JANAKI BALLAV Vs. BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs : (i) The suit should be tried in camera; and (ii) To prohibit publication of the proceedings of the trial including evidence of witnesses relating to libellous and obscene matters as well as pleadings, applications, affidavits and documents filed in Court in newspapers, magazines, periodicals, pamphelets, books or otherwise.

(2.) It needs no repetition that the plaintiff, the Chief Minister of Orissa has filed a suit for damages for defamation against the defendants on the grounds that the latter in the offending articles published in some of the issues of the Illustrated Weekly of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Weekly") alleged unnatural and perverted sexual behaviour on the part of the former and repeated the allegations in the shape of affidavits or otherwise. On account of the publication of the obscene matters in copies of the magazine which has a wide circulation including at Bhubaneswar, his moral, social and political reputation is in jeopardy. The defendants in their written statements have not denied publication of the materials, but have taken the plea of justification and disowned liability for payment of the damages.

(3.) The main idea of the plaintiff in filing the petition praying for the reliefs stated at the beginning is that during hearing some of the witnesses to be examined by the parties shall make reference to several matters which are so obscene that normally one would neither like to utter nor like to hear the same. If the proceedings are published freely in newspapers, etc., the allegations originally made against him by the defendants in the copies of the Weekly shall be repeated and thereby he will be put to more humiliation and jeopardy than ever. Hence the necessity for hearing in camera and prohibition of publication of further proceedings of the suit. Mr. B.M. Patnaik, learned counsel for the plaintiff supported the plaintiffs plea with vehemence and placed reliance on S.153B of the Civil P.C. ('Code' for short) and AIR 1967 SC 1, Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, Mr. R.Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for defendants 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. R.Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for defendant 4, on the other hand, urged that the Court is a public place and for proper administration of justice the hearing of the suit shall be done in Court in the presence of all. They further urged that in a democracy the mouth of the press cannot be gagged by prohibiting them to publish the proceeding of the suit. They also relied upon the same provisions in the Code, as well as the same reported decision of the Supreme Court.