UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LAWS

PANJAB UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTRE LUDHIANA

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL

ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

PRESENTATION FILE
TOPIC- E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v/s T.
Narayanan Nambiar

Submitted by-
Ritick Kumar
Roll No. 30
BALLB 8th Semester
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude

and deep regard to my teacher Advocate Sunil Mittal Sir
for his guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout this project. He explained the topic of the
presentation in easy to understand way which has helped
me complete my project easily and effectively on time. I
earnestly acknowledge the sincere efforts and valuable
time given by my teacher. Secondly, I would like to thank
my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finishing
this project. Although this project has been prepared with
utmost care and deep interest even then I am ready to
accept imperfections or mistakes.

Ritick Kumar
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Facts of the case

2. Legal Provisions involved
 Article 19 (1) (a)
 Contempt of Court
3. Law Commission’s report
4. Arguments by the appellant
5. Arguments by the respondents
6. Held
7. Court’s Observations
EMS Namboodripad V. T.L. Nambiyar AIR 1970 SC 2015

Facts of the case

The appellant, who was the Chief Minister of Kerala at the time, at a press
conference held by him on November 9, 1967, made various critical remarks
relating to the judiciary referring to it inter alia as "an instrument of oppression”
and the Judges as "dominated by class hatred, class prejudices", "instinctively"
favoring the rich against the poor. He also stated that as part of the ruling classes
the, judiciary "works 'against workers, peasants and other sections of the working
classes" and "the law and the system of judiciary essentially served the exploiting
classes".
These remarks were reported in the newspapers and thereafter in proceedings
commenced' in the High Court the appellant was called upon to show cause why he
should not be committed for contempt.
In an affidavit in reply the appellant stated that the reports were "substantially
correct", though incomplete in some respects. He supplied some omissions and
pleaded want of intention to show disrespect to the judiciary and justification on
the ground that the offence charged could not be held to be committed, in view of
the guarantees of freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution. He
claimed that his observations did no more than give expression to the Marxist
philosophy and what was contained in the programme of the Communist Party of
India1.
By a majority judgement the appellant was convicted for contempt of court and
fined Rs.1000/- or simple imprisonment for one month2.
Issue 1-
Whether the Appellant has said anything which brings him out of the protection
Article 19(1)(a)3.

1
Case Analysis: E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v/s T. Narayanan Nambiar, available at:
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4690-case-analysis-e-m-sankaran-namboodiripad-v-s-t-narayanan-
nambiar.html, (visited on- 9/04/2023).
2
EMS Namboodripad V. T.L. Nambiyar AIR 1970 SC 2015.
3
All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression;.
Issue 2-
Whether the appellant has said anything which exposes him to the charge of
contempt of court.

Legal provisions involved

Article 19(1) (a)4-

19. (1) All citizens shall have the right—

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

The freedom of speech under Article 19(1) (a) includes the entitlement to express
one’s views and opinions at any matter through any medium.
However, this right is not absolute and restricted by Article 19(2)5.
The Article mentions that every citizen has the right to free speech if the speech
doesn't violate another's right.

Contempt of Court

Contempt of Court takes place when an individual disobeys a court order or when
an individual makes statements about the Court that are tarnishes its image or that
of its officials.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 19716, governs the law of contempt. According to
Section 2(a)(3) of the act, there shall be a civil or criminal contempt of court.

About Contempt of Court

 Meaning: 

4
All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression;.
5
The reasonable restrictions on Freedom of Speech and Expression are- in the interests of sovereignty and integrity
of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality in relation
to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
6
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, ACT NO. 70 OF 1971.
 o Contempt of court, as a concept that seeks to protect judicial
institutions from motivated attacks and unwarranted criticism, and as
a legal mechanism to punish those who lower its authority. 
o This follows the initiation of contempt proceedings by the Supreme
Court of India, on its own motion.
 Origin:
o The concept is several centuries old. 
o In England, it is a common law principle that seeks to protect the
judicial power of the king, initially exercised by himself, and later
by a panel of judges who acted in his name. 
o Violation of the judges’ orders was considered an affront to the king
himself. Later, any disobedience against judges and/or disrespect
towards them or their order became punishable. 
 Statutory Basis:
o When the Constitution was adopted, contempt of court was made one
of the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. 
o Separately, Article 129 of the Constitution conferred on the
7

Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of itself. 

o Article 215  conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts. 
8

o The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , gives statutory provisions.

