Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Judgment

civil jurisdiction has been quashed on certiorari, either for want of jurisdiction or on any other ground."(') The ultimate proposition is set out in the terms: "Certiorari does not lie to quash the judgments of inferior courts of civil jurisdiction." These observations would indicate that in England the judicial orders passed by civil courts of plenary jurisdiction in or in relation to matters brought before them are not held to be amenable to the jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari. In Rex. v. Chancellor of St. Edmundsburry and Ipswich Diocese Ex parte White.(2) th.:_ __ question which arose was whether certio- (1) Halsbury La•·s of En,lmrd Vol. 11, pp. 129. 130. (2) 11945] I K.B.D 195 ~t pp. 2J5-216. II K rari would lie from the Court of King's Bench to an ecclesiastical Court: and the answer rendered by the Court was that certiorari would not lie against the decision of an ecclesiastical court. In dealing with this question, Wrottesley, L. J. has elaborately considered the history of the writ jurisdiction and has dealt with the question about the meaning of the word "inferior" as applied to courts of law in England in discussing the problem as to the issue of the writ in regard to decisions of certain courts.

"The more this matter was investigated," says Wrottesley, L. J., "the clearer it became that the word "inferior" as applied to courts of law in England had been used with at least two very different meanings. If, as some assert, the question of inferiority is determined by ascertaining whether the court in question can be stopped from exceeding its jurisdiction by a writ of prohibition issuing from the King's Bench, then not only the ecclesiastical Courts, but also Palatine courts and Admiralty courts are inferior courts. But there is another test, well recognised by lawyers, by which to distinguish a superior from an inferior court, namely, whether in its proceedings, and in particular in its judgments, it must appear that the court was acting within its jurisdiction.

This is the characteristic of an inferior court, whereas in the proceedings of a superior court it will be presumed that it acted within its jurisdiction unless the contrary should appear either on the face of the proceedings or aliunde." Mr. Sen relied upon this decision to show that even the High Court of Bombay can be said to be an inferior court for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction by this Court under Art. 32(2) to issue a writ of certiOrari in respect of the impugned order passed by it. We are. unable to see how this decision can support Mr. Sen's contentions. We are, therefore, satisfied that so far as the jurisdiction of this Court to issue writs of certiorari is concerned, it is impossible to accept the argument of the petitioners that judicial orders passed by High Courts in or in relation to proceedings pending before them, are amenable to be corrected by exercise of the said jurisdiction.

We have no doubt that it would be unreasonable to attempt to rationalise the assumption of jurisdiction by this Court under Art. 32 to correct such judicial orders on the fanciful hypothesis that High Courts may pass extravagant orders in or in relation to matters pending before them and that a remedy by way of a writ of certiorari should, therefore, be sought for and be deemed to be included within the scope of Art. 32. The words used in Art. 32 are no doubt wide; but having regard to the considerations which we have set out in the course of this judgment, we are satisfied that the impugned order cannot be brought within the scope of this Court's jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Art. 32; to hold otherwise would be repugnant to the well-recognised limitatio111 7i ·I ( 1966] 3 S.CR. within which the jurisdiction to issue writs of ceriiorari can be cxercised and inconsistent with the uniform trend of this Court's decisions in relation to the said point.

The result is, the petitions fail and are dismissed. There would he no order as to costs. Sarkar, J. Tarkunde J. of the High Court at Bombay, while hearing a suit in the exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of that Court, passed an order prohibiting publication of a part of the proceedings. The four petitioners, who are reporters and othenvise connected with newspapers, have moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution, each by a separate petition, for a writ of certiorari to bring up the records of the order and to quash them. They allege that the order violates their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression conferred hy sub-cl. (a) of cl. (I) of Art. 19 of the Constitution. l think these petitions should fail. First, it seems to me that this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Ujjam Bai v. State vf Uttar Pradesh('). That was a case in which a petition had been moved under Art. 32 for quashing an order passed by an assessing officer acting judicially under a taxing statute, valid in all respects, assessing the petitioner to tax on a construction of the statute alleged to be erroneous and that petition was dismissed.

It was held that the validity of an order made by a judicial tribunal, acting within its jurisdiction, under an Act which was illlra vires and good law in all respects was not liable to be questioned by a petition under Art. 32 even though the provisions of the Act had been misconstrued and that such an order could not violate any fundamental right and no question of this Court enforcing any violation of fundamental right thereby could arise The principle accepted appears to be that a legally valid act cannot offend a fundamental right. I think the same principle applies to this case. The conditions of the applic~ilility of the principle laid down in that case are that a judicial tribunal should have made an order which it had the jurisdiction to make by applying a law which is valid in all respects. I think both these conditions are fulfilled in this case and it is irrelevant to enquire whether Tarkunde J. had made the order on an erroneous view of the law he was applying.

I proceed now to examine the case from this point of view. First had Tarkunde J. exceeded his jurisdiction in making the order ? '1t was said that he had, because the inherent power of the Court did not authorise the prevention of the publication of the proceedings in the circumstances of the case. As I understt)(ld t•l 11963) ts. c. R. rs. 4 MIRAJKAR v. MAHARASHTRA (Sarkar, J.) learned counsel, they did not contend that Tarkunde J. had no power to prevent publication at all but only said that he had misused that power, and misapplied the law which gave the power to the facts of the case before him and thereby exceeded his jurisdiction. I think, for reasons to be later stated, he had such a power and that power was based on a valid law. I will assume for the present purpose that the learned Judge had committed the error imputed to him. But I am unable to agree that he had thereby exceeded his jurisdiction in the sense in which that word was used by this Court in Ujjam Bai's(') case.

Our attention was drawn to certain observations in some of the speeches in the House of Lords. in Scott v. Scoll.(2) That was a case in which the trial of matrimonial case was ordered by a learned Judge of the High Court of England, trying the case as a court of first instance, to be held in rnmera. The House of Lords on appeal held that the order was completely invalid and might be disobeyed with impunity. Some of the learned Lords observed that the order was without jurisdiction and it was on this that the petitioners founded themselves. It seems to me that this argument is based on a misconception of what was said by these learned Lords. All that they meant to say was that the law as to camera trial did not justify the order that had been made. It was not said that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Judge, who made the order, to consider what that law was and whether it justified the order that he made. The House of Lords was only concerned with the legality of the order.

Indeed, in England the High Cot1rt is a court of universal jurisdiction and except where provided by statute, its jurisdiction is, I believe, unlimited. The House of Lords was not concerned with any statutory limit of the jurisdiction of the High Court. When this Court observed in Ujjam Bell's(') case that the order had to be within the jurisdiction of the tribunal which made it, it really meant that the tribunal had to have jurisdiction to decide matters that were litigated before it and to apply the law which it, in fact, applied in making the order. It was not saying that the tribunal having this jurisdiction acts without jurisdiction if it makes an error in the application of the law. In coming to its conclusion in Ujjam Bai'~(') case, this Court assumed that the assessing autliority misinterpreted the law which it bad jurisdiction to apply, but held that nonetheless he bad acted within bis jurisdiction and was not acting without jurisdiction.

This view is based on a well recognised principle. An order passed by a court without jurisdiction in the sense that I have mentioned, is a nullity. It cannot be said of such an order that it is a legal act which cannot result is a wrong. On the other hand, an order passed with jurisdiction but wrongly, is a legal act for it is well known that a court has jurisdic- (1) (t963] I S.C.R. 778. (2) [1913] A.C. 417. [ 1966) 3 S.C.R ti~n ~o decide rightly as well as wrongly. This, I believe, is the principle on which the condition as to jurisdiction was formulated in Ujjam Bai's.(') I find no difficulty, therefore, in holding that Tarkunde J. was acting within jurisdiction in making the order w.hich he did, even if he had committed an error in applying the 'law under which he made it. I turn now to the question whether the law which Tarkundc J. had applied was a valid law. It is sail! that it is not a valid law as it offends the fundamental right to freedom of speech conferred by Art. 19(1)(a).

