: 1 :

®

IN THE HIGH COURT OF , 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 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 ‘ Prabha’ , 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 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. The 7 th respondent, represented by its President though brazenly seeks to slander courts’ reputation, without for

: 10 : a moment, indicating that the President of the 7th respondent is successful in seeking a disqualification to have the petition heard by another, to avoid this Court, in order to uphold the majesty of the judiciary, at this stage, I refrain from taking action against the President of the 7 th respondent, though he ought to suffer the consequence. 16. Registrar General is directed to issue notice to the Editor of ‘Kannada Prabha’, daily, Bengaluru edition, to show cause as to why action in accordance with law should not be initiated for the publication while extending an opportunity to the President of the 7 th respondent to file his explanation in the form of an affidavit as to why action should not be taken against him, in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 17. After dictating the order, the President of the 7 th respondent took fifteen minutes of public time to drop names of stalwart judges of the Supreme Court and several High Courts before whom he espoused several to public interest litigations, while also quoting several noteable quotes. 18. The question is not about the integrity or the successful attempts of the President of the 7th respondent in espousing cause of public but

: 11 :

the real question is, whether the allegation against a Presiding Judge and the Court tantamounts to demeaning the very institution, in short, whether it amounts to contempt of court ? As noticed supra, free speech does not mean one can say anything and get away with impunity and, if found derogatory, more so emanating from the President of the 7 th respondent a party in the pending petition before Court, must suffer the consequences. In fact there was no necessity to rush to the press to have his arguments heard through the press when he has the assistance of a learned counsel.

19. It is in this backdrop, the President of the 7th respondent, as well as the Editor of ‘Kannada Prabha’ daily, Bengaluru edition, are directed to submit their explanations in the form of affidavits. Re-list on 5.11.2015.”

2. The order dated 5.11.2015 reads thus:

“Ms.Nalina Maye Gowda, learned counsel files power and an affidavit of one Sugata Srinivasaraju, S/o Sri Srinivasaraju, claiming to be Editor-in-Chief, Kannada Prabha,

: 12 :

Kannada Daily, who is present in Court, as identified by the learned Counsel.

Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the said Editor submits that an error of judgment has crept in recording the caption in the news paper in respect of the news item in question and that the Editor be permitted to file an additional explanation in the form of an affidavit over not only the caption but also the contents thereof and place before Court a soft copy of the recordings of the press meet on 28 th October 2015 relating to the said news item. The affidavit and the vakalath are taken on record. Registry to print the name of learned counsel for the Editor. It is brought to the notice of the Court that yet another news paper by name ‘Hosadigantha’ carried a similar news item on 29.10.2015. A reading of the said contents of the news item, the caption and the contents are similar to the one in question. For the reasons stated in the order dated 30 th October 2015, suffice it to direct the Editor of ‘Hosadigantha’ in-person to file an explanation in the form of an affidavit as to why action in accordance with law should

: 13 :

not be initiated against him, and also be present in Court. The Registrar General is directed to issue notice to the Editor of ‘Hosadigantha’, Hubballi Edition, enclosing a copy of the order dated 30.10.2015 as well as this order fixing the date of hearing as 17 th November 2015. There is non-compliance with the order dated 30.10.2015 by the President of 7 th respondent in not filing explanation. Learned counsel submits that he takes notice for the President of 7 th respondent and would file an explanation, if extended time. As a last chance, time is extended upto 16 th November 2015, failing which, it will be taken that he has no explanation to offer. Re-list on 17.11.2015.”

3. In compliance with the said order, on the basis of submissions made by Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned

Senior Counsel, the following order was made on

17.11.2015:

“Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the Editor-in-Chief of ‘Kannada Prabha’ files two memos, to the first of which is enclosed, a pen drive containing soft copy of

: 14 : recording of press meet held on 28.10.2015 by the President of 7 th respondent and a compact disk also recording the same, while to the second is enclosed a draft of the apology to be published in six editions of Kannada Prabha. Learned senior Counsel files an additional affidavit of Sugata Srinivasaraju, Editor-in- Chief, interalia, tendering an unconditional apology and deep regret over the action in carrying the publication in question in the newspaper, having now realized that a much more sensitive, conscientious and responsible approach ought to have been adopted in carrying out the publication in question. The explanation in the form of an affidavit of the President of 7 th respondent contains statements which, according to the learned counsel, are perceptions of the deponent based on documents, on instruction of the deponent and the views voiced in the press conference was the subjective analysis based upon objective documents available with the deponent. The two letters Annexures-B and B1 though not addressed to the deponent is sought to be utilized in support of the explanation of the deponent.

