STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHANDRAKANT TRIPATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suo motu proceeding initiated by the Court against the three respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. Respondent No. 1 Chandrakant Tripathi is a Minister of State for Urban Development of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2-Pundlik Megbe-is a reporter of Maratbi Daily Newspaper Loksatta, while respondent No 3Vidyadhar Gokhale-is the editor of the said newspaper. Respondent No.1 had a tour in Vardha district on July 24/25, 1981. During that tour the inauguration of ZilIa Parishad dispensary in a small village Bhidi was made. Respondent No.1 presided over the function. Respondent No.2 has sent a report of that function to the Laksatta newspaper and on August 5, 1981 that report published. During the course of the arguments the report was read in Marathi and we give below its translation in English. The tour of Vardha District during two days viz, 24th and 25th July by the Union Minister Vasantrao Sathe and the Minister Chandrakant Tripathi who is in charge of Vardha District, has become quite sensational. On the occasion of the inauguration of the Z.P. dispensary at Bhidi, the State Minister, Chandrakant Tripathi, who was in the chair, severely criticised the present Judicial system. He said Under the present judicial system even criminals arc given benefit of doubt and are acquitted if there are no witnesses or if they turn hostile. The innocent are sentenced. Courts grant stay orders frequently due to which it becomes impossible for the Government to carry out works of public benefit in time. The Maharashtra Government will soon publish a book showing how many works are lying pending due to stay orders of the Court. When Shri Tripathi said, The guilty are acquitted by the Courts and the innocent are sentenced. the people present responded to the out-spoken speech of the State Minister by loud clapping of hands. This report came to the notice of Justice Charmadhikari and it was placed before the Division Bench for consideration. On August 25, 1981 the Division Bench issued rule.

(2.) In pursuance of that rule, respondent No.1 appeared and filed his affidavit. In substance he contended that the speech which he delivered in Hindi was mutilated in the article. According to him at the time of the inauguration of the dispensary he was referring to the present judicial system and that he pointed out that under the said system a person who has committed an offence gets benefit of doubt and is acquitted if there are no witnesses or if the witnesses turn hostile. He further alleged in the affidavit that he stated that in the speech that if tutored witnesses come forward and give consistent evidence and if per chance such evidence is accepted even an innocent man is sentenced. The affidavit then states that he referred to the delay in carrying out works of public interest and that without attributing any motive or imputation to the judicial authorities or without criticising the correctness of the orders passed by such judicial authorities he pointed out that in many cases Courts grant stay orders and the said works are not carried out on account of these order-. He has added in the affidavit that he pointed out in the speech that the Maharashtra Government is likely to prepare and publish a list of cases which are pending due to such orders passed by the Courts. In para 3 of the affidavit, respondent No.1 has stated that it was not his intention to blame the Courts or to represent to the public that the Courts are coming in the way of Government in implementing the works of public benefit. He has been added that he sincerely regrets if by saying anything mentioned above he has committed any mistake, though according to his bona fide belief he has not committed any mistake. He has also stated that he has no intention what ever to show any disrespect to any Court but he was only trying to point out the inadequacies of our system.

(3.) The reporter Pundlik Meghe in his affidavit has stated that he has reported the gist of the speech correctly and that the said gist was duly published in the newspaper with his comment on the reaction of the audience present at the said function. He has stated that he never intended to attribute any motive or imputation while reporting the gist of the speech and that he never intended to show any disrespect to any Court. In para 3 of the affidavit he has stated that he sincerely regrets if the publication of the minister speech has any way scandalized or lowered the authorities of the Court.