Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, S.R. Sen, JJ.
Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya – Appellant
Versus
Patricia Mukhim and Another – Respondents
Cont.Cas(C) No. 37 of 2018 Arising out of WP(C) No. 337 of 2018
Decided On : 08-03-2019
The High Court held the contemnors, the editor and publisher of a newspaper, in contempt of court for publishing news articles that were derogatory to the court and the judges. The court found that the articles were intended to scandalize the court and interfere with the administration of justice. The court imposed a fine on the contemnors and directed them to sit in the corner of the courtroom till the rising of the court.
Fact of the Case:
The case arose from the publication of two news articles in the Shillong Times newspaper. The first article, titled "When Judges Judge for Themselves," criticized a High Court order providing facilities for retired judges and their families. The second article, titled "SC Stays HC Order on Starting Flights from Umroi Airport," incorrectly reported that the Supreme Court had stayed a High Court order directing commercial airlines to begin flight operations from Umroi Airport. The High Court issued a contempt notice to the editor and publisher of the newspaper, and they appeared in person to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the articles were intended to scandalize the court and interfere with the administration of justice. The court noted that the first article made derogatory comments about the judges and the entire judiciary, and that the second article was false and misleading. The court also found that the contemnors had not shown any remorse for their actions and had continued to make derogatory remarks about the court in social media posts.
Issues: Whether the articles published by the contemnors were intended to scandalize the court and interfere with the administration of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support its finding that the articles were contemptuous. The court noted that the Supreme Court has held that publications that are intended to scandalize the court or interfere with the administration of justice are punishable as contempt of court. The court also noted that the Supreme Court has held that an apology tendered by a contemnor is not a defense to a contempt charge if the apology is not sincere or if it is made only after the contemnor has been caught.
Final Decision: The High Court held the contemnors in contempt of court and imposed a fine on them. The court also directed them to sit in the corner of the courtroom till the rising of the court. The court further directed that if the contemnors failed to pay the fine, they would have to undergo six months of simple imprisonment and the newspaper would be banned.
JUDGMENT :
S.R. Sen, J.
This contempt proceeding had to be initiated on the basis of the reports published in the "Shillong Times" dated 06.12.2018 and 10.12.2018 under the caption "When Judges judge for themselves". The contents of the news item are reproduced herein below for ready reference and perusal:
SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya has said the government should include spouse and children of retired judges for medical treatment and other facilities.
During the hearing of the petition of Registrar General, the High Court of Meghalaya against the State Government on Wednesday, the single bench headed by Justice SR Sen said the additional advocate general filed an affidavit regarding medical facilities to retired judges.
However, the court said it appears that the benefits as per the affidavit were given only to retired judges.
"The government is directed to revise the said rule as follows:
"Retired judges spouse/children?. So, it means that they should include spouse and children for medical treatment. The Law Secretary is directed to revise the same as ordered above within a week," the order said.
Protocol, guest rules
As for the protocol service/Meghalaya State Guest Rules of retired judges, it was informed to the court that the matter was under process by the GAD.
According to the court, the Meghalaya State Guest Rule, 1991, was there at the inception of the High Court but suddenly it was withdrawn without consultation of the High Court by some officers.
The government had issued a notification on October 4 this year whereby it had amended Rule 10(a) of the Meghalaya State Guest Rule, 1991.
"It is unfortunate that such amendment was made without consultation with the High Court. Accordingly, the notification dated October 4, 2018, is hereby set aside," the court said.
The court also directed the GAD to make protocol service as well as the Meghalaya State Guest Rules "at the same tune and equal facilities to be provided as is applicable to sitting judges, including spouse and children".
Domestic help
On February 20 this year, the full court passed a resolution for enhancement of domestic helps for retired judges but the same was sent back for reconsideration by the full court.
"I am not pressing right now for enhancement of domestic help and it is left with the discretion of the government. However, domestic allowances as per the resolution, government should also include spouse/children of retired judges," the court said.
The matter relating to reimbursement of phone bills of retired chief justice, retired judges of the High Court was fixed at Rs. 10,000 per month in the full court.
Mobile Bill
"In that regard, the government (is) to issue a notification with immediate effect. That means retired chief justice and judges will be entitled for Rs. 10,000 only per month for mobile bill, landline, internet bills etc as well as to fix mobile at the rate of Rs 80,000 only for the judges," the order said.
The order said one-and-a-half months ago, the chief justice had convened a meeting comprising chief secretary, additional chief secretary, GAD and law secretary, but it appears that nothing has happened till date.
Deadline
"This whole exercise is to be completed within a week from the date of the order otherwise this court will be compelled to take suo motu contempt against the officers," the court said.
The matter will come up for hearing on December, 13.
"When judges judge for themselves
By Our Reporter
SHILLONG: The recent order of Justice SR Sen to provide facilities for retired judges and their families is reminiscent of the order passed by former chief justice of the High Court of Meghalaya Uma Nath Singh and former justice TNK Singh.
Prior to their retirement, the chief justice had ordered on January 7, 2016 to provide Z category security to him and Y category for the former judge Singh.
However, after state resident Sajay Laloo challenged this in the Supreme Court, on
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
