SUO MOTU Vs. RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt case is initiated suo motu by the High Court of Kerala, pursuant to the decision by the Full Court on the administrative side. Whether the decision of the Chief Justice alone is sufficient or that of the Full Court is necessary, is a debatable point, as there are conflicting decisions on this aspect. But, the decision of the Full Court lends legitimacy to the proceedings and the same cannot be now described as the brainchild of the master of the roster or the Judge designated by him.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following: Kerala Kaumudi is one of the leading dailies in Malayalam. It published an editorial on 18.12.2008 under the caption "Comfort of the blindfolded eyes of the Goddess of Justice". The said editorial was one dealing with the proceedings pending before this Court in the form of Bail Application Nos. 7311, 7508 and 7551 of 2008 in Crime No. R.C. 8(S)/93/SPE/KER/CBI, popularly referred as "Abhaya Case". It was a case of unnatural death of a nun, who was an inmate of Saint Pius Xth Convent, Kottayam. Her dead body was found in the well of the said Convent on 27.3.1992. Initially, the investigating agencies of the State thought that it was a case of suicide. On the basis of the motion made by late Abhaya's father, the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI also, initially, was of the view that it may be a case of suicide. Finally, the suspects were subjected to Narco Analysis and apparently, based on the informations so extracted, two priests and a nun were arrested as the accused in the case. Naturally, the case roused great public interest because of the involvement of the priests and the nun. A section of the people was applauding and encouraging the CBI for having performed a heroic act of arresting the culprits finally. Another section of the public felt that it was a false case foisted upon the priests and the nun and there was not sufficient material to implicate them. Some of their leaders even went up to the extent of beatifying the accused by comparing the difficulties faced by them to the travails of Jesus Christ on his way to Calvary Mount for crucifixion. The newspapers also published both the views. Majority of the Press was highlighting the former view and a small section of the Press was giving prominence to the latter view. While so, Bail Applications were moved by the three accused and they were being heard by a learned Judge of this Court. Print and electronic media were publishing everything that was said or omitted to be said in the Court Hall. It appears, during the hearing, the learned Judge made certain observations regarding the merits of the prosecution case. The CBI, apprehending bias, filed a petition on the administrative side before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, praying to transfer the case from the Bench of the said learned Judge. The media was giving wide coverage to these developments. While so, an interview given by a former Judge of the Supreme Court was published by the Deepika daily, in which he made certain comments on the trial of the accused by media and the unreliability of Narco Analysis. The said daily is controlled by the Church, to which the accused belonged. Kerala Kaumudi was a newspaper generally supportive of the efforts made by the CBI to bring the culprits before law. It felt that the timing of the publication of the interview by the Deepika daily was chosen deliberately to influence the pending proceedings before this Court for bail filed by the accused. While so, the motion made by the CBI for transfer of the Bail Applications to another Bench was dismissed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice. In the above background, the aforementioned editorial was published.

(3.) This Court, prima facie, was of the view that the publication of the article was an interference with the due course of justice and decided on the administrative side, to initiate contempt proceedings. The main offending portions of the editorial are quoted below for convenient reference.