: 15 :

To a question of the Court to the learned counsel as to from whose custody copies of these letters were secured, learned counsel on instruction submits that persons in the office of the Principal Secretary Revenue Department, who had access to the documents handed over the copies of the letters.

It is needless to state that when the deponent is legally bound by oath to state the truth by making a declaration upon a subject, having made the statement that Annexures-B and B1 are unauthenticated copies, the deponent is bound to answer as to from whose custody the documents were secured.

The video recording of the press meet, was played on the Laptop and displayed on a large screen in the court hall on the direction of the Court and having witnessed the same, the deponent of the affidavit states that though it is not the full version of the press meet nevertheless, what is recorded therein is admitted. Notice issued to the editor of ‘Hosadigantha’, edition, though served as indicated in the postal track system, is conspicuously absent. Registry to ascertain the name of the editor of ‘Hosadigantha’ Daily and issue notice through

: 16 :

court and the process server from the District Court Dharwad/Hubli, fixing the date of hearing as 26 th November, 2015 and specifiying that his absence on the next date, proceedings in accordance with law would be initiated including securing his presence in a manner known to law.

The President of 7 th respondent to file affidavit indicating the names address and designation of the persons who handed over copies of Annexures-B and B1 to the deponent, by the next date of hearing, after service of copies on the learned counsel for the State. Re-list on 26.11.2015.”

4. Today, Sri P.Karunakar, learned counsel appears for Mr.Shiva Subramanya, Group Editor of

Hosadigantha, Kannada Daily and Mr.Sudheendra Alur,

Sub-Editor of Hosadigantha News Paper and files two separate affidavits of the aforesaid persons along with the vakalath. The same are taken on record.

5. The affidavit of Mr.Sugata S.Raju, the Editor-in-

Chief, reads thus :

“I, Sugata Srinivasaraju, S/o late Sri. Srinivasaraju, aged 43 years, residing at

: 17 :

No.21(Old No.8) ‘Savitri’ Prof. Srinivasaraju Road, Kodandaramapura, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru 560 003, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 1. I submit that I am the Editor-in-Chief of “Kannada Prabha” Kannada Daily, having its office at No.36, Crescent Road, Bengaluru- 560 001. 2. I most humbly submit that I am swearing to this affidavit pursuant to notice dated 31.10.2015 issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No.35011-12/2015(KLR-RES). 3. I submit that ‘Kannada Prabha’ is one of the mainstream kannada newspaper conducting its affairs within the four corners of law having utmost respect for the judiciary and absolute faith in the justice delivery system. 4. I submit that on 28.10.2015 the president of the Respondent No.7 Organisation had called for a press conference in Hubli- Dharwad. In the said press conference the President of Respondent No.7 had made various allegations against the Hon’ble Judge by his name. Although several allegations were made by naming the Hon’ble Judge, what was covered and published was only the fact of holding the press conference by the President of

: 18 :

Respondent No.7 and the fact that certain serious allegations were made by the President of Respondent No.7. Except reporting the fact of the President of Respondent No.7 having held a press conference on 28.10.2015 and that certain serious allegations were made by him, the publication does not contain any comment or opinion of the news paper. 5. I most respectfully submit that ‘Kannada Prabha’ and all of its officers and I personally would never conduct ourselves in a manner so as to defame or lower the image of the judiciary or interfere with the administration of justice. The publication was never intended to undermine or tend to undermine people’s confidence in administration of justice and justice delivery system or to make scurrilous or defamatory remarks in any manner whatsoever. As already stated earlier the fact of having held the press conference by the President of Respondent No.7 was covered with utmost care, caution, responsibility and restraint by Kannada Prabha. 6. I submit that I have the highest respect for judiciary and would never conduct our activities in any manner prejudicial to the

: 19 :

judiciary or the justice delivery system. I with utmost respect submit that if the instant publication has in any manner lowered the authority of this Hon’ble Court which was never intended to, I hereby most respectfully tender my unconditional apology to this Hon’ble Court and pray that all further proceedings be dropped. 7. I most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to accept the unconditional apology being tendered by me and drop further proceedings, in the interest of justice. 8. I say that the statements made above are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.”