Now that law is the inherent power of a High Court to prevent publication of the proceedings of a trial. The question is: Does this power offend the liberty of speech 'I It seems to me beyond dispute that the power to prevent publication of proceedings is a facet of the power to hold a trial in camera and stems from it. Both are intended to keep the proceedings secret. Suppose a court orders a trial in camera and assume it had a valid power to do so. In such a case the proceedings are not available to persons not present at the trial and cannot, for that reason at least, be published by them. Can any such person complain that his liberty of speech has been infringed ? I do not think so. He has no right to hear the proceedings. Indeed, there is no fundamental right to hear. If he has not, then it should follow that his liberty of speech has not been affected by the order directing a trial in camera.

Though it was not disputed, I will consider for myself whether a law empowering a trial in camera is a valid law. An order directing a trial to be held in camera prohibits entry into the court but I do not think that it can be said that it thereby offends the right to move freely throughout India which is given by sub-cl. (d) of cl. (I) of Art. 19. I would put this view on two grounds. I would first say that the law providing for trials being held In camera, .even if it trespasses on the liberty of movement, would be protected under cl. (5) of Art. 19 which permits laws to be made imposing reasonable restrictions on that right in the interests of the general public. Nt>w it is well recognised that the power to hold trials In 1, • camera is given in the interests of administration of justice. I suppose there can be no doubt that administration of justice is a matter of public interest.

Then it seems to me indisputable that the restrictions that the exercise of the power to hold trials in camera imposes on the liberty of movement are reasonable. It is circumscribed by strict limits; see Scott. v. Scott.(2) It is unnecessary to discuss these limits for it has not been contended that the restrictions are not reasonable. Secondly, I woul<l say that that law does not violate any fundamental right to free movcmont. A court house is not such a place (I) (1963) I S.C.R. 778. (2) (1913) A.C. 417. ll t I MIRAJKAR v. MAHARASHTRA (Sarkar, I.) into which the public have an unrestricted right of entry. The public no doubt have a right to be present in court and to watch the pro-&" ceedings conducted there. But this is not a fundamental right. It is indeed not a personal right of a citizen which, I conceive, a fundamental right must be. It is a right given to the public at large in the interests of the administration of justice.

It cannot exist when the administration of justice requires a trial to be held in camera for in such a case it is not in the interest of justice that the public should be present. That right to be present in a comt must be subject to the control of the Judge administering the business of the court. If it were not so, it would be impossible to carry on work in a court. I should suppose that one cannot complain of the breach of the liberty of movement if he is prevented(, by law from entering a private property. For analoguous reasons, I think a person cannot complain of a breach of that liberty when his entry to a court room is prohibited. In neither case he is entitled to a free right of entry to the place concerned. Now the exercise of the power to hold trial in camera no doubt has the effect incidentally of preventing a citizen from publishing proceedings of the trial, for he is by it prevented from hearing them; what he cannot hear, he cannot, of course, publish.

I do not think this restriction on the liberty of speech is a violation of the fundamental right in regard to it. First, the liberty of speech is affected only indirectly and it has been held by this Court in many cases beginning with A. K. Gopa/an v. The State(') that when a law which, though it violates a fundamental right is nonetheless good under any of the els. (2) to (5) of Art. 19, indirectly affects another fundamental right for which no protection can be claimed under these clauses, no grievance can be founded on the indirect infringement. Secondly, all that the law does is to legally prevent a person from entering the court and hearing the proceedings. Really, there is no such thing as an absolute right to hear. A person cannot complain of an infringement of the liberty of speech when all that is done is to prevent access to something which he intends to publish.

As I have earlier said the power to prohibit publication of proceedings is/· essentially the ·same as the power to hold trial in camera. If the power to prevent publication of proceedings does not exist, it would be futile to give a power to hold a trial in camera. I should suppose that if the law giving the latter power is a good law, as I think it is, everything involved in that law and stemming from it must equally be good. It would follow that the power to prohibit publication of proceedings cannot also amount to any infringement of the liberty of speech. When it is said that a proceeding shall not be published, what is in fact said is that persons will be permitted to hear what they have no right to hear, on the condition that they do not publish what they hear. The order preventing publication is really a form ; (I) [1950] S.C.R. 88. lvll2Sup.CJ/66~4 of holding trial in camera. If a person taking advantage of such an order publishes it, he is certainly committing a wrong.

I cannot imagine the Constitution contemplating a fundamental right based on a wrong. I conceive the position would be the same if a person stealthily and wrongfully gets possession of a copy of the proceedings of a trial held in camera and publishes them. He has no fundamental right to liberty of speech in respect of such publication because that alleged right would then be originating from a breach of an indisputably good law. Suppose A has a copyright in a poem and B steals it and makes it over to C. It would be absurd if C can take shelter under the liberty of speech when he is restrained by an injunction against a threatened publication of the poem by him. I should suppose that liberty of speech is not available to do harm to others. Clearly a right cannot be based on a wrong. Therefore, I think that a law empowering a court to prohibit publication of its proceedings does not affect the fundamental right of speech.

It cannot be said to be bad on the ground that it infringes any such right. It also seems to me that the law empowering a court to prohibit publication of its proceedings is protected by cl. (2) of Art. 19. That clause says that a law may validly impose reasonable restrictions on the liberty of speech, if it is in relation to contempt or court. Now a law in relation to contempt of court in the present context is a law which says that certain statements uttered or published will be a contempt of court. Their utterance or publication is prohibited. The principle on which the law is based is that the utterance or publication would interfere with the course of justice and its due administration. As I have already said, the law preventing publication of the court's prooeedings is based on the same principle. The publication is prohibited only because it interferes with the course of justice. An obstruction to the course of justice will of course be a contempt of court.

That obstruction may take various forms. There is obstruction when comments on the meriL, of a case pending in a court are made. Such comments are prohibited by law and that law relates to contempt of court. Likewise an obstruction to the course of justice occurs when a court in the interests of justice prohibits publication of the proceedings and that prohibition is disobeyed. Such publication is prohibited by law and the law empowering the prohibition equally relates to contempt of court. That law is concerned with the powers of the court alone and does not purport to confer rights on persons. Such a law would be a good law under cl. (2) of Art. 19 if the restrictions which it imposes are reasonable. What I have earlier said in connection with the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the law providing for a trial to be held in camera will apply to this case also. The restrictions which this law empowers to be imposed MIRAJKAR v. MAHARASHTRA (Sarkar, I.) have to be confined within the strict limits and are plainly reasonable.

I will refer now to another aspect of the matter. As I understood learned counsel for the petitioners, they conceded that the order was a good order in so far as it concerned the parties to the case heard by Tarkunde J. who could not, therefore, complain of any violation of their liberty of speech by it. But it was contended that the order was not a valid order in so far as it restrained persons like the petitioners who were not parties to the proceedings. is true that the petitioners were not parties, but I am unable to see that that makes any difference. The case will still be covered by the principle laid down in Ujjam Bai's(1) case It would still be a judicial order made within the jurisdiction of the Judge making it and based on a good law. It would still be a legal act. It cannot, therefore, violate anyone's fundamental right whether he is a party to the proceedings or not. The person affected can always approach the court for relief even if he was not a party to the proceedings.

The jurisdiction of the Court does not depend on who the person affected by its order, is. Courts often have to· pass orders which affect strangers to the proceedings before them. To take a common case, suppose a court appoints a receiver of a property about which certain persons are litigating but which in fact belongs to another. That person is as much bound by the order appointing the receiver as the parties to it are. His remedy is to move the court by an application pro interesse suo. He cannot by force prevent the receiver from taking possession and justify his action on the ground that the order was without jurisdiction and; therefore violated his fundamental right to hold property. It would be an intolerable calamity if the law were otherwise. Therefore, it seems to me that on the authority and the principle of Ujjam Bai' s ( 1) case it must be held that the order <YI Tarkunde J. did not violate any fundamental right of the petitioners and the petitions must fail.