9

 Two Types of Contempt: 

o Civil Contempt
 It is committed when someone willfully disobeys a court order,
or willfully breaches an undertaking given to court. 
o Criminal Contempt 
 It consists of three forms: 

(a) words, written or spoken, signs and actions that “scandalize”

or “tend to scandalize” or “lower” or “tends to lower” the
authority of any court 
7
The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to
punish for contempt of itself.
8
Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to
punish for contempt of itself.
9
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, ACT NO. 70 OF 1971.
 (b) prejudices or interferes with any judicial proceeding and 

(c) interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice.

 Objective:
o The rationale for this provision is that courts must be protected from
tendentious attacks that lower its authority, defame its public image,
and make the public lose faith in its impartiality.
 Punishment:
o The punishment for contempt of court is simple imprisonment for a
term up to six months and/or a fine of up to Rs. 2,000.

Arguments in favor of retaining the contempt provision

 Increasing instances of Contempt and scandalizing: 

o The high number of cases justify the continuing relevance of the
contempt of court law.
 Maintained supremacy of law:
o The recognition of contempt of court and to punish for contempt is
essential for a nation such as India which is based on the concept of
rule of law, which requires supremacy of law, since the judiciary is
considered, as the last bastion of hope and justice for the citizens of
any nation.
 Constitutional Source of Contempt Power: 
o Supreme Court and High Courts derive their contempt powers from
the Constitutional Articles 129 and 215. 
o Therefore, deletion of the offence from the Act will not impact the
inherent constitutional powers of the superior courts to punish anyone
for its contempt.
 Impact on Subordinate Courts: 
o The Contempt of Court Act additionally allows the High Court to
punish for contempt of subordinate courts. 
o Thus, if the definition of contempt is removed, subordinate courts will
suffer as there will be no remedy to address cases of their contempt.
 Maintain administration of judiciary:
 oCivil contempt is necessary as willful disobedient litigants who ignore
the orders of the court cannot be let-off otherwise it would seriously
affect the administration of justice and trust of people in the judiciary.
 Ambiguity: 
o If there is no definition for criminal contempt in the Act, superior
courts may give multiple definitions and interpretations to what
constitutes contempt.  The Commission suggested retaining the
definition for the purpose of ensuring clarity.
 Adequate Safeguards: 
o The Law Commission noted that there are several safeguards built
into the Act to protect against its misuse. 
o For instance, the Act contains provisions which lay down cases that
do not amount to contempt and cases where contempt is not
punishable. 
o These provisions suggest that the courts will not prosecute all cases of
contempt.

Arguments against retaining the contempt provision

 Against Civil Liberties (Article 19 & 2110): 

o A law for criminal contempt gets in conflict with India’s democratic
system which recognizes freedom of speech and expression as a
fundamental right. 
 Violating the Doctrine of Overbreadth:
o The language defining criminal contempt is vague enough to
encompass within its sweep legitimate criticism as well.
 Wide Scope of Contempt: 
o The definition of criminal contempt in India is extremely wide, and
can be easily invoked. 
o Further, the Contempt of Courts Act was amended in 2006, to add
truth and good faith as valid defenses for contempt, but it is seldom
entertained by the judiciary.
 Supreme Court judgement: 

10
Constitution of India.
 o In S.Mugolkar v. Unknown (1978)11, the Supreme Court held that
the judiciary cannot be immune from fair criticism, and contempt
action is to be used only when an obvious misstatement with
malicious intent seeks to bring down public confidence in the courts
or seeks to influence the courts.
 No one to be own judge:
o Does not recognise one of the basic principles of natural justice, i.e.,
no man shall be a judge in his own cause.
o Thus, in contempt proceedings, the court arrogates to itself the powers
of a judge, jury and executioner which often leads to perverse
outcomes.