6. The additional affidavit of the said editor, filed on 17.11.2015 reads thus :

“I, Sugata Srinivasaraju, S/o late Sri. Srinivasaraju, aged 43 years, residing at No.21(Old No.8) ‘Savitri’ Prof. Srinivasaraju Road, Kodandaramapura, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru 560 003, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 1. I submit that I am the Editor-in-Chief of ‘Kannada Prabha’ Kannada Daily, I am

: 20 :

swearing to this affidavit pursuant to order dated 05.11.2015 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the above matter. 2. I respectfully submit that ‘Kannada Prabha’ is a mainstream newspaper started in the year 1967 with one edition in Bengaluru. ‘Kannada Prabha’ is a law abiding kannada news daily and has always conducted its affairs in a manner that would ensure and promote the confidence of the people in the constitutional mechanism provided for administration of justice. Kannada Prabha has always been and always is committed to upholding the high moral values upon which the functioning of our judicial system rests. 3. I submit that respondent No.7 being a non profit organization established in 1983, having taken up several issues relation to protection of environment and human rights and being involved in several social welfare programmes and people oriented policies, the press conference held by it earlier were covered by ‘Kannada Prabha’, Having covered the earlier press conference held by respondent No.7, the fact of a press conference having been held by the President of Respondent No.7 in Hubli- Dharwad on 28.10.2015 and that certain

: 21 :

statements were made by the President of Respondent No.7 in the said press conference was reported in the news item in question. The news item carries true information about the happening of the event namely the press conference held on 28.10.2015 and as to what transpired in the press conference. The publication does not and was never meant to support or endorse the views of the President of Respondent No.7 or the organization itself. The news item in question carries only the statements made by the President of Respondent No.7 in the press conference which has been recorded. The news item does not contain any opinion, views or comments of the newspaper. 4. I most respectfully submit that the caption of the news item was never intended to malign the dignity of the judges or this Hon’ble Court. The caption of the news item was recorded solely in the context in which the press conference was held by Respondent No.7, as is the usual practice followed by Kannada Prabha and was never intended to lower the authority of this Hon’ble Court or bring this Hon’ble Court or the Hon’ble Judges to disrepute or disrespect. The font in which the caption is recorded is the one regularly used

: 22 : by Kannada Prabha while reporting all other news items. However having now realized that a much more sensitive, conscientious and responsible approach ought to have been adopted in reporting the news item in question, than what is reasonably and normally adopted, I tender my unconditional apology and deep regret for my actions in carrying the news item in question in the news paper. I further submit that ‘Kannada Prabha’ has always stood for the integrity of the judiciary and upholding the high moral values upon which the functioning of our judicial system rests. I undertake to publish an unconditional apology in ‘Kannada Prabha’ Kannada daily, in all its six editions published across the state of Karnataka, in the same page as the news item in question was published; and on any date as may be directed by this Hon’ble Court. A draft of the ‘apology’ which ‘Kannada Prabha’ undertakes to publish is also made available by way of a separate memo, for the kind perusal and approval of this Hon’ble Court. A soft copy of the recording of the press conference held by the President of Respondent No.7 on 28.10.2015, relating to the news item in

: 23 :

question, recorded in a pen drive is produced separately along with a memo. 5. I most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to accept the unconditionally apology and drop further proceedings in the interest of justice. 6. I say that the statements made above are true to the best of my knowledge information and belief.”