I would now refer to two judgments of this Court to which our attention was drawn. I find nothing in them which conflicts with the principle enunciated in Ujjam Bai's(I) case. The first is Budha!I Chowdury v. The State of Bihar(2). In that case there is an observation indicating that a judicial decision will not amou11t to denial of equal protection of law unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional and purposeful discrimination: An argument was based on this observation that this Court con~ templated that a judical order might in certain circumstances violate a fundamental right. But that observation must be related to thP facts of the case. The case dealt with the power of a magistrate to (I) [1953] 1 S.C.R. 778. (2) [1955] l S.C.R, 1045. not prepared to accept a test which would affect that right in any way.

Besides this aspect of the matter, the power to issue a writ of certiorari is most valuable and most needed where an appeal does not lie from a decision of a tribunal and that decision is sought to be called in question. A test which would prevent the writ from lying in a case where it is most needed is not acceptable to me. I may add that in England where a writ of error-a form of appeal -lay, the certiorari does not appear to have issued. Another test suggested was that the inferior court was one over which the superior court issuing the writ had a supervisory jurisdiction. This test would fail for the same reason as the test of appcalability. The Supreme Court has no supervisory jurisdictio11 over any court though it has power to issue the writ, nor have the High Courts over many to which it is necessary that they should issue the writ and have in fact been doing so all along with great beneficial results. This test will not, therefore, work in our country.

That is not a test in England either. No doubt, in England it is said that the High Court exercises supervision over the inferior courts by the issue of the writ but that is so because the power to issue the writ carried with it the power to supervise and not because the writ is issued as there is a power to supervise. The power to issue the writ arises from what was once the royal prerogative and not from what is only a power to supervise. I confess the question is of some haziness. That hazine.is arises because the courts in our country which have been given the power to issue the writ are not fully analogous to the English cour1& having that power. We have to seek a way out for ourselves. Having given the matter my best consideration, I venture to think that it was not contemplated that a High Court is an inferior court even though it is a court of limited jurisdiction. The Constitution gave power to the High Courts to issue the writ.

In England an inferior court could never issue the writ. I think it would be abhorrent to the principle of certiorari if a court which can itself issue the writ is to be made subject to be corrected by a writ issued by another court. When a court has the power to issue the writ, it is not, according to tbe fundamental principles of certiorari, an inferior court or a court of limited jurisdiction. It does not cease to be so because another court to which appeals from it lie, has also the power to issue the writ. That should furnish strong justification for saying that the Constitution did not contemplate the High Courts to be inferior courts so that their decisions would be liable to be quashed by writs issued by the Supreme Court which also had been given the power to issue the writs. Nor do I think that the cause of justice will in any manner be affected if a High Court is not made amenable to correction by this Court by the issue of the writ.

In my opinion, therefore, this Court has no power to ·issue a certiorari to a High Court. MIRAJKAR v. MAHARASHTRA (Hidayatulla~. J.) I would, for these reasons, dismiss. the petitions. Hidayatullah, J. Questions of far-reaching importance to our system of administration of justice are involved in these petitions and as I have reached the conclusion that these petitions should be allowed, I consider it necessary to state my reasons fully. The facts are these: In a sensational libel suit, on the original side of the High Court of Bombay, between one Mr. Krishnaraja M.D. Thakersey and Mr. R.K. Karanjia, Editor of the "Blitz" (an English weekly newspaper of Bombay), one Bhaichand Goda was cited as a witness for the defence. In a different proceeding Goda had earlier made an affidavit of facts which were considered relevant to the libel snit, but as witness he did not adhere to them. Mr. Karanjia was, therefore, permitted to cross-examine him with reference to his earlier statement.

When the trial of the snit proceeded some other material came on record which indicated that Goda had, in some other proceedings, repeated what he had stated in his affidavit. At the request of, Mr. Karanjia, Goda was recalled for further cross-examination in. relation to the new matter. On his second appearance Goda made a request to the presiding Judge (Mr. Justice Tarkunde) to withhold his evidence from newspaper reporters on the ground that publication of reports of his earlier deposition had caused loss to him in his business. After hearing arguments Mr. Justice Tarkunde orally ordered that Goda's deposition should not be reported in newspapers. The Blitz was giving verbatim reports of the trial and the other newspapers were also publishing brief accounts. The oral order of the learned Judge was not recorded. The minutes of the Court also do not mention it. In fact we have not seen that order.

No one can say what the nature of the prohibition was, namely, whether it was a temporary or a perpetual suppression of publication. As the intention was to save Goda's business from harm, it is reasonable to think that the prohibition was perpetual and that is how the matter appears to have been understood by all concerned because no report of his deposition has since appeared in any newspaper. These four petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution were filed to question the order (such as it was) on the ground that the fundamental rights under Art. 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of the four petitioners (who are all journalists) have been violated by the said order. They raise important questions and I shall mention them at once. They are: (i) can a court, which is holding a public trial from which the public is not excluded suppress the publication of the deposition of a witness heard not in camera but in open court on the request of the witness that his business will suffer;

(ii) does such an order breach fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression entitling persons affected to invoke Art. 32; SUPREME COURT Rl!POllTS (1966] 3 $C.R. and (iii) if so, can this Court issue a writ to a High Court?;~I answer these questions in the affirmative and in favour of the petitioners. Before I discuss the order in this case I shall state the nature of hearings in the trial of cases in our courts. As we have fortunately inherited the English tradition of holding trials (with a few exceptions to which I shall refer later) in public, I shall begin with the English practice. It has always been the glory of the English system as opposed to the Continental, that all trials are held ostiis apertis, that is, with open doors. lbis principle is old and according to Hallam it is a direct guarantee of civil liberty and it moved Bentham to say that it was the soul of Justice and that in proportion as publicity had place, the checks on judicial injustice could be found.

Except for trials before the Council all trials in England, including those before the notorious Star Chamber, were public and with observance of the law terms. ft is because English trial has not known the Lettres de cachet of Louis XIV and all its state trials were public, that the Selden Society has been able to collect the cases of the Star Chamber and we have the verbatim reports of almost all state trials. As Emlyn in his preface to the State Trials says proudly : "In other countries the courts of Justice are held in secret; with us publicly and in open view; there the witnesses are examined in private, and in the prisoner's absence; with us face to face, and in the prisoner's presence." He was no doubt speaking of criminal trials hut the principle (with a few exceptions) is applicable to civil cases also. This attachment to an open trial is not a rule of practice with the English, but is an article of their Great Charter and Judges view with great concern any departure from it.

Whenever, a Judge departed from it he defined the 'field of exception' and stated ' the o~erriding principle' on which his decision was based. No Judge passes an order which is not recorded in the minutes and a question of this kind is not dealt with by the Judge as within his mere discretion as to what he considers expedient or convenient. As illustration of the seriousness of the question I shall permit myself an instance which concerns one of the greatest legal luminaries of F.oglish law. In Mala11 v. You11g(') (in the Shcrborne School~ libel case) Lord Denman (then Denman J.) with the consent of the parties made an order for hearing in cemera and a part of the case was so heard. Then a lawyer protested and Mr. Justice Denman, on a reconsideration of the matter, invited the parties the decide whether they would take the risk of a case in camera or would begin de novo in open court. The parties agreed to have the case (I) (1889) 6 T.L.R. 38. principle requires.

He may be able to show that the evidence can be effectively brought before the court in no other fashion." (~mphasis added) With profound respect for the eminent Judge I think the principle, so stated, is too wide and Rex. v Clement(') which be uses to illustrate his point has no relevance. I respectfully agree with the Earl of Halsbury, who in the same case, commented upon the width of the Lord Chancellor"s language and with Lord Atkinson who pointed out that in Clement's case there were many persons being tried for high treason and as the challenges to the jury were different, a large number of trials with common witnesses had to be held and publication was withheld so that others might not be prejudiced. The Earl of Halsbury observed as folllows: ·· ........ I wish lo guard myself against the proposition that a judge may bring a case within the category of enforced secrecy because he thinks that justice cannot be done unless it is heard in secret.".

