O P MANDLOI Vs. RAM MURAT SHUKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also dispose of M.Cr.C. No. 2354/89 which is closely connected with the facts of the case and raises common questions of fact and law for decision of this Court.This is a reference u/s. 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Shri O.P. Mandloi, Third Addi. District & Sessions Judge, Raipur alleging that the respondent-contemner Ram Murat Shukla has published contemptuous matter about him and the Court and has committed criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act, and deserves punishment u/s. 12 thereof. He has therefore prayed that this Court should be pleased to take cognizance of the contempt and pass suitable orders of punishment against the respondent- condemners. This Court perused the said reference and found a prima fade case for taking action against the respondent-contemner. A notice was therefore issued on 12/9/1989 to secure his presence in this Court. Order-sheets of two cases indicates that the notice could not be served on the contemner for one reason or the other and therefore on 19/11/1990, this Court issued a non- bailable warrant of his arrest. Thereafter, on 15/1/1991 Shri M.M. Agrawal, Adv. appeared for the respondent contemner and prayed for cancellation of warrant after giving an undertaking that the respondent contemner shall remain present in the Court on 31/1/1991. The respondent No. 1 appeared in this Court on 31/1/1991 and med his reply, submitting that he does not know which part of the alleged publication was contemptuous. He however tendered on unconditional apology. Thereafter he never appeared in this court inspite of undertaking given by his counsel on 5/3/1991, 1381991 26/9/1991 and 24/1/1992. We have however heard the learned Dy. Advocate General in support of the reference and Shri M.M. Agrawal for the contemner.The respondent-contemner Ram Murat Shukla is a practising Advocate at Raipur. He is also the Editor of Weekly newspaper Ubalta Lahu. It appears that the issue dated 26/6/1989 of the said newspaper published a news-item relating to S.D.O., P.W.D. Shri Soni and in that connection, alleged that Magistrate at Baloda Bazar have maintained co-ordination with said Shri Soni and enjoy food and drink with him. The newspaper also alleged that Shri Mandloi, who presides over the link Court, is also connected with said Shri Soni and has become Lakhpati because of that connection. It was also alleged that the unholy alliance between Soni and Mandloi has made judicial department a suspect and Soni was also alleged to be making special arrangements for enjoyment of Mandloi. Since the original news-item is in Hindi, it reads as under:

(2.) It appears that the aforesaid Resolutions of the Bar Association and Judicial Officers caused annoyance to the respondent-contemner who again on 10/7/1991 published a detailed news-item alleging that Mandloi was a conspirator and deserved condemnation. His credibility is also held doubtful. The news-items condemned the Magistrates for passing the Resolutions and alleged that they have been pressurised by Shri Mandloi to do so. It is also mentioned that Mandlois action was undermining the dignity of judiciary and has made it a suspect. The news-item also mentioned that there was possibility of public agitation being initiated against Mandloi if he remains at Baloda Bazar. The news-item further stated that Mandlois involvement in eating and drinking was got limited only to outside Court but was reflected in his behaviour in the Court itself. At the last page of this issue, the respondent-contemner published a more severe condemnation labelling Magistrates at Raipur as ennuchs (Namartf). Mandloi was called "Hijda' wrongly treating himself to be a man and enjoying his life with similar other at Baloda Bazar. It was also alleged that Mandloi has sold out himself to a Goldsmith at Baloda Bazar and was earning. The language used in this part of the news item is obscene and every sentence thereof contains atleast three abuses. The words like "Namard". Hijda". Brannalla. Madhyapan MaiR Leen and 'Tota KiBhasha Bolta Hai' have been used not only for Mandloi but also for all the Magistrates at Raipur. The language used by a newspaper editor and published in a public newspaper is sufficient to shock the conscience of this Court, nay, the conscience of any civilized person. These publications are the subject-matter of this reference.

(3.) The submission of Shri M.M. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the respondent-contemner is that the publications no doubt are insulting and humiliating to individual Judges but they do not amount to contempt of Court as such and therefore, this Court cannot take any action in the matter. The submission appears to be that though each and every Judge of Raipur has been maligned, abused and defamed in his capacity as a Judge, it only amounts to condemnation of a particular Judge and does not amount to contempt of Court. This Court is really shocked at the submission and must regret it. This Court always thought that an Advocate is an officer of the Court and hence did not expect approval of such a conduct from the learned counsel. Apparently, the standards of the Bar today are not the same as they used to be. This Court must however treat the submission with respect it deserves. The distinction between the Court and the presiding officer of the Court is wholly unreal. There would be no Court without a presiding officer and therefore, the word Court used in the Contempt of Courts Act has the meaning of a Court with a Presiding Officer and not the empty Court room. Under the circumstances, abusing or scandalising the Presiding Officer of the Court is really the crux of the matter and constitutes contempt of Court under the Act. The news-item published in the issues dated 26/4/1989 of the newspaper alleges corruption and undignified conduct against Shri Mandioi in associating with corrupt Soni, without giving any instance thereof and therefore, without any justification. The news-item itself indicates that the respondentcontemner knew that it was the conduct of an AddI. District & Sessions Judge that was being condemned. Publication in 10/7/1989 issue should put any civilised person to shame. Such epitomes are not used against anyone, not even against a criminal in a civilised society. A newspaper editor is supposed to be reflecting public sentiments and is therefore not expected to use such abusive language. Yellow journalism has been subjected to criticism since long but the present case crosses even the lowest limit of yellow journalism. That Judges have been abused and so condemned by an editor who is also an Advocate should cause concern to all right thinking people. The newspapers are considered to be fourth estate in a democratic social order and treated with respect Those concerned with this fourth estate should also be worried about Ubalta Lahu and feel sorry that the respondent-contemner is a part of their fraternity. They should themselves take action so that their good image is not spoiled. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the publications are per se defamatory and constitute Contempt of Court. Making unjustified attack on the character and reputation of judicial officers has always been held as amounting to serious contempt of Court, as would be clear from some of the recent decisions of Supreme Court in M.B. Sang hi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Delhi Judicial Service Association. is Hazari Court. Delhi v. State of Gujarat and Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Since the character assassination, in the instant case is done is abusive and uncivilised language the contempt is treated as severe.