Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs State of Maharashtra (1966 SCR (3) 744)

Facts of the case:

In the case of "Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. the State of Maharashtra" (1966),
the facts revolved around the publication of a newspaper article by Naresh
Shridhar Mirajkar, a journalist. The article contained details about a pending
murder trial, including confidential information and arguments presented
during the trial.
Subsequently, the trial court initiated contempt of court proceedings against
Mirajkar, alleging that his article interfered with the administration of justice by
potentially prejudicing the ongoing trial. This raised questions about the scope
of open justice, freedom of the press, and the power of the court to take action
for contempt in such cases.
The Supreme Court of India had to decide whether the actions of the trial court
were appropriate and whether the right to report on court proceedings was
protected by fundamental rights. The case ultimately underscored the
importance of open justice, and media reporting in ensuring transparency, and
clarified the judiciary's status as separate from the state in the context of
fundamental rights.
ISSUE RAISED:
1. Whether the impugned ruling termed as judicial order of the court is
amenable to the writ petitions or not and thus are the current petitions
maintainable?
2. Whether the High court has the jurisdiction to call for such an impugned
order directing the above command?
3. Whether the impugned order of the concerned division bench of the high
court violates fundamental right of speech and expression under article 19 as
claimed?
However, the case indirectly touched upon the question of whether the
judiciary is a part of the state or not.
JUDGEMENT:
The judgment in the case of "Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of
Maharashtra" primarily upheld the principles of open justice, media reporting
on court proceedings, and the independence of the judiciary. The key points of
the judgment are as follows:
1. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's action in initiating
contempt of court proceedings against the journalist, Naresh Shridhar
Mirajkar, for publishing information about a pending murder trial was
inappropriate.
2. It affirmed the importance of open justice, emphasizing that court
proceedings should be conducted transparently, and media reporting is
an essential aspect of this openness.
3. The judgment clarified that the judiciary is not considered a part of the
"state" in the context of Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. It is an
independent institution and not subject to the same constitutional
limitations as the state. The Indian Constitution enforces a strict
separation of powers among the three branches of government: the
legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. This separation ensures that
each branch operates independently within its defined roles. Designating
the judiciary as a part of the state under Article 12 would blur this
separation and could open the door to undue interference by the
executive or legislative branches in the judiciary's functioning. Therefore,
maintaining the independence of the judiciary is crucial to safeguard the
integrity of the legal system.
4. Excluding the judiciary from the state's definition also preserves its
impartiality. It ensures that the judiciary can make legal decisions
without bias or external pressure, which is essential for upholding the
rule of law and protecting the rights of individuals.
5. Furthermore, the judiciary is entrusted with the critical role of protecting
and enforcing fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian
Constitution. By not being considered a part of the state, the judiciary
can effectively adjudicate cases involving violations of these rights, even
when the state itself is involved in the dispute. This enables the judiciary
to act as a check and balance on state actions and ensures that justice is
served independently and fairly.
6. In conclusion, the case emphasized that the judiciary's exclusion from
the state definition is essential to maintain the separation of powers,
 protect judicial independence, and uphold fundamental rights, all of
which are cornerstones of a democratic and just legal system.
8. The case underscored the significance of media reporting in ensuring
accountability and transparency in the judicial process, as long as such
reporting does not interfere with the administration of justice.

Here the court also held that when a court is acting in its judicial
capacity, it cannot be regarded as a State. However, its administrative
action is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The reasoning behind the
court’s ruling was that:
“The judicial forum will then lose its impartiality because petitioners, like
in the present case, will make a demand that court itself should act as
the State and deliver all reliefs in a dispute where the executive or the
legislature is not at all involved as a party.

 The Judiciary is not expressly mentioned in Article 12 and a great

amount of dissenting opinions exist on the same matter.

o Bringing judiciary entirely under Article 12 causes a

great deal of confusion as it comes with an attached
inference that the very guardian of our fundamental
rights is himself capable of infringing them.
 However, in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra the Apex
Court reaffirmed and ruled that no judicial proceeding could be
said to violate any of the Fundamental rights and that it is a settled
position of law that superior courts of justice did not fall within the
ambit of ‘state’ or ‘other authorities’ under Article 12.

o This gave the rationale that a Superior Judicial body

when acting “Judicially” would not fall under the
definition of State but when it performs
any administrative or similar functions e.g
conducting examination, it will fall under the definition
of “state” and that remedy could be sought in that
context only in case of violation of fundamental rights.