackeray to see his film in order to understand his side of story and do justice. Whether in fact Shri Bal Thackeray saw the film or not is immaterial but the fact is that in subjudice matter Shri Shashilal Nair insisted that Shri Bal Thackeray must see his film and do justice. This is indeed gross contemptuous act on the part of the party to the proceedings pending before this Court. The administration of justice in the system where rule or law prevails is prerogative of the Courts which is discharged with solemnity and due divinity and no third person in a pending matter without permission of the Court can be given the task of imparting justice. The material placed before us leave no manner of doubt that Shri Shashilal Nair by his conduct has meddled with the authority of the Court and is guilty of having committed criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971. As a matter of fact the learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. Manisha Koirala and Shri Shashilal Nair did not justify the act and conduct on part of the parties nor did they dispute that action, act or deed on their part amounted to criminal contempt.
8. Having held that both the contemnors are guilty of criminal contempt, the question arises whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the apology tendered by them deserves to be accepted or not. The apology tendered by Ms. Manisha Koirala reads thus :
'2. At the outset, I humbly state that I have great regard and faith for and in the judiciary of this country. From the orders recorded by this Hon'ble Court on 13th September 2002 and the show cause notice issued to me, I see that certain actions on my part or words spoken by me as reported in newspapers mixed with their views and conclusions have given an impression to this Hon'ble Court that I have lost faith in the Judiciary or that I have been a party to something resulting in lowering the dignity and authority of this Hon'ble Court and to erode the majesty of the law or to disturb the free flow of administration of justice. I sincerely regret that this has so happened and I hereby tender an unconditional, unjustified and unqualified apology to this Hon'ble Court for the same. 1 shall ensure that I do not in future repeat the same.
3. Without in any way attempting to justify any of my actions or statements and without in any way seeking to diminish the unqualified nature of the apology tendered hereinabove, and only with a view to place before this Hon'ble Court a narration of relevant facts without seeking to justify my acts and deeds.........'
9. Again in paragraph 5 she has reiterated that she had set out facts without intending to justify any action or deed. In paragraph 7, she has stated thus :
'7. In the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, I humbly pray and respectfully submit that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept my unqualified and unconditional apology and discharge the Show Cause Notice issued to me.'
10. The 2nd contemnor -- Shri Shashilal Nair in paragraph 2 of the affidavit in reply filed on 5th October 2002 has tendered the apology which reads thus :
'2. At the outset and before I respond to the notice, I have to submit that I have the greatest regard for this Hon'ble Court and with utmost humility, I tender my unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court for any act, action or word that may be emanated from me and which were all made without any mal-intention and which may have offended this Hon'ble Court. I assure this Hon'ble Court that I will not repeat the same in future.'
11. The fact that in response to the show cause notice and during the course of arguments, the contemnors have not justified their actions, deed or conduct leads us to believe that the apology tendered by the contemnors is unqualified, unconditional and unreserved. The Apology tendered by the contemnors satisfies us to be bona fide, genuine and honest and appears to be an expression of contrition. Having given our utmost consideration we have come to the conclusion that the apology tendered by Ms. Manisha Koirala and Shri Shashilal Nair deserves to be accepted and no sentence or punishment or fine needs to be passed.
12. We, accordingly, accept the apology tendered by Ms. Manisha Koirala and Shri Shashilal Nair and dispose of Suo Motu Contempt petition accordingly.