RAJSTHAN HIGH COURT Vs. DHIRAJ KULSHRESTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Non-petitioner No. 1 Dhiraj Kulshreshta is author of an article title Adalat Katghare MeinT which was published in Maya, a monthly magazine published by non-petitioner No. 5 Non-petitioner No. 2 Shri Alok Mitra is Chief Editor of the magazine, Shri Babulal sharma is Joint Editor of the magazine and Shri Triloki Nath Srivastava is Deputy Editor, Printer and Publisher of the magazine (Delhi). This magazine claims itself to be having largest sale, as is evident from the claim made on page 1 of the magazines 31st May, 1992 edition of Maya magazine was published and circulated, this Court on 27.5.1992 took notice of the article and prima facie came to the conclusion that the said article scandalises or tends to scandalise this Court and lower or tends to lower the authority of this court. On the basis of the above conclusion the Court suo motu took cognizance of contempt against the author of the article, the Chief Editor, the Joint Editor, and Dy. Editor (Delhi), Printer and Publisher of Maya. In its order dated 27/5/1992 the Court extracted some portions of the article but at the same time recorded that the extracted portion of the publication and the entire article goes to show that a clear and calculated attempt has been made to scandalise or lower the authority of this Court. In response to the notice issue by the Court, Shri Prem Krishna Sharma, Advocate, and other Advocates appeared on behalf of the non-petitioners. On an application filed by non-petitioner No. 5 for grant of exemption from personal appearance on the ground of his poor health, the Court granted him exemption from personal apperance. Similar exemptions were granted to non-petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on 14/9/1992. Non-petitioner No. 5 filed written submissions written he stated that he has got all respect for the judiciary of India including this Honble High Court and that be cannot even think of bringing the High Court into contempt or scandalise the judiciary. He stated that even if there is a slight unintemational effect of the article amounting to Contempt of Court, he tenders unconditional apology. He also stated that even though he is official printer and published of the Magazine but owing to his old age and indifferent health, he is not personally going through each and every article before it is published. At the same time the non-petitioner has adopted the contentions raised by Shri Dhiraj Kulshreshta in his reply. Non-petitioner No. 4 has submitted a statement indicating that he is Sub-Editor under the Delhi Bureau of the Magazine and he has no connection with the publication of articles in the Magazine at Allahabad. He is in no way connected with the article published in the Magazine was sent by the Rajasthan Bureau. He, therefore, prayed that notice issued against him may be discharged. Reply filed by non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are more or less on the same lines on which non-petitioner No. 5 has filed his reply. Non petitioner No. 2 has made an additional statement that being the Chief Editor of the Magazine he is legally and normally responsible for the article published in the Magazine and, therefore, he cannot shift his liability on any of the other non-petitioners. He states that he accepts his ultimate libaility and he undertakes to abide by all orders to be passed by this Court. Non-petitioner No. 1 has filed a detailed reply. In the beginning has used the same expression which has been used by non-petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and has stated that even if there is slight uninternational effect of the article which constitutes Contempt of Court, he tenders his un-conditional apology. He has, however, proceeded to make detailed submissions regarding the law of contempt by making reference to the decision the Supreme Court in P N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar and Others and In Re : S. Mulgaokar; A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 727. He has then stated that Rajasthan High Court Bar Association had started agitation and had levelled certain charges about functioning of the Court and headlines under the title of the article makes a mention of this fact in the beginning he has made reference to letter written by the Bar Association. He has also stated that as a conscientious journalist, it was his duty to investigate the matter and the causes which led to the situations in which lawyers were bycotting the Courts and the litigating party was suffering. He has stated that to restore the faith in a system, no escapism or sidelining the issue will do and that the system will have to be cleaned. For that purpose carpet will have to be rolled, the dirt will have to be faced and the. bull will have to be caught by the horns if corruption is to be weeded out. He has stated that whatever has been mentioned in the article is not the authorTs finding or his own produce but they are the allegations made by the Bar Council, the Bar Association and eminent lawyers. He has also referred to the fact that a press conference was called by the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association copies of certain correspondence have been made available to the members of journalist fratenity and that the article is only truthful reproduction of what was said in the press conference and what has been written in the documents supplied to him. He has reproduced the name of S/Shri Surresh Pareek, President, Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, S.R. Surena, Virendra Dangi, Vimal Choudhary, B.L. Sharma and others. He has went on to plead that article does not in any manner obstruct or interfere with the Courts of justice or due administration of law but actually strengthens the hands of High Court to take firm steps in wedding out the bad and unworthy in the system for which the High Court has itself taken steps by removing or compulsorily retiring a number of judicial offices in process.

(2.) The other petition has been filed by Shri M.M. Ranjan, Advocate. Shri Ranjan has stated that being a Member of the Bar in Rajasthan since 1977, he is deeply interested in the welfare and high reputation of the judiciary. He has stated that the article published in Maya Magazine in its 31st May, 1992 issue, scandalises and lowers down the authority of the Court. The article attributes improper motives to the Honble Judges of the Court and cannot be termed as fair and bonafide criticism. Instead of it amounts to gross Contempt of Court.

(3.) Non-petitioner No. 1 has filed a reply to the application filed by Shri M.M. Ranjan, Advocate. He has questioned the locus standi of Shri M.M. Ranjan of filing this application by stating that Shri Ranjan has also participated in the programmes organised by the Bar Association, like, bycotting of the Courts. It has also been stated by the non-petitioner that the contempt petition filed by Shri Ranjan is not maintainable in the eye of law.