2005 Supreme(SC) 704

2005(4) Supreme 121
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Y.K. Sabharwal & Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.
Rajendra Sail —Appellant
versus
Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association & Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 398-399 of 2001
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 403-404/2001 and 461-462/2001
Decided on 21-4-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in C.A.Nos. 398-99/01 : Sanjay Parikh, Naveen R. Nath, Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Hetu Arora, Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Advocates.
For the Appellants in C.A.Nos. 403-404/2001 : K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate and A.K. Sanghi, Advocates.
For the Appellant in C.A.Nos. 461-462/2001 : In-person (NP).
For the Respondents : Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Ms. Jaishree Tandon, Sakesh Kumar and Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Advocates.

Important point
While the media can, in the public ­interest, resort to reasonable criticism of a judicial act or the judgment of a court for public good or report any such statements, it should refrain from casting scurrilous ­aspersions on, or impute improper motives or personal bias to the judge.

Headnote:(i) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Sections 2 and 12—Publication of criticism of Court judgment—Role of media—News report terming Court decision as rubbish in Niyogi Murder case —News report was based on speech ­delivered and the subsequent conversation the correspondent had with Rajendra Sail—Rajendra Sail, a law graduate stated that he had only made a bona fide analysis of the judgment without bringing into disrepute the ­judiciary in general and the judges in particular—It was claimed that he expressed only his personal grief and emotional trauma that arose out of murder of Niyogi who was his close ­associate—High Court summoned audio­ and video recording to the speech delivered by Rajendra Sail as well as transcript of the speech as contained in those recordings—There were contemptuous statements that a judge of High Court or Supreme Court who is about to retire should not be assigned any important case since two years before his retirement, as a judge who is to retire is for sale—High Court concluded that the comments made by him did not amount to fair and reasonable criticism of the judgment and that the contents of the news report scandalized the Court—High Court refused to accept the apology tendered by the contemnors and held appellants guilty of contempt of court—Whether sentence awarded to Editor, Printer, Publisher and Chief Sub-editor is sustainable—(No)—Sentence awarded to Rajendra Sail is reduced to sentence of one week simple imprisonment.

       Held : It has been repeatedly held that the rule of law is the foundation of the democratic society. The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. The confidence, which the people repose in the courts of justice, cannot be allowed to be tarnished, diminished or wiped out by contemptuous behaviour of any person. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded. It is for this purpose that the courts are entrusted with extraordinary powers of punishing for contempt of court, those who indulge in acts, which tend to undermine the authority of law and bring it in disrepute and disrespect by scandalising it. When the court exercises this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual Judge who is personally attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. (Para 10)

       A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. The court has to act with as great circumspection. It is only when a clear case of contemptuous conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished. (Para 24)

       The judgments of courts are public documents and can be commented upon, analyzed and criticized, but it has to be in dignified manner without attributing motives. Before placing before public, whether on print or electronic media, all concerned have to see whether any such criticism has crossed the limits as aforesaid and if it has, then resist every temptation to make it public. In every case, it would be no answer to plead that publication, publisher, editor or other concerned did not know or it was done in haste. Some mechanism may have to be devised to check the publication which has the tendency to undermine the institution of judiciary. (Para 32)

       Regarding the institution like judiciary which cannot go public, media can consider having an internal mechanism to prevent these types of publications. There can be an efficient and stringent mechanism to scrutinize the news reports pertaining to such institutions which because of the nature of their office cannot reply to publications which have tendency to bring disrespect and disrepute to those institutions. As already noted such publications are likely to be believed as true. Such a mechanism can be the answer to pleas like the one in the present case by Editor, Printer and Publisher and correspondent that either they did not know or it was done in a hurry and similar pleas and defences. (Para 35)

       Reverting to the present case, we have noted hereinbefore the stand of Editor, Printer and Publisher and Chief Sub-editor including the fact that they had accepted their mistakes at the earliest and tendered unconditional apologies, Reporter has also tendered his unconditional apology pleading that as a trainee, he was not aware of the legal implications. Having regard to the facts and legal principles above noticed, their apologies deserve to be accepted with a caution that in future they should be more careful and responsible in exercise of their duty towards the public, in providing fair, accurate and impartial information. In this view, sentence awarded to them is set aside. (Para 39)

