MALIK SHARIEF-UD-DIN

( 1 ) SUBHASH Chand, petitioner, along with his brother Lakshman and mother Shakuntala were found guilty of having killed Sudha, wife of accused Lakshman by burning her. Shri S. M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge tried the case and on 27th of May 1983 sentenced all the three accused to death. After handing down the death sentence, he submitted the record to this Court for confirmation of the death sentences. While the said murder reference No. 1 of 1983 was subjudice and immediately after the pronouncement of death sentence, respondent No. 1 is alleged to have given press interviews and an interview to Doordarshan where he is stated to have discussed the merits of this case. This he is stated to have done despite his awareness that the case was still subjudice and the sentences passed by him were not executable unless the same is confirmed by this Court. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 who had tried the case had no business to go to press and Doordarshan and extensively discuss the merit of the case and to make remarks about the petitioner and his co-accused having pre-planned the murder of Sudha for a motive. It is said that the respondent No. 1 even went to the extent of providing his photograph for publication audit is also alleged that he received a procession of about 200 women in his chamber where sweets were distributed and he allowed himself to be garlanded and photographed. It is said that all this was done by respondent No. 1 in a case which was subjudice and: with a view to create an atmosphere of prejudice against the accused. It is further said that after giving out his views in the judgment respondent No. 1 in utter disregard of his office and judicial proprieties went out of his way to build up public opinion in favour of his judgment with a view to interfere in the course of justice.

( 2 ) IN his reply respondent No. 1 has not denied the allegations. Briefly stating his stand is that after pronouncement of the judgment it became a public property and all that was published in the press were the excerpts from his judgment. He, however, does not deny the fact of having given press interviews and an interview to Doordarshan in respect of the facts of the case. In respect of the facts that he allowed himself to be garlanded, photographed and received a deputation of women in his chamber, he says that he was mobbed after court hours despite his requests to the processionists that it was not proper. He, Lowever, denied the fact that he allowed himself to be garlanded or that sweets were distributed. Apart from this, respondent No. 1 has asserted that since he was governed by Indian Administrative Service. Conduct Rules, he was within his rights to go to the press and to the television to propagate his views which were literally and honorary in character; that as a citizen of this great country and on being approached by the free media it was his duty to participate in a healthy discussion on a topic in the larger interests of the society and that by giving interviews he had only exercised his right to freedom of speech; that simply by being saddled with the duties of a judge he does not cease to be a free citizen. In short he has tried to justify everything he did. In pursuance of the direction by the Court, respondent No. 2 has produced script of the talk given by respondent No. 1. A rejoinder to what Shri. Aggarwal has said in his reply has also been filed by the petitioner and a further affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 1 in which he has said that the interview given to magazines "sarita", "dinman" and "nav Bharat Times" were given by him. But these do not represent the true version of his talk but the journalist has couched these interviews in his own language to give it a journalistic flavour in order to make the publication more interesting and catchy for the readers. A number of petitions were also filed on behalf of individuals and social organizations for intervention in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document