MURALEEDHARAN Vs. MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This proceeding is initiated by the petitioner under S.12 and 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner has obtained the consent of the Advocate General for moving this Court by order dated 24.3.1999 in sanction Petition No. 7 of 1998.

(2.) The proceeding is initiated against the correspondent. Editor in Chief and the Printer and Publisher of the Malayalam daily Kerala Kaumudi. The gravamen of the charge is that by publishing the article marked as Ext. P1 in the daily dt. 7.11.1999 the respondents had tried to interfere with the due course of a judicial proceeding pending in the High Court. According to the petitioner the article published in the daily also tends to interfere with the due course of that proceeding. It is also stated that the article prejudices the course of the pending judicial proceeding. The proceeding referred to is the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act initiated by this Court against the Chief Secretary to the State and others for not carrying out the directions earlier issued by this Court regarding the conduct of the meeting of the Payyavoor Panchayat which had been convened to consider a no confidence motion. The particular no - confidence motion and the incidents surrounding the moving of that motion had evoked public interest and newspapers including the newspaper published by respondent No. 2, were commenting on the same regularly. The proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act was initiated on the plea that a direction to respondents in that proceeding for providing adequate police protection to the movers of the resolution for enabling them to attend the meeting of the Panchayat so as to move the resolution, was wilfully and deliberately flouted by the respondents to that proceeding and consequently, they were guilty of 'civil contempt' within the meaning of S.2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The first respondent to that proceeding was the Chief Secretary to the State. The proceedings had started on 10.9.1998 as C. C. C. No. 413 of 1998. The Division Bench dealing with that proceeding, had framed the charges in that case on 4.11.1998. There was a request on behalf of the Chief Secretary to the State that the Chief Secretary may be permitted to file a fresh affidavit tendering his unconditional apology for the failure to ensure that the direction of this Court was complied with and time was granted for the filing of such an affidavit. At that stage the Chief Secretary took the stand that he had not instructed his counsel to make such a request and he was not filing an affidavit tendering his unconditional apology. There was considerable controversy about the conduct of the Chief Secretary and whether the manner in which the case was being conducted on his behalf was befitting the status of a Chief Secretary to the State. It is at that stage that the newspaper printed and published by respondent No. 2 published the article in question penned by respondent No. 3. The essential suggestion in that article was that the Chief Secretary was being put on a spot by the inefficient manner in which the office of the Advocate General had handled the case and the failure of the office of the Advocate General to give the necessary and proper advice to the Chief Secretary to the State. In short the suggestion in the article was that the Chief Secretary against whom charges had been framed by this Court for contempt of court was more sinned against than sinning.

(3.) According to the petitioner, after the framing of the charge, when the question of proceeding further against the Chief Secretary was pending consideration of the Court, an article like the one in question will have a tendency to interfere with the course of the proceeding pending before the Court and it would tend to interfere with the administration of justice. It is pointed out that the article was more or less an apologia for the conduct of the Chief Secretary and the newspaper was thereby suggesting that the Chief Secretary was not really guilty of the charge of contempt framed against him. It is submitted that the publication of the article was deliberate and with the intention to influence the course of the proceeding in the court and hence action was warranted under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is also pointed out that the Advocate General had accorded sanction to the petitioner for initiating this proceeding under the Act.