I am not venturing to criticise your Lordship"s language, which, as your Lordship understands it, and as I venture to say I myself understand it, is probably enough to secure the observance of the rule of public hearing, but what I venture to point out is that it is not so definite in its application but that an individual judge might think that, in· his view, the paramount object could not be attained without a secret hearing. Although I am very far from saying that such a case may not arise, I hestitate to accede to the width of the language, which, as I say, might be applied to what, in my view. would be an unlawful extension." "(pp. 442/443)." (emphasis added) The Earl of Halsbury also expressed amazement that asingle Judge (Sir Francis Jeune) should overrule "three such leamee Judges as Sir Cresswell Cresswell, Williams J. and Bramwell B." who in H (falsely called C) v C.(2) had expressed different opinion in ri:lation to hearing in camera on the request of parties.

Lord Shaw of Dunfermline also called the dictum of Sir Francis Jeune in D. v. D. "to be historically and legally indefensible." Earl Loreburn, however, agreed with the principle as enunciated and was in favour of its being exercised liberally. The head-nole in the law report sets out the views of Viscount Haldane and F.arl Loreburn separately from the main decision. (I) <B & Aid. 218. (2) I SW & Tr. 635. REPORTS To begin with we have the definition of 'State' in Art. 12.• That definition does not say fully what may be included in !ha.- word 'State' but, although it says that the word includes certain/ authorities, it does not consider it necessary to say that courts and Judges are excluded. The reason is made obvious at once. if we consider Art. 13(2).•• There the word 'State' must obviously include 'courts' because otherwise 'courts' will be enabled to make rules which take away or abridge fundamental rights.

Such a case in fact arose in this Court when Rule 12 of Order XX.XV of the Supreme Court Rules was struck down. [Sec Premchand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P .• Allahabad]('). That rule required the furnishing of security in petition under Art. 32 and it was held to abridge the fundamental rights. But it is said that the rule was struck down and not the judicial decision which W<l~ only i revised. That may be"" But a judicial decision based on .soch17 a rule is not any better and offends the fundamental rights just the same and not less so because it happens to be a judicial order. If here be no appropriate remedy to get such an order removed because this Court has no superior, it docs not mean that the order is made good. When judged of under the Constitution it is still a void order although it may bind parties unless set aside. Procedural safeguards are as important as other safeguards. Again Art. 20, which speaks of convictions for offences, punishments and testimonial compulsion is addressed as much to courts as to executive and other authorities, and I venture to think that the worst offenders would be the courts if they went against this prescription.

Article 22(1)! is addressed to courts where it I says that no person, who is arrested, shall be denied the right to be •"12. In this Part. unless the context othcrwis~ requires, "the State" includes ti.c Go•cmmcnt and Parliament of Ind~ and the Government and the l...cgia.- lature of each of the Slate' and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of lodia." ••"13 (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this pan and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be ,1oid." (I) 11963) Supp. I S.C.R. 885. t"2J (1) No person shall be con .. ·ictcd of any off'-'Dcc except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as aa offL"otc, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which n1ight have been infiicted under the law in force at the timi: of the commission of the offence. (2)

No person shalt be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3) No pc™>n accused of any offence shall be C-Olllpcllcd to be a witoeos aaains• himself." t22(1) No person who is arrested sha!J be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right 10 consult, and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. I MIRAJKAR v. MAHARASHTRA (Hldayatul/ah, !.) 79 I defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. If the High Court had, for example, insisted on the defendant in a criminal case to take a counsel of its choice, the trial would have been vitiated. Why? Because of the breach of the fundamental right in Art. 22(1). The remedy would not have been to wait till the end of the trial and then to bring the matter up by appeal on a certificate or to ask for special leave against the order but to ask for a writ compelling the observance of the Constitution .

These provisions show that it cannot be claimed as a general proposition that no action of a Judge can ever be questioned on the ground of breach of fundamental rights. The Judge no doubt functions, most of the time, to decide controversies between the/ parties in which controversies the Judge does not figure but occasion may arise collaterally where the matter may be between the Judge and the fundamental rights of any person by reason of the Judge's action. It is true that Judges, as the upholders of the Constitution and the laws, are least likely to err but the possibility of their acting contrary to the Constitution cannot be completely excluded. In the context of Arts. 14, 15(l)(b) and (19) (a) and (d) it is easy to visualize breaches by almost any one including a Judge. A court room is a place dedicated to the use of the general public.

This means that a person who goes there has not to.seek anybody's permission to enter it provided he either has business there or as a spectator behaves himself. The work of the court is done in public and no one is excluded who wishes to enter the court room to watch it. In a suitable case the public may, of course, be excluded by the Judge. But he cannot exclude a section of the public on the ground of race, religion or community without offending fundamental rights. The right to carry on the profession of law may be enforced against a Judge within the precincts of his court as much as the carrying on of other professions may be enforced outside. It is, however, said that a Judge possesses a dual character, that in his administrative capacity he may be within the reach of the chapter on fundamental rights but not in his judicial capacity. I venture to think that sitting in the seat of justice hardly makes a difference.

It may be that his judicial orders normally are subject to appeals,. revisions and reviews but where none of these can be invoked and fundamental rights are involved recourse to the guaranteed remedy may become necessary. Because Judges decide matters objectively and because almost all their orders are capable of correction by way of appeals, revisions or reviews, does not lead to the conclusion that every order made by a Judge may only be treated as a wrong order and not as one guilty of breach of fundamental rights. If a Judge, without any reason, orders the members of, say, one political party out of his court, those so ordered may seek to enforce their fundamental rights against him and it should make no difference that the order is made while he sits as a Judge. Even if appeal lies against such an order, the defect on which relief can be claimed, is tlie breach of fundamental rights.

I am, therefore, of opinio'n that Judges cannot be said to be entirely out of the reach of fundamental rights. The fundamental right here claimed is the freedom of speech and expression. In Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. The Union o( lndit:J..') this Court holds that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (a) includes freedom of press. A suppression of the publication of the report of a case conducted in open court. for a reason which has no merit, ex facie offends that freedom. Just as the denial witlwur any reason io a person of the right to enler a court is to deprive him of several fundamental freedoms, denial of the right to publish reports of a public trial is also to deny the freedom of the press which is included in the freedom of speech and expression. Suppose for a moment that a Judge singles out some newspapers for discriminatory treatment. The order wot1ld indubitably offend the equality clause.

Assuming that no remedy exists against such an order, the person affected, if he disobeys it, can at least claim immunity in a proceeding for contempt hy pleading breach of his fundamental rights by the Judge. In my judgment Mr. Justice Tarkunde, having held a public trial, could not curtail the liberty of the press by suppressing the publication of the repom. This was not a matter of deciding anything in a /is but of regulating his court and procedure. As the Judge passed no recorded order, the appropriate remedy (in fact the only effective remedy) is to seek to quash the order by a writ under Art. 32 of the Constitution,; I have disposed of the second question but some of the reasons which strengthen that view were not mentioned because they can be more appropriately mentioned in connection with the third question which is: Can this Court issue a writ under Art. 32 of the Constitution to a High Court?

This is a difficult and an important question which I would have gladly reserved for a more suitable case. Had I been of the view that the order of Mr. Justice Tarkunde was proper, I would not have attempted it because it would have been a futile exercise but I am compelled to answer this question firstly because the matter is considered in the judgments of my lord the Chief Justice and of my other brethren and. secondly, because on my answers to the first two questions it perhaps arises more in my judgment than in others, The submission of the Attorney-General is that in no case can writs of mtmdmus, certiorari or prohibition go to a Division Court or to a single Judge of the High Court whether sitting in bane or in chambers. He is not so sure about the writ of quo warranto and wishes it to be considered as a separate question. It is, however, clear that the last writ must either issue here or in the High (I) [1962) 3 S.C.R. 842. MIRAJKAR v. MAHARASHTRA (Hldayatul/ah, /.)