LAW COMMISSION’ S REPORT12

1. The Law Commission of India submitted its Report No. 274 on the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.The report examined whether the definition
of contempt in the Act should be restricted to civil contempt, i.e., willful
disobedience of judgments of court.
2. The Commission concluded that there was no requirement to amend the Act,
for the reasons stated below:
 The Commission observed that there were a high number of civil
(96,993) and criminal (583) contempt cases pending in various High
Courts and the Supreme Court. The Commission observed that the
high number of cases justify the continuing relevance of the Act.
 In relation to the offence of ‘scandalizing the Court’, the
Commission noted that the United Kingdom had abolished the
offence in its contempt laws. However, it noted that there were two
differences in circumstances in India and the United Kingdom,
which warranted a continuation of the offence in India. First, India
continues to have a high number of criminal contempt cases, while
the last offence of Scandalizing the Court in the UK was in 1931.
11
S. Mulgaokar vs Unknown 1978 3 SCR 162.
12
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, 274th Report on Review of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Limited to
Section 2 of the Act).
 Second, the offence of Scandalizing the Court continues to be
punishable in UK under other laws. The Commission observed that
abolishing the offence in India would leave a legislative gap.
 The Commission observed that the superior courts (Supreme Court
and High Courts) derive their contempt powers from the
Constitution. The Act only outlines the procedure in relation to
investigation and punishment for contempt. Therefore, deletion of
the offence from the Act will not impact the inherent constitutional
powers of the superior courts to punish anyone for its contempt.
These powers will continue to remain, independent of the 1971 Act.
 The Constitution allows superior courts to punish for their contempt.
The Act additionally allows the High Court to punish for contempt
of subordinate courts. The Commission argued that if the definition
of contempt is narrowed, subordinate courts will suffer as there will
be no remedy to address cases of their contempt.
 The Commission observed that amending the definition of contempt
will lead to ambiguity. This is because the superior courts will
continue to exercise contempt powers under the Constitution. If
there is no definition for criminal contempt in the Act, superior
courts may give multiple definitions and interpretations to what
constitutes contempt.
 The Commission noted that there are several safeguards built into
the Act to protect against its misuse.

 Prashant Bhushan Case

The latest and the most controversial contempt case is the Prashant Bhushan
Case13 where the Supreme Court found Advocate on Record, Mr. Prashant
Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for his tweets. One of such tweets dated back
to 2009 wherein he alleged the Judiciary with the charges of corruption. His most
recent tweet was regarding the current Chief Justice of India, Shri Sharad A. Bobde
astride an expensive motorcycle without keeping in mind the Covid guidelines and

13
Re: Prashant Bhushan vs. Unknown; 2020 SCC Online SC 588 (India).
during the time when the Supreme Court was kept under lockdown denying
citizen’s right to access justice. He also questioned the functioning of past 4 CJIs
and claimed that democracy has been dismantled by them. The Supreme Court
took suo moto cognizance of the issue, held him guilty and imposed a fine of Re. 1.
Mr. Bhushan denied to apologise for any of his tweets and reverted by remarking
that his tweets were nothing but constructive criticism and a fake apology for sure
will amount to contempt. The matter was decided so hastily that one must expect
other important issues to be handled with similar efficiency.

Arguments by the Appellants

 V.K. Krishna Menon (Advocate of the appellant) argued that the guarantee
of freedom of speech and expression in the article 19(1)(a)14 of the
constitution must not be any how encroached by the application of law of
contempt of court.
 He further submitted that the freedom of speech and expression gave
immunity to the Appellant as all he did was to give expression to the
teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
He argued that the law of contempt should be applied in such a manner that
the freedom of speech and expression are not whittled down. We know that
Article 19(1)(a)15 guarantees the complete freedom of speech and expression
but it also has an exception in respect of contempt of Court.
 He argued that the Appellant has the benefit of the guaranteed right as the
statements which he made were made just to give expression to the
teachings of Marx, Lenien and Eangles and seeks to educate the exploited
peoples on the reality behind class oppression.
 The counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant it might be possible
to say that the speech constituted contempt of Court but submitted that it
would be not suitable and advisable to do so. He stated further that the type

14
All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression;.
15
Ibid.
 of contempt called ‘scandalizing the Court had was no more in use and was
no longer enforced in England.
 He further submitted that the freedom of speech and expression gave
immunity to the Appellant as all he did was to give expression to the
teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
He advocates the radical and revolutionary transformation of the State from
the violent instrument of exploiting classes to an instrument which the
exploited majority can use against these classes. In this transformation he
wishes to makes the state wither away and with the state its organs, namely,
the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary also to change. The law of
contempt, he says, cannot be used to deprive him of his rights.

