RAMAKRISHNA GOWDA Vs. CHAIRMAN ZEE TELEVISION NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed as a public interest litigation alleging therein that on 4th of December 1999 at 12 noon in Court-hall No. 4 of the High Court, a dummy Court proceedings engaging the Court staff came to be held and the same was video recorded by the Zee Tele films limited, Respondents 1 and 2 for telecasting the same on its channels. It is also stated that the Court-halls of the High Court cannot be used for any purpose other than conducting the Court proceedings during the Court hours for the dispensation of justice. There is no provision for telecasting dummy proceedings or holding such proceedings. It is further alleged that on 4th of December 1999 being a Saturday and non-sitting day for High Court no case had been listed for hearing and no cause list had been issued notifying sitting on that day. Holding of dummy proceedings or video taping of the proceedings in the Court-halls is illegal and an act of impropriety. A declaration has been sought that the dummy Court proceedings held in the Court hall on 4th of December 1999 be declared illegal. Further direction sought is that respondents 1 and 2 be directed not to telecast on any of its channels video recording of dummy Court proceedings conducted in Court hall No. 4 on 4th of December 1999. The petitioner also seeks that proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be initiated against respondents No. 1 and No. 2 and those who have abetted in conducting the dummy proceedings.

(2.) ). Respondents 1 and 2 in their statement of objections have denied the averments made in the writ petition. It has been stated that no dummy proceedings as contended by the petitioner was recorded by the persons belonging to the Zee telefilms limited. It is stated that respondents 1 and 2 are totally unaware of the fact that 4th of December 1999 being Saturday was a non-sitting day for the High Court or that no cause list had been issued and that no cases had been listed for hearing on that day. Respondents 1 and 2 did not enter the premises of the High Court on 4th of December 1999 and therefore the question of conducting dummy proceedings without prior permission of the Registrar General of the High Court did not arise. That the respondents had the highest regard for this Court and therefore the question of casting an aspiration or stigma did not arise. That false allegations were made against respondents to tarnish their image.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 in the statement of objection has stated that on 6th of December 1999 respondent No. 3 came to know that on 4th of December 1999 in the afternoon, in Court-hall No. 4 some proceedings were held while the Hon'ble Judge was on the dias. The proceedings were videographed and recorded. It further stated that no case had been listed before any Court on 4th of December 1999 being a non-working day for the Hon'ble Judges and no permission for video recording were granted for that date.