Court if a Judge becomes incompetent, say, by reason of superannuation and does not demit his office and, I think, the Attorney- General is right in not mixing up this writ with a consideration of the others. In respect of the other writs, the argument of the Attorney-General is that the High Court in England issues these writs to inferior courts but not to courts of coordinate jurisdiction or superior courts and the High Court as a Court of Record and a superior court, itself being able to issue these writs in our country, must be treated as a court of coordinate jurisdiction in this matter and not regarded as an inferior court. He also contends that the decisions of the High Courts are capable of being corrected by appeals only and writs cannot lie. I do not accept these arguments. Nothing turns on the fact that the High Court is a court of record because the writ of certiorari issues to several courts of record-( see Ha[sbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn.) Vol. II, page 124. para 230).

Similarly "Ecclesiastical courts are superior courts in the sense that it need not appear in any proceeding or judgments of these courts that the court was acting within its jurisdiction but they are regarded as inferior courts in the sense that they cai:i be stopped from exceeding their jurisdiction by an order of prohibition" (see Halsbury ibid., Vol. 9, p. 348 para 817). Nothing much can turn upon phrases such as 'court of record', 'superior and inferior courts' borrowed from English law. We have to guide ourselves by our Constitution which lays down the powers of this Court in Art. 32 thus: "32. Remedies for enforcement of rights. (I) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. (2)

The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by ·this Part. (3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (I) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2). ( 4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution." Ml2 Sup. C. I./66-5 SUPREMB COUl.T llBPOl.TS ( 1966] 3 S.C.ll. The powers of the High Court arc stated in Art. 226 which may also be set out here for comparison: "226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs. (I)

Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government within those territories directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prnhibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. (IA) The power conferred by clause (I) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the terrjtories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. (2)

The power conferred on a High Court by clause (I) or clause (IA) shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32." Article 32 makes no exception in favour of the High Court. It refers to the writs of certiorari and prohibition which lie only in respect of judicial acts and although they lie also to bodies and persons who are not courts stricto sensu, they always lie to courts. As these writs are mentioned in Art. 32 and there is no exception in respect of the High Courts we start with a presumption that the High Court may not be excluded. The writ of mandamus may also be issued to courts and that does not detract from the pr~ sumption. The writ of quo warranto, as stated earlier, may concededly be held to apply to a High Court Judge. It will be noticed that both the articles in speaking of the power say that it is to issue writs "in the nature of" the writs of habea.r corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto.

The phrase "in the nature or• is not the same as the other phrase "of the nature or•. The former emphasises the essential nature and the latter is content with mere similarity. As a result we have to consider this controversy from two angles: (i) how far does the essential nature of the writs taken with the special history of courts in England throw any light upon the subject and (ii) what assistance do we derive from the language and scheme of Arts. 32 and 226? I ahall deal with these matters in the wne order. .MlllAJLU v. MAHilASHTL\ (Hidayatullah, /.) We arc concerned with high prerogative writs. They do not issue like the ordinary writs which are of strict right, but only at the discretion of a court entitled to issue them. The writ of prohibition issues from the Queen's Bench properly but.it was also issued .from the Chancery, Common Pleas and Exchequer Courts returnable to the Queen's Bench or Common Pleas (now merged in the Queen's Bench Division).

It is, however, not granted to a court which exercises the powers of the High Court. The writ is issued to Judges and parties in an inferior court to cease from prosecuting a case in which their jurisdiction, either originally or collaterally, is wanting. Prohibition lies to a Judge as of right when the want of jurisdiction is patent. Since the Judicature Acts an appeal now lies agail)st the writ, to the Court of Appeal and thence to the House of Lords, but before that the writ could only be questioned under a Writ of Consultation. The Judge to whom the writ went consulted with the Queen's Justices and if the writ of prohibition was not proper, a consultation was granted. Certiorari issues to Judges and officers of inferrior courts and jurisdictions, from the Queen's Bench (now the Queen's Bench Division) to certify or send proceedings so that the legality of the proceedings may be examined.

But if the other court exercises the powers of the High Court the writ is refused (see Skinner v. Northallerton County Court Judge-[1889] A.C. 439). Certiorari also lies to remove a cause or matter into the High Court if fair and impartial trial in the inferior court is not possible or questions of law of unusual difficulty are likely to ;irise. The writ also issues from the House of Lords to remove an indictment for felony found by a grand jury against a Peer. The Earl of Russell was tried for bigamy by the King in Parliament before 160 peers and all the Judges of the High Court after removal thereof the case by certiorari (see The Trial of Earl Russe/1(1). The Crown gets the writ of certiorari as of absolute right but the subject at the discretion of the court. No certiorari goes from one branch of the High Court to another nor to another superior court. This writ cannot be avoided by the Judge by not writing an order in the case before him.

Even if the Judge has not recorded the order the High Court will order the inferior court to record its decision and then to transmit the record to it. (Halsbury, 3rd Edn, Vol XI, page 135, para 251). Certiorari lies only in respect of judicial, as distinguished from administrative, acts. Mandamus lies for the enforcement of legal rights when there: is no other specific remedy or the other available remedy is not so effective. It often issues to a court to hear and determine a matter pending before it. Such a writ issued also from the Chancery when judgments were delayed, but returnable to the Queen's Bench. (I) (19Jl] A.C.446. 79i SUH.BM!! COUIT Rl!POllTS As Halsbury tersely puts it (3rd ed. Vol. XI, p. 53, para 109) the three writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari are used as a means of controlling inferior courts and those who have legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of ~ubjects and having to act judicially.

By these three writs inferior courts were compelled to do ample and speedy justice and were kept within their jurisdiction. The root principle, says l/a/sbury (ibid., Vol. IX, p. 351, para 823) is that the Judges stand in the place of the Queen and the Queen is supposed to be present in her royal courts. Of the Courts of Common Law at Westminster which have dispensed justice for upward of seven centuries in the Queen's name, only one exercised general jurisdiction in civil causes. This court was established by Henry II in 1178 A.D. and was known as the Common Bench. Cases of special difficulty were heard by the Sovereign with the advice of her wise men. This court was spoken of by the Sovereign "as our Justices at Westminster". In accordance with Article XVII of the Great Charter, Westminster was chosen as a "certain place" and till the idea of taking justice to the people arose and assizes came into existence, the court never stirred from that place.

The court was known as the Upper Bench or the Queen's Bench where the Sovereign was present (curia ad p/acita corem Rege tenenda). The Upper Bench or the Banc Royal dealt with matters of special int~rest to the sovereign, riz. the 'prerogative' writs of certiorari, prohibition etc. The Court of Exchequer (which was the third court) dealt with cases in the course of collection of revenue. Some writs which issued from these courts were original or judicial. They were regarded as mere machinery writs and were writs of right and issued on payment of the necessary fee to commence litigation or something incidental to it. Prerogative writs were different and they issued with the special leave of the Court. By these prerogative writs the Queen's Bench superintended the other courts and tribunals. The distinction between superior and inferrior courts is this.

No matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless expressly shown on the face of the proceedings to be beyond it, or established aliunde. In the case of an inferior court it has to appear in the proceedings or in its judgment that the matter is within its jurisdiction. Another test i1 whether proceedings in the court can be stopped by a writ of probibition issuing from the Queen's Bench and in this sense the Ecclesiastical Courts and even the Judicial Committee. hearing appeals in ecclesiastical matters and the Admiralty Courts are inferior (see Rex. v. Chancellor of St. Edmwzsbury and Ipswich Diocese) (I). (!) (194811 K.B. 195 at 205. MIRAJKAR v. MAHARASHTRA (Hldayatu/lah, J.) I make no excuse for this excursion into the history of English Jaw and institutions because we have chosen to put down in Arts. 32 and 226 of the Constitution that the Supreme Court and the High Courts will exercise the power to issue writs 'in the nature of' mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto-the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights only and the High Courts for that purpose and for other purposes.

