2001 Supreme(Del) 717

High Court Of Delhi
SURYA PRAKASH KHATRI - Appellant
Versus
MADHU TREHAN - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEA 9 of 2001
Decided On : 05/28/2001

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1) (a) — Right of freedom of speech — Freedom of press — ransgression of freedom — Article published by "Wah India" magazine — Termed "denigrating Judges" — Questioning of integrity and competence — "Judge bashing" alleged "obnoxious" overstepping of borders of decency — Tends to cause aspersions on the integrity and capability of Honble Judges of High Court — Members of judiciary shown in poor light — Diminish or destroy public confidence — Scurrilous attack on judges Integrity, honesty and judicial competence and impartiality of judges, offensive and intimidating — Freedom of press an essential prerequisite of a democratic form of Government — Why press is regarded as the "mother" is acting like a step mother to judicially is baffling — Unqualified apology tendered — Acceptance of — Conditionally accepted by majority despite dissent — To publish apology appropriately.

       Held:

       The freedom is not to be misunderstood as to be a press free to disregard its duty to be responsible. In fact, the element of responsibility must be present in the conscience of the journalists. In an organized society, the rights of the press have to be recognised with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality, and such other things must be safeguarded. The protective cover of press freedom must not be thrown open for wrong doings. If a newspaper publishes what is improper, mischievously false or illegal and abuses its liberty it must be punished by Court of law.

       There can be no quarrel with the proposition that any one who intends to tarnish the image of judiciary should not be allowed to go unpunished. By attacking the reputation of Judges, the ultimate victim is the institution. The day the consumer of justice lose faith in the institution that would be the darkest day for mankind. The importance of judiciary needs no reiteration. It was fairly accepted at the bar that in the past whenever there was any attack on the press, they have rushed to the Courts and have described the judiciary as their saviour. It is strange that the very institution which has come to its rescue, has been attacked thereby corroding its credibility. A messiah suddenly finds Himself treated as a paria ,. A common man may start losing confidence in judiciary by saying that the judgment delivered in his case is not above board, and "condonable limit" of publication Mulgonkars case (supra) would be exceeded. Ultimate sufferer would be the society.

       The respondents are journalists of standing and repute. We have no reason to doubt their bona fides about tendering the apologies nor have we any reason to doubt the genuineness of apologies. The respondents have expressed a feeling of remorse. In the facts and circumstances of the case with particular reference to the respondents before us acceptance of apology will comparatively be a better atonement for the respondents for their impugned act as compared to award of punishment in the form of fine or imprisonment or both. We accept the apologies offered. We feel it necessary to point out that proper care and caution should have been exercised by the contemners before the publication. If there is recurrence of the amiss either by the respondents or any other person it shall be sternly dealt with.

       Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contemnors has undertaken that an appropriate apology shall be published if so directed. Let the same be published within two weeks from today in five national dailies, published in English, and copies thereof be filed in the Registry of this Court within three days of such publication . If it is not done the matter shall be listed for further orders . If it is done, the matter shall be treated as closed. The petitions are accordingly disposed of.

       Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(c) — Contempt — Criminal — Scandalising and lowering authority of Court — Interfering into administration of justice — Rarest of rare cases for intervention by Court — Article published in "Wan India" magazine under caption of "Judges Out" on the alleged assessment of "Senior Lawyers" of the Court — Exercise of power — Not being exercised to indicate the honour of individual judges who are attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of law-Unqualified apology -Permissibility-Tendering of-Stage of-Subsequent act of contemnors-Neither genuine nor in good faith — Dissenting opinion of acceptance of apology — Prima facie contempt committed, but no doubt about bona fides of majority accepted conditionally to publish apology appropriately — Petition disposed of accordingly.

       On the point of genuineness also, the apologies do not impress me. Mere parrot like repetition of regrets in almost identically worded affidavits does not convince me that the respondents are really remorseful or repentant. Even on the last date of hearing there was an attempt to justify the offending publication with reference to some material. We would like to examine it and face it. When there is an attempt to justify the contents of the offending article even after filing affidavits of apology such apologies can be said to be anything but genuine. I am, thereforee, inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Attorney General that it is only a ploy to escape the punishment.

       We unanimously hold that prima facie contempt has been committed by the respondents . However, so far as acceptance of apologies is concerned, in view of the conclusions of the majority, the directions contained in paragraph No.26 are to be carried out.