A K SAWHNEY Vs. D R CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sh. A. K. Sawhney, is a practising Advocate. The first respondent is one Sh. G. R Chowdhry, Member, Public Service Commission, Haryana Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 are respectively, the Editor -in -chief Daily Tribune, Special correspondent Daily Tribune, Express. Chandigarh, Editor Time of India, Editor Hindustan Times and Editor Punjab Keasri and Hind Samachar, Jullundar.

(2.) THIS is a contempt petition. The petitioner seeks to preserve the dignity of the Indian Judiciary and desires this court to punish the first respondent for making statements derogatory to the dignity of the judiciary and respondent No. 2 on words for publishing the statements made by the first respondent. In para No. 1 of the petition, the petitioner states that he had been a Judicial Officer in the J&K State for sometime and after that he joined the Bar and started practice. In para No. 2 he expresses his anxiety to maintain and up hold the honour and dignity of the judiciary: He states that nothing should be done or allowed to be done to bring the judiciary into disrespect or lower the judiciary in the minds of the general public. In para No. 3 he states that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a judgement quashed the selection list prepared by the Haryana Public Service Commission. It appears that certain strictures were passed against the Commission in the judgement. The first respondent is to retire/on 1 -12 -1983. He appears to have resigned from the Public Service Commission piqued at the observations contained in the judgement. The petitioner has enclosed along with this petition cutting from the newspaper with which respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are connected to high light his case that the first respondent has made statements which would render him guilty for contempt of court. Some of the objectionable statements made by the first respondent can be usefully extracted ? The Tribune. The judgement given one the impression that the dt.24 -10 -83 High Court Judges are always like Caesars wife, above suspicion, while Members of the Commission are ordinary mortals likely to commit any Sin. The Patriot, "He said that the High Court judgement gives the dt.24 -10 -83 impression that if the Judges are always above suspicion while members of the Commission were ordinary mortals likely to commit any sin. This impression is wrong" The Hindustan Times. "The judgement tries to give the impression that dt. 23 -10 -83 High Court Judges are always like leaders wife, above suspicion, while members of the Commission are ordinary mortals likely to commit any sin . The Times of India, "The judgement tries to give the impression that dt.24 -10 -83 High Court Judges are always like Caesars wife, above suspicion while members of the Commission are ordinary mortals likely to commit any sin".

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the above statements of the first respondent contain sarcestic remarks relating to the integrity of the High Court Judges which would tend to lower the High Courts in the minds of the public. By these remarks, the first respondent has committed contempt of court. By publishing his statements, respondent Nos. 2 to 8 have also committed contempt. The petitioner prays that the alleged contemners may be dealt with according to law,