NARENDRA Vs. RAHUL BARPUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a motion made by the petitioners with the consent of the learned Advocate General, a notice was issued to the respondents to show cause why action be not taken against them under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter called the Act, for having published on 20th March 1980 an editorial in Nai Dunia, a Hindi daily printed and published at Indore. Respondent No.1 is the editor of Nai Dunia and respondent No.2 is the printer and publisher of tile newspaper. The editorial was a follows : - ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(2.) IN reply, the respondents denied that they were guilty of any contempt of Court. It was averred that the editorial was a comment inspired by events which took place within the precincts of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior on 20th March 1980. It was submitted that the tone and tenor of the editorial should be judged in the context of what had happened in Gwalior on that date. It was further contended that the editor was in fact reacting in anger against the contempt in which the police and the lawyers in Gwalior were holding all norms of law and order, thus bringing down the prestige of the judiciary within its own campus. It was further stated that what had happened at Gwalior was merely the wild symptom of a malaise which had been growing for a long time as was evident from the fact that another symptom of the same malaise was witnessed in the Allababad High Court in May -1980. It was submitted that these symptoms, appearing with disturbing frequency, needed honest diagnosis. It was further stated that the respondents were coming across with increasing alarm instances in the last few years where not only the police officers and lawyers left much to be desired in their conduct, but even the Judges had committed acts of commission and omission which should not have been done. The respondent therefore, submitted that the impugned editorial read as a whole was a passionate plea for bringing back into Court - rooms the proper etiquettes, respect for procedure and lost dignities, that it called for steps to prevent vandalism directed against the Judges and the Judiciary, and that the editorial sub -served the cause of justice rather than hind red its course. It was further stated that the institutional behaviour was often shaped by social expectations, that the comments made in the editorial was entirely general and that they only referred to the pollution that had marred the stream of justice. The allegation of malice made by the petitioners was denied.

(3.) SHRI Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the editorial was directed at lowering the dignity of the Courts and had the effect of interfering with the administration of justice. On behalf of the Bar, Shri Ramesh Garg supported the petition and contended that this was a fit case for taking action against the respondents.