       The issue as to whether the alleged statements amount to contempt or not does not present any difficulty in the present case. If the conclusions reached by the High Court are correct, there can be little doubt that it is serious case of scandalizing the Court and not a case of fair criticism of a judgment. Undoubtedly, judgments are open to criticism. No criticism of a judgment, however, vigorous, can amount to contempt of Court, provided it is kept within the limits of reasonable courtesy and good faith. Fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment which is a public document or which is a public act of a Judge concerned with administration of justice would not constitute contempt. Such a criticism may fairly assert that the judgment is incorrect or an error has been committed both with regard to law or established facts. (Para 42)

       When there is danger of grave mischief being done in the matter of administration of justice, the animadversion cannot be ignored and viewed with placid equanimity. If the criticism is likely to interfere with due administration of justice or undermine the confidence which the public reposes in the Courts of law as Courts of justice, the criticism would cease to be fair and reasonable criticism but would scandalise Courts and substantially interfere with administration of justice. Having perused the record, we are unable to accept the contention urged on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Sail that on facts the conclusions arrived at by the High Court are not sustainable. Once this conclusion is reached, clearly the publication amounts to a gross contempt of court. It has serious tendency to undermine the confidence of the society in the administration. The news report was based on the speech delivered by Rajendra Sail and the subsequent interview given to the correspondent. The correspondent has asserted that the news report was based on the speech delivered by Rajendra Sail and the subsequent interview. Rajendra Sail has, however, denied having made the statement or having given interview to the correspondent. There are preponderant circumstances, which objectively compel us to conclude that the said statements were in fact made by Rajendra Sail and the news report has reported the same. Whether Rajendra Sail gave interview to the correspondent or not, the speech itself, seen in the light of the audio and video recording of the speech and the transcript of the speech speaks for itself and has the effect of lowering the dignity and authority of the court and an affront to the majesty of justice. (Paras 44 and 45)

       Having regard to the aforesaid facts of the case, the High Court has refused to accept the apology tendered by Rajendra Sail. The contention that statements should be understood in the context in which they have been made as he was emotionally disturbed because of the judgment of the High Court cannot be accepted. It is borne out from record that Rajendra Sail is a law graduate and has been in public life for considerable time and has in fact approached the court on several occasions by filing public interest litigations in different matters. With this background, he shall have been cautious and moderate and should have known the limits upto which he could go while criticizing the judgment of the High Court. The contemptuous statements cannot be regarded as an ill-tempered or emotional outburst of an uninformed person. Having given the serious and anxious consideration to the facts of the case and submissions made, we feel that the acceptance of apology and sympathy in a case like this would be uncalled for. The sentence awarded to Rajendra Sail by the High Court having regard to nature of contempt cannot be said to be unjustified. But having regard to his background and the organization to which he belongs which, it is claimed, brought before various courts including this court many public interest litigation for general public good, we feel that ends of justice would be met if sentence of six month is ­reduced to sentence of one week simple ­imprisonment. (Paras 47 and 48)

       (ii) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 —Sections 2 and 12—Court judgments—Power and reach of media—Role of Press—Media can, in the public interest, resort to reasonable criticism of a judicial act or the judgment of a Court for public good or report any such statements—It cannot scandalize the Court or the judiciary as a whole—No criticism of a judgment, however vigorous, can amount to contempt of Court, provided it is kept within the limits of reasonable courtesy and good faith.

       Held : The power and reach of the media, both print as well as electronic is ­tremendous. It has to be exercised in the ­interest of the public good. A free press is one of very important pillar on which the foundation of Rule of Law and democracy rests. At the same time, it is also necessary that freedom must be exercised with utmost responsibility. It must not be abused. It should not be treated as a licence to denigrate other institutions. Sensationalism is not unknown. Any attempt to make news out of nothing just for the sake of sensitization has to be deprecated. When there is temptation to sensationalize particularly at the expense of those institutions or persons who form the nature of the office cannot reply, such temptation has to be resisted and if not it would be the task of the law to give clear guidance as to what is and what is not permitted. (Para 36)