The High Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ against a single Judge of the High Court in respect of a judicial order passed by him.

Kotval J. - Pursuant to the order passed by a Division Bench on October 28, 1964, we have heard the Advocate -General amicus curiae on the question of competency and the jurisdiction of this Court to issue a rule or writ in the instant case. This matter was originally presented to this Court as an appeal but it appears that at the said hearing before Mody and Gokhale JJ., the memo. randum of appeal was amended, and the petitioner now seeks to invoke our constitutional powers under art. 226. Though this is a matter which is merely placed before us for admission, it is necessary to pass a full order and indicate our reasons because it involves an important point and counsel were heard at length.

2. The plaint in pending suit No. 319 of 1960 was presented on the Original Side of this Court some time in 1960. In that suit, Krishnaraj M. D. Thackersey has claimed damages of Rs. 3,00,000 for publication of an alleged malicious libel in the weekly journal "Blitz" from its editor and publisher R. K. Karanjia and from the paper itself. The article under the caption "Scandal Bigger than Mundhra " was published on September 24, 1960.

3. The hearing of evidence commenced on June 24, 1964, and evidence is still being recorded before Mr. Justice Tarkunde, the sole respondent before us. One Bhaichand Goda was a witness on behalf of the defendants. He had given evidence and was probably discharged; but it transpired that there were some statements made by him to the Income -tax authorities between the years 1954 and 1963 which were required to be put to him and so with the permission of the Court he was resummoned for recording his further evidence. He appeared before Mr. Justice Tarkunde on Friday, October 23, 1964, and it is inconnection with what transpired at that hearing that the petitioner asks for an " appropriate writ or order or direction ".

4. Since we are at the stage of admission only, we will accept the statements of the petitioner in paras. 9 and 10 of the petition as correctly representing what transpired on October 23, 1964. The petitioner says that

(Para. 9:) "On Friday, the 23rd October, 1964 when the said Bhaichand Goda came to the witness -box he made a prayer to the trial Judge respondent No.1 to the effect that the publication in the press of his earlier evidence had caused loss in business to him and that the learned Judge should protect him against his present evidence being reported in the press.

(Para. 10:) Arguments were addressed to His Lordship and His Lordship said that his evidence should not be published. It being pointed to him that the daily press (viz.) the Times of India and the Indian Express gave only brief accounts and that the Blitz gives a full report, His Lordship told Mr. L. M. Zaveri, counsel for defendants 1 and 2 that the petitioner who was the reporter for Blitz should be told not to publish reports of Bhaichand Godas evidence in Blitz. The petitioner all along has been reporting the proceedings in the said suit in Blitz. "

Then the petitioner alleges that after this order was passed when the hearing of the suit was resumed on Monday, October 26, 1964, counsel for the defendants in the suit pointed out to the learned Judge that a fundamental principle in the administration of justice was being infringed in so far as the proceedings must be public and open to the public and that exceptions to such public administration of justice were rare. It has been further stated that it was urged before the learned trying Judge that "no witness could claim protection from publicity on the ground that his evidence if published might adversely affect his business" and that the "Blitz" would publish a report of the evidence if the learned Judge had merely made a suggestion or given advice but that if the learned Judge gave a written order forbidding such publication the "Blitz" would naturally obey it. Is is further alleged that Mr. Justice Tarkunde stated that he had already made an oral order and that no w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document