The question is who takes the place of the Queen's Bench Division in England and whether the Supreme Court in India has no power to issue a writ to enforce fundamental rights when breached by the High Courts? There is no real resemblance between the scheme of courts under · our Constitution and the courts in England. Obviously, no prerogative writ of the Queen can go to a court in which the Queen herself is supposed to be present. This limitation has no significance with us. The analogy of superior and inferior courts breaks down in England itself when we consider the Ecclesiastical Courts and the Privy Council hearing appeals in 'ecclesiastical matters. They are supe1iJr courts but prohibition issues to them. That our High Courts are courts of record is not a fact of much significance either because prerogative writs do issue to several courts of record in England.

As there is no real correspondence between the courts in the two countries we can only decide the question by considering if there is any good reason for excluding the High Court Judges from the area of the powers of this Court or conversely for holding that they are so included. Jn the draft Constitution the jurisdiction and power to issue prerogative writs to governments etc. was entrusted to this Court only by implication. The inclusion of this power in Art. 226 came by way of amendment. It was perhaps considered that enabling the making of a law under Art. 32(3) might not be an adequate provision to provide for investing the High Courts with similar powers because such a law might never be passed. It was considered difficult for this Court single-handed to enforce the fundamental rights throughout the territories of India and accordingly Art. 226 was amended to confer jurisdiction on the High Courts within the territories in relation to which they exercise jurisdiction to issue such .writs.

The fundamental rights are, however, more· strongly entrenched in the Constitution through Art. 32 than through Art. 226. Even with the amendment of Art. 226 the power which is conferred on the High Courts is not in every sense a coordinate power and the Constitution furnishes several reasons in support of this statement. The first indication is that the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of these rights is guaranteed but there is no such guarantee in Art. 226. Again cl. (3) of Art. 32 enables Parliament to empower by law any other court to exercise within local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by this Court under Art. 32 but without REPORTS (1966] 3 s.c.~ prejudice to the powers of the Supreme Court under Cls. (l) and (2) of Art. 32. There is no such saving in favour of the powers of the High Courts. Tho mention of the first two clauses of Art. 32, particularly cl. (I), indicates the importance of the guarantee.

Although the amendment of Art. 32 has been held to be a less difficult process than the amendment of Art. 226, the guarantee in Art. 32(1) seems to be real till it is repealed or annulled. The provisions of Art. 226 themselves indicate this. Art. 226 begina by saying "Notwithstanding anything in article 32" which shows that the whole of the power must otherwise be with this Court. It indicates an intention to carve out an area for local action by the High Court. This might have made the exercise of tho power by the High Court equal to its exercise by this Court but for the existence of cl. (2) which says that the power conferred on the High Court is not in derogation of the powers conferred on the Supreme Court. The word derogation must receive its run meaning. It shows that the entirety of the powers possessed by this Court is still intact in spite of the High Court's ability to aercise similar powers in local areas within their juisdiction.

U the powers were coordinate why include cl. (2) in Art. 226 ? Jn these circumstances can we say that the High Court possesses coordinate powers ? I say no. A person need not go to the High Court at all before moving this Court. There is really no provision that when a person has moved the High Court and failed he cannot again move this Court although on the ground of comity this Court expects in such circumstances an appeal against the decision of the High Court and not a direct approach. This Court is not only a court of appeal in civil, n:venuc and criminal rroceedings from judgments of the High Court but by Art. 136 it is empowered to bring before it any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or !Rllde by an}' court or tribunal in the territory of India. The implication of this is quite clear to me when I read Art. 136 in ~njunction with Arts. 32 and 226.

That implication is that there is no sharing of the powers to issue the prerogative writs possessed by this Court. The whole of the power is still with this Court under a guarantee and only analogous powers for local enforcement are pven to the High Courts. Under the total scheme of the Constitution the subordination cf High Courts to the Supreme Court is not only evident but is logical. Art. 32 is concerned with fundamental rights and fundamental rights only. It is no~ concerned with breac~es of Ia~ which ~o not involve fundamental nghts directly. The ordinary wnts of cerzortari, 1'!andamus and prohibition can only issue for enforcement of fundamental rights. A clear-<:ut case of breach of fundamental rights alone can be the basis for the exercise of the power,. I have MIRAJKAll v. MAHARASHTIL\ (Hldayatul/ah, J.) already given examples of actions of courts and Judges which are not instances of wrong judicial orders capable of being brought before this Court only by appeal but of breaches of fundamental rights pure and simple.

Denial of equality, as for example, by excluding members of a particular party or of a particular community from the public courtroom in a public hearing without any fault when others are allowed to stay on, would be a case of breach of fundamental rights of equal protection given by the Constitution. Must an affected person in such case, ask the Judge to \Hite down his order so that he may appeal against it? Or is he expecte4 to ask for special leave from this Court? If a High Court Judge in England acted improperly there may be no remedy because of the limitation on the rights of the subject against the Crown. But iA such circumstances in England the ·hearing is considered vitiated and the decision voidable. This need not arise here.

The High Court in our country in similar circumstances is not immune because there is a remedy to move this Court for a writ against discriminatory treatment and this Court should not in a suitable case shirk to issue a writ to a High Court Judge who ignores the fundamental rights and his obligations under the Constitutio11,. Other cases can easily be imagined under Arts. 14, 15, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution in which there may be action by a Judge which may offend the fundamental rights and in which an appeal to this Court will not only be not practicable but also quite an ineffective remedy. We need not be dismayed that the view I take means a slur on the High Courts or that this Court will be flooded with petitiona under Art. 32 of the Constitution.

Although the High Court& possess a power to interfere by way of high prerogative writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, such powers have not been invoked against the normal and routine work of subordinate courts and tribunals. The reason is that people understand the difference between an approach to the High Court by way of appeab etc. and an approach for the purpose of asking for writs under Art. 226. Nor have the High Court spread a Procrustean bed of high prerogative writs for all actions to lie. Decisions of the courts have been subjected to statutory appeals and revisions but the losing side has not charged the Judge with a breach of fundamental rightJ because he ordered attachment of property belonging to a stranger to the litigation or by his order affected rights of the parties or even strangers. This is because 'the people understand the difference between normal proceedings of a civil nature and proceedings in which there is a breach of fundamental rights.

The courts' acts, between parties and even between parties ·and strangen, done impersonally and objectively are challengeable under the ordinary law only. But acts which involve the court with a funda- ' mental right are quite different. The power and jurisdiction of this Court is so narrow that nothing on the merits of a controversy of a civil case can ever come up before it under Art. 32. It is unlikely that this Court will torture cas~s to fit them into Art. 32. A person may try but he will find this a Sisyphean task. It cannot be brought here by plea'ding breach of fundamental rights. It is only when a Judge directly acts in some collateral matter so as to cause a breach of a fundamental right that the ordinary process of appeals being unavailable or insufficient a case under Art. 32 can be made out. If there is a decision in a civil prcceeding, an appeal is the only appropriate remedy.

When the High Court Judge acts collaterally to cause a breach of fundamental right I am clear that an approach to this Court is open under Art. 32. The Supreme Court of America has not hesitlited to interfere with breaches of Civil Rights Acts on the part of the court~ in the States by treating the action of State courts and of judicial officers in their official capacities as State action. (see Shelly v. Kraem!r, (1) Virginia v. Rives(') and Hurd v. Hodge)('). I think we should not hesitate to extend our protection to the fundamental rights in our country even if they he breached by the High Courts. I may dispose of a few results which it was suggested, might flow from my view that this Court can issue a high prerogative writ to the High Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.

It was 1uggested that the High Courts might issue writs to this Court and to other High Courts and one Judge or Bench in the High Court and the Supreme Court miEht issue a writ to another Judge or Bench in the same Court. This is an erroneous assumption. To begin with the High Courts cannot issue a writ to the Supreme Court because tbc writ goes down and not up. Similarly, a High Court 1annot issue a writ to another High Court. The writ does not 'go to a court placed on an equal footing in the matter of jurisdiction. Where 'the county court exercised the powers of the High Court, the writ was held to be wrongly issued to it (see In re The New Par Consols, Limited.)(') The following observations of the Earl of Halsbury LC. in Skinner v. the Northallerton County Court Judge (l) represent my view: "The absurdity of that is that the statute itself has made the county court the High Court for this purpose.

