ROBKAR ADALAT Vs. ASEEM KUMAR SAWHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Pen is mighter than sword". This proverb seems to have been totally mis-understood by the respondent-members of Fourth Estate. One of the respondents' to this petition i.e. respondent No. 2 is a practising advocate and the other is keen to join this profession.

(2.) The Stuart Kings, who claimed to rule by Divine Right, refused to believe that 'the King is under no man but under God and the Law." When confronted by the Chief Justice of England, Sir Edward Coke, James-I declared "Then I am to be under the law. It is treason to affirm it." Do the respondents have the same notion? The members of the Fourth Estate may be under no man, but they are definitely under the "Law". In our democratic polity and the Constitution based on the concept of rule of law, which we have adopted and given to ourselves and which serves as an aorta in the anatomy of our democratic set up. "The Law is Supreme". Law in its wisdom considers it of greater consequence that the stream of justice by kept clear and it must in the name of public interest and public justice strike a blow on him who challenges its supermacy. Before I proceed to notice the factual and legal position, with a view to determine as to whether respondents have, in fact, fouled the very source and the stream. I would like to quote what Davis, C.J., said in the leading judgment of Full Bench in "Emperor v. P. C. Tarapore, AIR 1940 Sind 239:

(3.) Respondent No. 1 to this petition, is the Editor and Publisher of the newspaper, namely 'Journey Line' (Weekly). He is a student of Law also. Respondent No. 2, a practising Advocate of this Court, in the editorial written in the issue of 11th to 17th Dec. 2000, of this newspaper, has described himself as the Chief Patron of this newspaper. He was, for some time the standing counsel for Union of India. He also had a short stint as an ad hoc Judicial Officer in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The respondents are thus aware of the niceties of 'Law'. It is in the light of their this standing, the publication in the above newspaper has to be taken note of. It is in this publication, a reference has been made to a litigation in which the proceedings taken under S. 185 of the Cantonment Act were challenged. An interim order was passed by this Court in the writ petition. This happened on 29th Oct., 1985. The petition remained pending in this Court. As per the news item, thirteen years long pendency in this Court helped and enabled the writ petitioner to raise a construction. The exact words used are, "Case continued for 13 long years and the petitioner had the fruit of this order. The construction was fully raised during these years and the writ petitioner in the above writ petition was "benefitted". After highlighting this factor, the news item goes on to narrate that on 25th Sept., 1998, a "Bench was shifted from Jammu to Srinagar, for a few days, Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of." Cognizance of this news item was taken when some Advocates of this Court read this news item in Court. They pointed out that the publication in question is suggestive of the fact that the interim order dated 29-10-1985 was passed to benefit the writ petitioner and that a Bench was constituted for a purpose; the purpose was to deal with the particular case in which above interim order came to be passed in the year 1985. It was pointed out that this tends to interfere with the system of administration of justice. A direct insinuation was made. This was to the effect that a particular Bench was constituted with a purpose; the purpose being to deal with a particular case. As the constitution of Benches and the further question as to what matters are to be put before a particular Bench, is a matter on which the decision has to be taken by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, it was accordingly, as noticed above, pointed out that an insinuation has been directly made against the then Chief Justice.