7. The draft publication enclosed to the memo dated 16.11.2015 is extracted thus:

£ÁåAiÀĦÃoÀPÉÌ CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ E®è L¸ïQæÃA PÀA¥À¤ vÉgÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÁV PÉLJr© ¬ÄAzÀ ¨sÀÆ«Ä ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ SÁ¸ÀV PÀA¥À¤AiÉÆAzÀPÉÌ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è “¥Éæ¹ÖÃeï ºÀUÀgÀtzÀ°è £ÁåAiÀiÁªÀÄÆwð ±Á«ÄîĔ,JA§ ²Ã¶ðPÉ Cr ¸ÀªÀiÁd ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£Á ¸ÀªÀÄÄzÁAiÀÄzÀ CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¹zÀÝPÁÌV (¢£ÁAPÀ 29.10.2015) PÀ£ÀßqÀ¥Àæ¨sÀ ¢£À¥ÀwæPÉ PÀëªÉÄAiÀiÁa¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ºÉÊPÉÆÃmïð £ÁåAiÀiÁªÀÄÆwðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀªÀiÁ¤¸ÀĪÀ, CªÀgÀ WÀ£ÀvÉ, ªÀZÀð¹ìUÉ PÀÄAzÀÄ vÀgÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ E®è JAzÀÄ ¥ÀwæPÉ ¸ÀàµÀÖ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

: 24 :

C£ÀªÀzsÁ£À¢AzÀ F ¸ÀÄ¢Ý ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀĸÀĽzÀÄÝ, £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀzÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀwæPÉUÉ C¥ÁgÀ UËgÀªÀ«zÉ JAzÀÄ F ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è w½¸À§AiÀĸÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÉ £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ, DgÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀªÀgÀÄ ¤¢üðµÀÖ £ÁåAiÀiÁªÀÄÆwðUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀwæPÁUÉÆö×AiÀÄ°è ºÉýzÀÝgÀÆ, ¥ÀwæPÉ «ªÉÃZÀ£É §¼À¹ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¹®è. eÉÆvÉUÉ EzÀÄ ‘UÀA©üÃgÀ DgÉÆÃ¥À’ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß G¥À²Ã¶ðPÀÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉüÀ¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀgÉ Erà ¸ÀÄ¢ÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß E£ÀßµÀÄÖ PÀÆ®APÀµÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¥ÀæPÀn¸À§ºÀÄzÁVvÀÄÛ JA§ ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀwæPÉ M¥ÀÄàvÀÛzÉ. w½AiÀÄzÉà DzÀ F vÀ¥Àà£ÀÄß ¥ÀwæPÉ w¢ÝPÉÆArzÉ. E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ EAxÀ PÀtÛ¥ÀÄà £ÀqÉAiÀÄzÀAvÉ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀĦÃoÀPÉÌ ¥ÀwæPÉ D±Áé¸À£É ¤ÃqÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀPÀgÀÄ.

8. The affidavit of Mr.Shivasubramanya reads thus:

“I, Mr. Shivasubrahmanya, Aged about 49 years, S/o Late K.S. Narayana, R/at No.225, 14 th A Cross, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore-32 do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oaths as here under: 1. I state that I am the Group Editor of the Hosadiganta Kannada Daily. I am authorized to swear to this affidavit. Hence I am swearing to this affidavit.

: 25 :

2. I state that Hosadiganta is registered daily newspaper having circulation throughout Karnataka. However, it has four editions separately printed from Bangalore. , Hubli and . Hosadiganta is a well-known newspaper and known for its unbiased, fair and value based publication since more than three decades. 3. I state that out of four editions, the Hubli edition dated 29.10.2015 published a newspaper report reporting the press conference held by Sri. S.R. Hiremath. The said news report was published without any tampering of the statements made by him in the press conference. 4. I state that the reporters attended the said press report after noting down the statements made in the press conference sent the report to the local office at Hubli and local alone carried the said news report is not our version at all. 5. I state that however, I respectfully submit that we have the highest respect for the judiciary and never carried such kind of statements in the past. I say that the report carried due to inadventure. However, as an editor I unconditionally apologize for having carried the said news.