You might just as well argue that a warrant defective in form, issued by the Court of Queen's Bench could be set right by certiorari. Of course this is absurd. This is the High Court for this purpose .......... If there was any irregularity or inaccuracy in point of form in the warrant that did issue, that could be put right by (!) 9l L. ed. 1161 :334 U.S. t. (J) 92 L. ed. 1187. (5) (1199) A.C. 439. (2) lS L. ed. 667 at 669. (4) [1898) 1.Q.B. fH!. SUPREllJ! COUllT REPORTS determinations by Court~ strictly so-callcd-Courl3 which arc invested with plenary power to determine civil disputes, or to try offences. Quasi-judicial, or administrative tribunals, or tribuna!J with limited authority are not within the scope of the discussion. By Art. 32(2) this Court is invested with jurisdiction to issue writs, directions or orders for the enforcement of fundame~al rights.

Implicit in the claim for invoking this jurisdiction are two components: that the claimant has the fundamental freedom which is guaranteed by Part Ill of the Constitution, and that the freedom is directly infringed by the agency against whose action the protection is given. When it is·cl,aimed that an order made pursuant to a judicial determination of a disputed question of law or fact infringes a fundamental right under Art. 19, the claimant has to establish that he has the right claimed, and that by the order made the Court has directly infringed that right. But the function of the Court is to determine facts on which claim to relief is founded, to apply the law to the faru so found, and to make an appropriate order concerning the righ13, liabilities and obligations of the parties in the light of the appropriate law.

In granting relief to a party claiming to be aggrieved or in punishing an offender, the Court in substance declares that the party who claims that he is aggrieved has or has not a certain right and that the right was or was not infringed by the action of the other party, or that the offender by his action did or did not violate a law which prohibited the action charged against him. Such a determination by a Court therefore will not operate to infringe a fundamental right under Art. 19. The Court may in the ascertainment of facts or application of the law err: in the very mechanism of judicial determination that possibility cannot be ruled out, but until the determination is set aside by resort to the appropriate machinery set up in that behalf for rectification, a party to a proceeding cannot ignore that determination and seek relief on the footing that he has the right which ha~ been negatived by the Court.

Since the first postulate of a plea of infringement of a fundamental right under Art. 19 is the eitistence of the right claimed and breach thereof by a State agency, a plea cannot be set up in a petition under Art. 32 contrary to an adjudication by a Court competent in that behalf. Counsel for the petitioners conceded that against a judicial determination of the rights, liabilities or obligations in a proceedin& and enforcement thereof according to law, a party thereto may not maintain a petition under Art. 32 on the plea that by an erroneous judicial determination a fundamcnta.1 right of the petitioner under Art. 19 is infringed, but they submitted th.at 'Yhere the order of a Court dealing with a dispute inter partes mfnnges .the fundamental right under Art. 19 of a stranger ~o the J?r.oceedmg. the order may in appropriate cases be challenged m a peht.1on under _ Art. 32. In my view there is no warrant for the reservahon stated -. .. 1-· MIUJL\1. v. MAIUllASHTRA (Shah, !.) in that form.

A Court in adjudicating upon a dispute has power for arriving at an effective and just decision to take all incidental steps for ensuring regularity and decorum in the conduct of its proceedings, and such steps may incidentally affect persons who are strangers to the litigation. The Court may issue a warrant to compel attendance of witnesses, attach property in the hands of strangers to the proceeding, correct mistakes in its proceedings even after rights of third parties have come into existence, set aside Court proceedings in cohtravention of its directions or procured by fraud, recall invalid orders which cause injustice, take contempt proceedings against witnesses and others who act in violation of the orders of the Court or otherwise obstruct proceedings of the Court directly or indirectly, and generally pass orders which may be necessary in the ends of justice to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Jurisdiction to exercise those powers which may affect rights of persons other than those who are parties to the litigation is either. ellpressly granted by statute or arises from the necessity t6 regulate the course of its proceeding so as to make them an effective instrument for the administration of justice. If, as is accepted, and rightly, a judicial determination of the rights, privileges, duties and obligations of the parties before the Court does not attract the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of the fundamental rights under Art. 19, it is difficult to appreciate on what grounds that jurisdiction may be attracted where a person other than the party to the proceeding is aggrieved hy an order of the Court made for ensuring an effective adjudication of the dispute. Even when the rights under Art. 19 of a third party are affected by an order made by a Court in a judicial proceeding, there is in a sense a disputed question which is raised before it about the right of that third person not to be dealt with in the manner in which the Court has acted or proposes to act, and the Court proceeds upon determination of that disputed question.

Such a determination of the disputed question would be as much exempt from the jurisdiction of this Court to grant relief against infringement of a fundamental right under Art. 19, as a determination of the disputed question between the parties on merits or on procedure. An order made against a stranger in aid of administration of justice between contending parties or for enforcement of its adjudication does not directly infringe any. fundamental rigltt under Art. 19 of the person affected thereby, for it is founded either expressly or by necessary implication upon the non-existence of the right claimed and so long as the order stands, it cannot be made the subject-matter of a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. It was then urged by counsel for the petitioners that Tarkundc• J., had no jurisdiction to make the order prohibiting publication 0f the evidence of the witness Bhfilchand Goda, and on that account the order was liable to be challenged in a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution.

Indisputably when a Judge makes an order, not as a Jud11e but in some other capacity--but as an authority of the State-it may be open to challenge by a petition under Art. 32. But an order made by a Court in the course of a proceeding which it has jurisdiction to entertain-whether the order relates to the substance of the dispute between the parties or to the procedure or to the rights of other person, it is not \\ ithout jurisdiction, merely because it is erroneous. The Code of Civil Procedure contains no express prov1s1on aut~orising a Court to hold its proceedings in camera : but the Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass an order excluding the public when the nature of the case necessitates such a course to be adopted.

Hearing of proceedings in open Court undoubtedly tends to ensure untainted administration of justice and departure from that course may be permitted in exceptional circumstances, when the Court is either by statutory injunction compelled, or is in the exercise of its discretion satisfied, that unless the public are excluded from the courtroom, interests of justice may suffer irreparably. An order for hearing of a trial in camera is only intended to prevent excessive publication of the proceedings of the Court, if such excessive publication may, it is apprehended, cause grave harm either to the public interest or to the interests of the parties or witnesses, which cannot be offset by the interest which it is the object of a trial in open Court to serve.

Hearing in open Court of causes is of the utmost importance for maintaining confidence of the public in the impartial administration of justice : it operates as a wholesome check upon judicial behaviour as well as upon the conduct of the contending parties and their witnesses. But hearing of a cause in public which is only to secure administration of justice untainted must yield to the paramount object of administration of justice. If excessive publicity itself operates as an instrument of injustice, the Court may not be slow, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do to put such restraint upon publicity as is necessary to secure the Court's primary object.

Trial in closed session is generally ordered to prevent publicity which is likely to deter parties or their witnesses from gi\ ing evidence, on account of the nature of the evidence such as intimate details of sexual behaviour, matters relating to minors and lunatics, matters publication of which may harm the interests of the State or the public at large, for instance, disclosure of official secrets, or matters which lead to publication of secret processes, publication of which would destroy the very basis of the claim for relief etc. In these cases the Cou!" may hold a trial in closed session and wholly exclude the pubhc throughout the trial or a part thereof. Circumstances may also justify imposition of a partial ban on publicity in the interests of justice and the Court may instead of holding a trial in camera ll p MJRAJILU v. MAHAIASBUA. (Shah, J.) tion whether the law which authorises the action falls within cl.(2) of Art. 19 may not be called for.

