Writ Petition Nos: 35011-35012 of 2015 (Klr-Res)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
: 1 : ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS: 35011-35012 OF 2015 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANOTHER ….. PETITIONERS (BY. SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADV.,) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS (BY GOVT. ADVOCATE & OTHER ADVOCATES) THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON I.As. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING : 2 : RMRJ: ® 26.11.2015 WP NOS.35011-12/2015 ORDER On 30.10.2015 the following order was passed : “Today is a sad day in the history of State of Karnataka, City of Bangalore and India, in particular. The 7 th respondent, represented by its President without awaiting a decision of this Court approached the press expressing apparent bias, apprehension that justice would not be done in a fair and unprejudiced manner and unwarranted allegations against the Court and the Presiding Judge without mentioning the name. 2. The 7 th respondent’s President present before Court, as identified by his learned counsel after reading the contents of the material published in ‘Kannada Prabha’ newspaper, Bengaluru edition, dated 29.10.2015, submits that the contents though based upon a written press release given to the press by him nevertheless several portions of the written press release are not printed by the editor of ‘Kannada Prabha’ newspaper, Bengaluru edition. : 3 : 3. There is no necessity to extract the contents of the publication in the newspaper at this stage. Suffice it to state, unsubstantiated allegation that one Presiding Judge has colluded with the petitioner, is made much of. 4. Under Article 215 of the Constitution every High Court is said to be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. 5. It is useful to notice certain traditions and principles in the matter of conduct of litigants and Judges. Judges being under the Constitution and not over it have an important role to play in order that our Republic lives upto the promise under the Constitution. Judges are chosen with a high value of the Constitution and the rights of the people. Winston Churchill expressed in the House of Commons “Humanity, not legality is the quintessence and conscience of the courts’ functionality”. Judges being humans and ordinarily of high standards, rarely commit serious salacious or fundamental flaws, hence the hierarchy for decisional review and correctional reversal. It is therefore, that the judiciary has a sublime status and commands the reverence of the people which is a great tribute to this national institution and : 4 : necessarily, judges have the highest duty to the people in administration of justice, based on fearless truth, moral rectitude and negation of addiction for power and lucre . 6. The Apex Court in R.Vishwanathan –v- Abdul Wajid 1 the Supreme Court observed thus: “ If every remark of a Judge made from the bench is to be construed as indicating prejudice, I am afraid most judges will fail to pass the exacting test. In the course of arguments, judges express opinions, tentatively formed, sometimes even strongly; but that does not always mean that the case has been prejudged. An argument in court can never be effective if the judges do not sometime point out what appears to be the underlying fallacy in the apparent plausibility thereof and any lawyer or litigant who form an apprehension on that score, cannot be said to be reasonably doing so. It has frequently been noticed that the objection of a judge breaks down on a closer examination and often enough, some judges acknowledge publicly that they were mistaken. Of course, if the Judge unreasonably obstructs the flow of an 1 AIR 1963 SC page 1 : 5 : argument or does not allow it to be raised, it may be said that there has been no fair hearing. 7. In M.Y.Shareef and another –v- Hon’ble Judges of the Nagpur High court and others2 in a matter of an application for transfer of a case from the Bench hearing it to another on the basis of the observations and references of Judges created bonafide belief in the applicants’ mind that they were prejudiced against them, it was held that the application for transfer constituted contempt because the Judges were scandalised with a view to divert justice and the two advocates who signed and prosecuted the application were found guilty of contempt. The Supreme Court further held that when there is a conflict between the obligation of a counsel to the court and his duty to his client, it is the former which prevails by observing thus: “when counsel signed applications or pleadings containing matter scandalising the court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefor, with a view to prevent or delay the course of justice are themselves guilty of contempt of court and that it is no duty of the 2 AIR 1955 SC 19 : 6 : counsel to his client to take any interest in such application; on the other hand, his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications.” (emphasis supplied) 8. In Radha Mohanlal –v- Rajasthan High court 3 the Apex court held that the liberty of expression cannot be equated or confused with a licence to make unfounded and irresponsible allegations against the judiciary as the effect is lowering of the dignity and authority of the court and an affront to the majesty of justice. 9. It is no doubt true that the administrative power of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice to constitute Benches providing rosters and transfer of cases is His prerogative, however, it is the prerogative of the concerned judge to recuse himself from hearing if in the facts and circumstances necessitates the judge from doing so. Thus, the duty of the Judge is to hear and dispose off the cases allocated by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, while the propriety not to hear the matter lies with the concerned Judge and not either the litigant or his learned counsel . 3 (2003) 3 SCC 427 : 7 : 10. In Dr.D.C.Saxena and Dr.D.C.Saxena Contemnor –v- Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India 4 the Apex Court held thus: “xxxx when an advocate or a party appearing before the court requires to conduct himself in a manner befitting to the dignity and decorum of the court, he cannot have a free licence to indulge in writing in the pleadings the scurrilous accusations or scandalisation against the Judge or the Court. If the reputation and dignity of the Judge, who decides the case are allowed to be prescribed in pleadings, the respect for the court would quickly disappear and the independence of the judiciary would be a thing of the past.” 11. In the context of litigants and lawyers attempting to get a case released from a judge, the Supreme court in Chetak Construction Ltd., -v- OM Prakash and others 5 deprecated such a practice as it would tantamounts to forum shopping, an interference with administration of justice. 12. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay –v- Annatte Raymond Uttanwala 4 AIR 1996 SC 2481 5 (1991) 3 SCC 600 : 8 : (Smt)6 it is observed that some adopt sophisticated method while others crude ways in perverting the administration of justice at various levels and therefore, they must be brought to book as there is no other way to stem the rot and arrest the degeneration that has set in the profession and in the administration of justice . It is made clear that legal profession is a service profession and not a trade or business and the courts of law are not shopping centres and in the interest of administration of justice an example be made of errant member of the profession. 13. The contempt power is secured by statutory authority and by specific Articles implicit in the constitution itself where even free speech, although a fundamental right, is subject to courts’ contempt power. It is no doubt true that such power is to be exercised with circumspection. Lord Denning once said “Insults are best treated with disdain.” In another occasion the decision to dismiss a petition for contempt, by none other than the Attorney General who wrote in the ‘Time’ that Denning was an ass, is the Judges’ excellent performance. 6 (1987) Crl. Law Journal 1038 (Bombay DB) : 9 : 14. The publication in question contains scurrilous and defamatory statements in the form of allegation against a Presiding Judge by a person representing as the president of respondent No.7 in the petition being heard by the Presiding Judge. It is useful to quote Justice V.Krishna Iyer: ‘ It is time for one and all to review the value of the great saint “God sleeps in the mineral, wakes in the vegetable, walks in the animal and thinks in man”.’ Judges, it must be remembered, do not yield to frivolous and trivial grounds or suggestions of apparent bias since it would place a burden on Judge’s colleagues and encourage parties to believe that by such disqualification they may have their cases transfer from a Judge whom they wish to avoid. 15. Having given an objective, fair and reasonable consideration to the contents of the publication in ‘Kannada Prabha’, Bengaluru edition, dated 29.10.2015, it is obvious that the contents do not present a real possibility of apparent bias so as to disqualify myself from passing a final Judgment.