Arguments by the Respondent

 As the appellant has contended before the respondent that the law of
contempt should be applied while keeping in mind the article 19(1)(a) the
freedom of speech and expression. while it is intended there should be
freedom of speech, it is also intended that in the exercise of the right
contempt of court shall not be committed.
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression but it also
come along with some exceptions in respect of contempt of court. the right
is intended to give protection to free opinions to change political and social
culture and to advance human knowledge. The right under 19(1)(a) is
essential for a free society and the constitution itself has imposed
restrictions, therefore it cannot be said that right abolishes the law of
contempt.
 Giving the counter arguments towards the cases cited by the Appellant, the
defendants said that there is no doubt that the Contempt of Court had fallen
into disuse in England as per the observations in Mcleod v. St. Aubyn but as
per the observation in Queen v. Gray within one year of Mcleod v. St.
Aubyn it was disproved and since then many convictions have taken place
under Contempt of Court.
 Further the Appellant alleged that whatever was said by E.M. Shankaran
Namboodiripad was according to the learning’s of Marx, Engels and Lenin
 so the Respondent then explained the learning’s of Marx, Engels and Lenin
in a detailed manner and on the basis of that argued that in all the writings
there is no direct attack on the Judiciary selected as the target of people’s
wrath and also it will be noticed that in all these writings, there is not that
mention of judges which the Appellant has made.
 The Appellant either does not know or has deliberately distorted the writings
of Marx, Engels and Lenin for his own purpose.
 He misunderstood the attack by them on stages and the laws as involving an
attack on the judiciary. It is an attack upon judges which is calculated to
raise in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with and distrust of
all judicial decisions. It weakens the authority of law and law Courts which
amounts to the Contempt of Court.

HELD : Upholding the appellant's conviction, the court said that-

“Appellant is held liable for the contempt of court and the conviction was upheld
by sentencing him to a nominal fine. They accordingly reduce the sentence of fine
to Rs.50/-. “

Court’s Observations

 The law punishes not only act which do not fact interfere with the courts
and administration of justice but also those which have that tendency, that
is to say, are likely to produce a particular result., Judged from the angle
of courts and administration of justice" there was no doubt that the
appellant was guilty of contempt of court.
 Whether he misunderstood the teachings of Marx and Engels or
deliberately distorted them was not to much purpose.
 The likely effect of his words must be seen and they clearly had the, effect
of lowering the prestige of judges and courts in the eyes of the people.
 That he did not intend any such result may be a matter for consideration in
the sentence to he imposed on him but could not serve as a justification.
 It was obvious that the appellant had misguided himself about the true
teachings of Marx, Engles and Lenin.
  He had misunderstood the attack by them on state and the laws as involving
an -attack on the judiciary.
 No doubt the courts, while upholding the laws and enforcing them, do give
support to the state but they do not do so out of any impure motives.
 They do not range themselves on the-side of the exploiting classes and
indeed resist, them when the law does not warrant an encroachment.
 To charge the judiciary as an instrument of oppression, the judges as guided
and dominated by class hatred, class interests and class prejudices,
instinctively favoring the rich against the poor is to draw a very distorted and
poor picture of the judiciary.
 It was clear that the appellant bore an attack upon judges which was
calculated to raise in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with,
and distrust of all judicial decisions.
 While the spirit underlying Art 19)(1)(a), must have due play, the Court
could not overlook the provisions of the second clause of that Article. Its
provisions are to be read with Article 129 and 21516 which specially confer
on this Court and the High Courts the power to punish for contempt of
themselves.
 Although Art. 19(1)(a) guarantees complete freedom of speech and
expression, it also makes an exception in respect of contempt of court.
While the right is essential to a free society, the Constitution has itself
imposed restrictions in relation to contempt of court and it cannot therefore
be said that the right abolishes the law of contempt or that attacks upon
judges and courts will be condoned.

16
Constitution of India.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. EMS Namboodripad V. T.L. Nambiyar AIR 1970 SC 2015

2. THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971
3. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4690-case-analysis-e-m-
sankaran-namboodiripad-v-s-t-narayanan-nambiar.html.
4. https://aishwaryasandeep.com/2022/02/18/case-analysis-2/.
5. https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/case?
caseId=110791701000&title=e-m-sankaran-nambooripad-vs-t-narayanan-
nambiar.