HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Vs. CHINEN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suo motu contempt proceeding wherein notice to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act for having committed criminal contempt was issued to four respondents. The first of these respondents was the publisher of 'The Economic Times' newspaper of Bangalore. The second one was the printer, the third one was the press reporter who had written the news report in the issue of the paper dated 7-11-96 and the fourth respondent was Captain T.S. Gopalakrishna who is the person responsible for making an application to the Advocate General of Karnataka praying for sanction to prosecute a sitting Judge of the Karnataka High Court, Justice M.P. Chinnappa, on the charge that the learned Judge had committed contempt of Court. Captain Gopalakrishna, hereinafter referred to as the fourth respondent, was the respondent in Criminal Petition Nos. 2554, 2555, 2556, 1241, 1379 and 1703 of 1995 which had been heard and disposed of by Justice M.P. Chinnappa. According to R-4, the learned Judge had incorporated certain incorrect statements and findings in his judgment and R-4 being aggrieved by this situation filed an application before the Advocate General in which he sought sanction to prosecute the learned Judge alleging that the Judge had committed criminal contempt by scandalising the Court. In the application seeking sanction to prosecute the Judge, R-4 had repeatedly incorporated the averment that the learned Judge had made "false statements". There are several other averments in the application in question which at the relevant time was pending consideration by the Advocate General. On 7-11-1996, the Economic Times prominently published a news report extracting the statements and allegations that were contained in the application for sanction. One such allegation is that "the Hon'ble Justice making false statements in the judgment contrary to the documentary evidence on record amounts to the distorting of facts on record in his Court". A simple reading of this news report would create the definite impression that the Judge has done gross injustice in this proceeding, that he has gravely misconducted himself and that the situation is so serious as would require a virtual prosecution of the Judge on the charge of criminal contempt. The impression gathered by the plain readers of the publication would be that this situation presents something very wrong with regard to the manner in which the High Court is working which in turn would directly undermine the status of the high Court, public confidence in it and the faith in the administration of justice. It was on the basis of this publication that contempt notice was issued to the fourth respondent.

(2.) Respondents-1 to 3 appeared before the Court with their counsel on receipt of the show-cause notice, but at that time, the notice was not served on R-4 and there was no indication as to when R-4 would appear before the Court. The case as far as R-1 to R-3 are concerned was heard. R-1 to R-3 tendered an unconditional apology and it was stated in their defence that they had only reproduced the material which had been made available to the press by R-4. This Court held that such a defence was untenable in so far as in contempt proceedings a party cannot exonerate himself by seeking to contend that the party is not the author of the offensive material, because reproduction or publication of the offensive material are per se contemptuous and is actionable independently. On the basis of the explanation and the apology, this Court disposed of the proceeding through a speaking order which was passed on 19-12-1996 against R-1 to R-3. Since that order is very relevant to the present proceeding, the office is directed to tag the order dated 19-12-1996 to the present order. The case as far as F-4 is concerned was separated and was taken up for hearing after the notice vas served on him.

(3.) On receipt of the show-cause notice, R-4 appeared before us in person. He stated that he is an ex-army officer and according to him, the reporter had asked him for a copy of the application made by him to the Advocate General which he had handed over, but he had told the reporter not to publish anything concerning this application until the Advocate General took a decision in the matter. According to him, the reporter prepared the news report and informed him that he proposes to go ahead with the publication because he was covered by the Press Act. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the learned S.P.P. submitted very strongly that R-4 irrespective of whether he was asked for the report or whether he gave it to the reporter on his own accord, could not have and ought not to have handed over a copy of an application making serious allegations and charges against a sitting High Court Judge merely on the ground that such an application has been made and it was pending before the Advocate General. His submission is that in parting with a copy of this document, R-4 has clearly started an exercise whereby the status and dignity of the High Court and of the learned judge in particular was being deliberately undermined through newspaper publication and that this was the only intention because there was no special news-worthiness in that material. We do need to observe that the application was made by R-4 and irrespective of whether the reporter had asked for it or not, R-4 ought to have exercised his discretion before parting with a copy of that report, because once it is handed over to the representative of the press, it is presumed that it is handed over for publication. It is not open to a party who gives a report to the press or to the reporter to lay down conditions as to how much of it should be published, how it should be published or when it should be published, because these are factors within the decision of the representative of the press. To this extent, therefore, the submission canvassed by the learned S.P.P. is justified.