SURYA PRAKASH KHATRI Vs. MADHU TREHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Expressing concern at the scurrilous manner in which an article has been published, in a journal named "Wah India," scornfully denigrating Judges putting question marks on their integrity and competence, these petitions have been filed. According to the petitioners the article is obnoxious and is "judge bashing". As the petitions involve almost identical prayer, they are taken up together for disposal. It is alleged that in the name of freedom of press and fair journalism, borders of decency and respect for the judiciary have been overstepped and a distorted version has been presented which has lowered the image of judiciary and therefore attracts stringent action. In the article in question, certain statements have been made which tend to cause aspersions on the in- tegrity and capability of Hon'ble Judges of this Court. It is highlighted that without any material to support or even proper verification of the statements purported to have been made by some members of the Bar, the article has been published which tends to show members of judiciary in a very poor light and it would result in consumer of jus- tice losing faith on the members of judiciary and corrode credibility of the institution. It is pointed out that the article is full of mis-statements. The lack of accuracy and truth, it is pointed out, is apparent from the fact that fifty "senior counsel" have been described as one-tenth of the total strength of the Delhi High Court Bar. As to who the so-called senior lawyers are have not been indicated and how they have been described as "senior lawyers" is shrouded in mystery. It is emphasized that even if any lawyer(s) gave any statement or expressed his/her opinion, the same cannot be stated to be view of the Bar and therefore Delhi Bar Council, the Apex statutory body of lawyers has filed one of the petitions i.e. CriminalContempt Petition 8/2001. The other petition being 9/2001 also takes strong exceptions to the article. Prayer made is that sinister designs aiming at lowering the image of judiciary and showing the Judges in poor light should be sternly .dealt with under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short the Act) and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ( in short the Constitution)

(2.) Unqualified apology has been tendered by the Editor-in-chief and other respondents who are Printer, Publisher and Editor, Creative Director, Sub Editor and Special Correspondent of the magazine by filing two affidavits each. It has been indi- cated in the affidavits of apology that there was no intention to show slightest dis- respect to the members of the judiciary; that it was now meant to cause any aspersion on the institution or the Hon'ble Judges and it was then not realised that it would be regarded as derogatory to the judiciary, but that it is not realised to be a serious error on their part and therefore unconditional apology has been tendered. It has been stated that the deponents do not subscribe to any statement or expression of opinion in the article, and in particular the appraisal of Hon'ble Judges. Further, the appraisal is not the representative view of the whole Bar and once the data was tabulated no fur- ther verification was carried out to ascertain the correctness of the result and it was never suggested that the deponents had satisfied themselves about correctness of the appraisal. Shri Ashok H Desai, .Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents contem- nors submitted that apology has been tendered unconditionally at the threshold and therefore should be accepted, more particularly when contemnors have not tried to justify the publication and have owned up their mistake. The Learned Attorney General who, pursuant to pur desire, appeared as amicus curiae, stated that 'it was un- fortunate that an article of the nature has been published. According to him freedom of press cannot be stretched to absurd levels and there should not be any abuse of that freedom. So far as the apology is concerned, he submitted that if it is tendered bonafide and sincerely at the threshold of the proceedings; not after some arguments are advanced to justify the publication, and not as an attempt to get out of the con- tempt proceedings, the same can be accepted To put it differently, he stated that apol- ogy should be bonafide and not a camouflage to avoid consequences flowing from contempt proceedings. Mr. R.K. Anand and Mr B.L. Wadhera appearing for the petitioners however resisted the prayer for accepting-the apology on the ground that it would amount to first throw mud on the judiciary, and then come to the court with apology and get away with it. According to them it is a fit ease where striggent action is called for and any act of leniency is bound to be misunderstood as a weakness of the institution. They submitted that though in a genuine case apology of the nature tendered can be accepted, the present case is not one of them. The language used to the article is sarcastic, contemptuous, and sole object of the article was attacking the credibility of the institution and defaming it.

(3.) The press plays a vital role in the administration of justice. "It is the watchdog to see that every trial is conducted fairly, openly and aboveboard. But the watchdog may sometimes break loose and has to be punished for misbehaviour". In the words of Judge Lord Denning, M.R in his book Road to Justice, (1955) at page 78 which have become locus classicus. But a watchdog should not become a blood hound. Press oc- cupies a vital place in the modern society. It is a necessary instrumentality for strengthening the process of democracy. In this country it has risen to great heights in the past. When we were under foreign domination, press on the one hand awakened human consciousness towards their rights to freedom and liberty and on the other hand posed a threat to the foreign rulers of being exposed wherever they did any act of highhandedness. Yet any institution when misused is bound to do more harm than good. Press too in the zeal of either helping the victim of oppression, or in exposing the oppressor enters into the field of investigations or trial of a pending case. It was here that conflict with the judiciary came and cases for contempt of court were started. In 1954, a Press Commission was appointed, which enquired into all matters connected with the working of Press and all aspects of journalism. One of the matters considered was contempt of Court and contempt of Legislature.