: 26 :

6. I have highest respect for the judiciary. Unintentional publication of the news by the newspaper may kindly be pardoned by accepting my unconditional apology in this regard. 7. I respectfully submit that henceforth we will take all precautions before publishing any such kind of reports in future. Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to accept this apologizes and drop the contempt proceedings against this Hosadiganta Kannada Daily newspaper and its editors, printers and the publishers in the in the interest of justice and equity.”

9. The affidavit of Mr.Sudheendra Alur reads thus :

I Mr. Sudheendra Alur, Chief Sub- Editor of Hosadigantha newspaper Hubli Edition, S/o Raghavendra Alur, Aged about 32 years, R/A LIG 391, Navanagara, 12 th cross, Hubli now at Bangalore do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as here under: 1. I state that I am the chief Sub Editor of the Hosadigantha Kannada Daily published at Hubli. I am authorized to swear to this affidavit. Hence I am swearing to this affidavit

: 27 :

2. I state that Hosadigantha is a registered daily newspaper having circulation throughout Karnataka. However, it has four editions separately printed from Bangalore. Mangalore, Hubli and Shimoga. Hosadigantha is a well- known newspaper and known for its unbiased fair and value based publication since more than three decades. 3. I state that out of four editions, the Hubli edition dated 29.10.2015 published a newspaper report reporting the press conference held by Sri. S.R.Hiremath. The said news report was published without any tampering of the statements made by him in the press conference, the news was collected by the reporter in a press conference called by S.R.Hiremath at 4 pm. I could not communicate the same to our chief editor or group of editors because of the delay and the news items was published without the approval of the editors. 4. I state that the reporters attended the said press report after noting down the statements made in the press conference sent the report to the local office at Hubli and local alone carried the said news report is not our version at all.

: 28 :

5. I state that I had no intention to disrepute the judiciary. I apologies for publishing the news item when the matter was sub-judicial. 6. I state that however, I respectfully submit that we have the highest respect for the judiciary and never carried such kind of statements in the past. I say that the report carried due to inadventure. However, as an editor I unconditionally apologize for having carried the said news. 7. I have highest respect for the judiciary. Unintentional publication of the news by the newspaper may kindly be pardoned by accepting my unconditional apology in this regard. 8. I respectfully submit that henceforth we will take all precautions before publishing any such kind of reports in future.

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that this Honble Court be pleased to accept this apologizes and drop the contempt proceedings against this Hosadiganta Kannada Daily newspaper and its editors, printers and the publishers in the interest of justice and equity.”

: 29 :

10. Learned counsel Sri P.Karunakar files a memo stating that the Chief Editor and Sub-Editor undertake to publish in the four editions of news paper

Hosadigantha, an apology in the like terms as made out in the draft of Kannada Prabha.

11. Journalism is meant to serve the people with news, views, comments, information on matters of public interest in a fair, accurate, unbiased and decent manner and language. Although, media, it is said, does not remain satisfied as the Fourth Estate, nevertheless, assumes importance in society and governance as recorded by Justice G.N.Ray, Chairman of the Press

Council of India as Preface to the norms of Journalistic

Conduct 2010 Edition of the Press Council of India.

12. Since journalists enjoy privilege, media is mandated to follow certain ethics in collecting and disseminating the information viz., ensuring authenticity of the news, use of restrained and socially acceptable language for ensuring objectivity and fairness in reporting and keeping in mind its cascading effect on the

: 30 : society and on the individuals and institutions concerned. Regard being had to the aforesaid responsibilities, norms of Journalistic conduct was published. Relevant portions of which are extracted thus:

Principles and Ethics

The fundamental objective of journalism is to serve the people with news, views, comments and information on matters of public interest in a fair, accurate, unbiased, sober and decent manner. To this end, the Press is expected to conduct itself in keeping with certain norms of professionalism, universally recognized. The norms enunciated below and other specific guidelines appended thereafter, when applied with due discernment and adaptation to the varying circumstance of each case, will help the journalist to self-regulate his or her conduct:

1. Accuracy and Fairness: The Press shall eschew publication of inaccurate, baseless, graceless, misleading or distorted material. All sides of the core issue or subject should be reported. Unjustified rumours and surmises should not be set forth as facts.