It was urged that the view which I have expressed may involve serious repercussions on the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 20, 21and22 (1) of the Constitution. Whether orders made by the Courts may violate the guarantees under Arts. 20, 21 & 22(1) and on that account be subject to the jurisdiction under Art. 32 does not fall to be determined in this case. The Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra contended that the freedoms guaranteed by Arts. 20, 21 & 22 are only in respect of laws made which seek prejudicially to affect persons in the manner indicated in those Articles. It was urged by counsel on behalf of the petitioner that these Articles grant protecti0n not only a gain st legislative and executive action but also· against orders made by Courts. I refrain from expressing any opinion on this question.

The area of fundamental freedoms guaranteed or declared by the various Articles of the Constitution must be determined in the light of the nature of the right conferred thereby, and the extlilllt of protection granted, the agency against the. action of which they are protected and the relief which may be claimed against infringement of those rights. Considerations which may be material or relevant in considering the nature of the right conferred ot guaranteed by one Article cannot be projected into considerations which may be material or relevant in dealing mth the infringement of a fundamental right guaranteed by another Article. Article 19 and Arts. 20, 21 & 22 are differently worded. Article 19 in terms protects certain personal freedoms of citizens only against invasion by the State othermse than by law existing or to be made in future and falling strictly mth· in the limits prescribed by els. (2) to (6) : Arts. 20, 21 & 22('1) impose directly restrictions upon the power of authorities;

Declaration of rights in favour of citizens as well as non-citizens under Arts. 20, 21 & 22(1) arises by implication of the prohibition against action of the authorities concerned to deal with them, and it would not be permissible to equate the guaranteed rights declared by implication in all respects with the specific personal freedoms enumerated in Art. 19. It is somewhat striking that the personal freedoms in Art. 19 are subject to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed by law, but the prohibitions in Arts. 20, 21 & 22 are absolute in terms. By enunciating the personal freedoms, under Art. 19(1) and setting up machinery for imposition of reasonable restrictions thereon, balance is sought to be maintained between the enforcement of specific rights of the citizens and the larger interest of the public. The freedoms declared by the implication of Arts. 20, 21 & 22 are on the other hand not liable to be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness.

Our Constitution-makers thought that certain minimum safeguards in proceedings--<:riminal SUPJ.BMI ·comT J.BPOJ.TS and quasi-criminal---<annot in the larger interests of the public be permitted to be whittled down under any circumstances and on that account made the protection of Arts. 20, 21 & 22(1) absolute. The form in which the rights under Arts. 20, 21 & 22(1) are gua- . ranteed and the absolute character of the injunctions against the a~thoritics clearly emphasize the distinct and special character of those rights. I do not find it necessary in this case to record my opinion on the question whether action taken by a Court which is prohibited under Arts. 20, 21 & 22 may form the subject-matter of a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The petitions therefore fail and are dismissed. Bachawat, J. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the High Court had no power to affect the right of the petitioners to publish reports of the deposition of Bhaichand Goda by an order passed in a proceeding to which they were not parties, and if there is a law which confers this pO\..er, such a law is repugnant to Art. 19 (l)(a) of the Constitution.

I do not accept either of these con· tentions. In agreement with the learned Chief Justice, I hold that the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers can, in exceptional cases, pass an order restraining the publication of any matter in relation to any proceeding pending before it. The inherent powers of the Court arc preserved bys. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If a stranger to the proceeding feels aggrieved by the order, he may take appropriate steps for setting it aside, but while it lasts, it must be obeyed. Take a case where a Court appoints a receiver over a property in a suit concerning it. If a. stranger interested in the property is prejudiced by the order, his proper course is to apply to the Court to enforce his right, and the Court will then examine his claim and give him the relief to which he may be entitled.

Similarly, if a stranger is prejudiced by an order forbidding the publication of the report of any proceeding. his proper course is to apply to the Court to lift the ban. But while the order remains in force, he must obey it. Wilful disobedience of the order is punishable as a contempt of Court, and it is not a defence that he was not a party to the p·rocceding in which the order was passed. The law empowering the High Court to restrain the publication of the report of its proceedings does not infringe Art. 19 (I) p (a). If a law is attacked on the ground that it is repugnant to Art. 19 (l) (a), its true nature, object and effect should be closely examined. If the law directly abridges the freedom of speech, it is repugnant to Art. 19 (I) (a) and must be struck dow!l .. On the other hand if it affects the freedom of speech only mc1dentally and indirectly, it does not infringe Art. 19 (l) (a). This test was MIRAJKAll v. MAHARASHTRA (Bachawat, !.) first laid down by Kania, C. J. in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras(') and has been subsequently adopted in numerous decisions of this Court.

See Ram Singh v. State of Delhi(2) Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. The Union of Jndia(3), Hamdard Dawakhana Wakf v. Union of India(<). Many laws incidentally encroach on the freedom of speech, but, judged by the test of the directness of the legislation, they do not infringe Art. 19 (1) (a). Section 54 of the Indian Specific Relief Act, 1877, empowers the Court to grant a perpetual injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation, and illustrations (h), (i), (v), (y) and (z) to the section show that the Court may restrain the publication of documents and information in breach of the fiduciary obligations of a legal or medical adviser or an employee, the piracy of a copyright and other publications infringing the proprietary rights of the owner. Order 39, r.

I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers the Court to grant a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from publishing documents in breach of his obligation under a contract or otherwise during the pendency of a suit for restraining the breach. Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, makes it unlawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to any proceeding under the Act conducted in camera without the previous permission of the Court. Under the rule of practice prevailing in the Bombay High Court, it is not permissible to print or publish in the press a report of any proceeding heard in chambers without the leave of the Judge, see Purushottam Hurjiwan v. Navnitlal Hurgovandas.(5) So also, the law relating to the inherent powers of the Court preserved by s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court in the ends of justice to pass orders restraining the publication of the report of its proceeding during the pendency of the litigation.

Judged by the test of the directness of the legislation, none of these laws infringes Art. 19 (!) (a). Instances may be multiplied. The law relating to discovery and interrogatories, the law which punishes a witness for giving false evidence, the law which compels the assessee to furnish a true return of his income and forbids the disclosure of the statements in the return are all outside the purview of Art. 19 (I) (a). It follows that the impugned order was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction under a valid law. Whether the High Court should have passed the order is another question. The propriety of the order cannot be challenged in a writ application under Art. 32. Until the order is set aside in appropriate proceedings, it conclusively negatives the right of the petitioners to publish reports of the deposition of Bhaichand Goda. The petitioners cannot, therefore, complain that their fundamental right under Art. 19 (I) (a) has been infringed. (1) [19501 S.C.R. 88, 101. (2)

[19511S.C.R.451. (3) [1959] S.C.R. 12, 129-133. (4) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 671, 690-691, (5) [1925] 1.L.R. 50 Bom. 275. M12Sup. C.1./66-6 REPORTS The High Court was competent to pass the impugned orders, but assuming that it exceeded its jurisdiction, the order does not infringe Art. 19 (I) (a). The High Court has jurisdiction to decide if it has jurisdiction to restrain the publication of any document or information relating to the trial of a pending suit or concerning which the suit is brought. If it erroneously assumes on this matter, a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, its decision may be set aside in appropriate proceedings, but the decision is not open to attack on the ground that it infringes the fundamental right under Art. 19 (I) (a). I must not be taken to say that I approve of the impugned order. A Court of justice is a public forum.

It is through publicity that the citizens are convinced that the Court renders evenhanded justice, and it is, therefore, necessary that the trial should be open to the public and there should be no restraint on the publication of the report of the Court proceedings. The publicity generates public confidence in the administration of justice. In rare and exceptional cases only, the Court may hold the trial behind closed doors, or may forbid the publication of the report of its proceedings during the pendency of the litigation. Long ago, Plato observed in his Laws that the citizen should attend and listen attentively to the trials. Hegel in his Philosophy of Right maintained that judicial proceedings must be public, since the aim of the Court is justice, which is a universal belonging to all. The ancient idea found its echo in the celebrated case of Scott v. Scott('). Save in exceptional cases, the proceedings of a Court of justice should be open to the public.

The petitions are not maintainable, and are dismissed. ORDER In accordance with the opinion of the majority these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. (I) [1913] A.C. 417