Case Judgement Analysis: High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. Manisha Koirala, 2003 CriLJ 1634 (Bom HC)

1) Citation of the Case:

• Title: High Court Of Judicature Of Bombay vs Ms. Manisha Koirala And Anr.
• Date: October 17, 2002
• Equivalent citations: 2003 CriLJ 1634
• Bench: R. Lodha, D. Bhosale

2) Facts of the Case:

1. The case involves a suo motu Contempt Petition registered by the High Court of Bombay, following an order dated September 13, 2002.
2. The first contemnor, Ms. Manisha Koirala, was the original plaintiff in a suit filed in the High Court against the second contemnor, Shri Shashilal Nair, who was the original 1st defendant in the same suit.
3. Ms. Manisha Koirala sought various reliefs in her suit, including a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from releasing or using the film "Ek Chhotisi Love Story" with four disputed scenes, claiming that screening the film with those scenes would harm her reputation.
4. Ms. Manisha Koirala filed a Notice of Motion for a temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the trial judge on August 30, 2002.
5. In response to this, Ms. Manisha Koirala filed an appeal, which came before the High Court on September 5, 2002. The High Court admitted the appeal, scheduled it for a hearing on October 5, 2002, and granted an ad-interim order restraining the defendants from exhibiting the film with the disputed scenes.
6. Despite the ad-interim order, the film "Ek Chhotisi Love Story" was screened in various cinema halls in Mumbai on September 6, 2002, and this screening was disrupted by Shiv Sena activists.

3) Issues Involved:

1. Whether the actions and conduct of the contemnors amounted to criminal contempt?
2. Whether Ms. Manisha Koirala and Shri Shashilal Nair's actions interfered with the due course of justice or tended to lower the authority of the Court?

4) Arguments:

The contemnors did not dispute that their actions and conduct amounted to criminal contempt. Both parties tendered unqualified apologies to the Court.

5) Decision of the Court:

1. The Court held that both contemnors, Ms. Manisha Koirala and Shri Shashilal Nair, had committed criminal contempt. They had interfered with the due course of justice and lowered the authority of the Court.
2. The Court accepted the unqualified, unconditional, and unreserved apologies tendered by both contemnors.
3. No further sentence, punishment, or fine was imposed on the contemnors, and the Court disposed of the suo motu contempt petition accordingly.

6) Ratio of the Case:

1. In a pending matter before the Court, parties must seek legal recourse through the judicial process and cannot take the Court's order to the streets for enforcement.
2. Attempting to bring pressure on a party to proceedings by involving third parties tends to interfere with the due course of justice and constitutes criminal contempt.
3. Apologies can be accepted if they are unqualified, unconditional, and genuine expressions of contrition.

7) Comment on the Decision:

The High Court's decision highlights the importance of upholding the authority and dignity of the judiciary. In this case, both parties acknowledged their actions constituted criminal contempt and tendered unqualified apologies. The Court accepted these apologies and resolved the matter without further punishment, emphasizing the significance of respecting court orders and the legal process.