: 31 :

It is incumbent for to play a positive role in response to rumours affecting the credibility of financial institutions having public interface. While it is the duty of the press to expose the wrong doings that come to their notice, such reports need to be backed by irrefutable facts and evidence.

2. Pre-Publication Verification: On receipt of a report or article of public interest and benefit containing imputations or comments against a citizen, the editor should check with due care and attention its factual accuracy apart from other authentic sources – with the person or the organization concerned to elicit his/her or its version, comments or reaction and publish the same alongside with due correction in the report where necessary. In the event of lack or absence of response, a footnote to that effect may be appended to the report. Publication of news such as those pertaining to cancellation of examinations or withdrawal of candidates from election should be avoided without proper verification and cross checking.

: 32 :

A document, which forms a bases of a news report, should be preserved at least for six months.

12. a) Caution in criticizing judicial acts

Excepting where the court sits ‘in-camera’ or directs otherwise, it is open to a newspaper to report pending judicial proceedings, in a fair, accurate and reasonable manner. But it shall not publish anything- -which, in its direct and immediate effect, creates a substantial risk of obstructing, impeding or prejudicing seriously the due administration of justice; or - is in the nature of a running commentary or debate, or records the paper’s own findings conjectures, reflection or comments on issues, sub judice and which may amount to abrogation to the newspaper the functions of the court; or -regarding the personal character of the accused standing trial on a charge of committing a crime. Newspaper shall not as a matter of caution, publish or comment on evidence collected as a result of investigative journalism, when, after the accused is arrested and charged, the court becomes seized of the case: Nor should

: 33 : they reveal, comment upon or evaluate a confession allegedly made by the accused. While newspapers may, in the public interest, make reasonable criticism of a judicial act or the judgment of a court for public good; they shall not cast ‘scurrilous aspersions’ on, or ‘impute improper motives’, or ‘personal bias to the judge. Nor shall they ‘scandalise the court’ or the ‘judiciary’ as a whole, or make personal allegations of ‘lack of ability or integrity against a judge. Newspaper shall, as a matter of caution, avoid unfair and unwarranted criticism which, by innuendo, ‘attributes to a judge extraneous consideration for performing an act in due course of his/her judicial functions, even if such criticism does not strictly amount to criminal Contempt of Court. b) Reporting News pertaining to Court Proceedings

Before publishing a news item about court proceedings, it will be appropriate for the correspondent and editor to ascertain its genuineness and, correctness and authenticity from the records so that the concerned person can be held guilty and

: 34 :

accountable for furnishing incorrect facts or wrong information about the court proceedings.”

13. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in its decision dated 7 th July 1988,7 Smt.Archana Guha

Vs.Ranjit Guha Neogi @ Runu Guha Neogi , exercising contempt jurisdiction observed thus:

“12. Article 215 of our Constitution lays down that every High Court shall be a Court of Record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. This right of inflicting punishment for contempt of Court was conferred upon the High Court for the purpose of ensuring the rule of law and orderly administration of justice. The purpose of the contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of Law. The image of such a majesty in the minds of the people cannot be allowed to be distorted. The respect and the authority commended by the Courts of law is the greatest guarantee for protection of Constitutional rights.: Between the three great organs of the State, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary, the duty of the judiciary is to uphold the Constitutional rights of ordinary citizens and afford protection to citizens from executive tyranny. The judicial process is the only method of enforcing the rights of the citizens under the Constitution. The entire democratic fabric of the society will breakdown if the respect for the judiciary is undermined.

7 (1989) 2 CHN 252

: 35 :

13. The right of the Press to criticise the judiciary must be exercised in such a manner that peoples faith in the judiciary is not shaken. The Press has a right to criticise a judgment but in criticising the judgment, the Press must summarise the judgment fairly and accurately and is also entitled to criticise the conclusion reached in the judgment in temperate language.

14. But if a judgment is condemned unread or by distorting the facts found in that judgment or twisting the law enunciated in the judgment then the Press has not rendered any service to the people, on the contrary a great dis-service to the society. The judiciary will be judged by the people by what the judiciary does, but if the Press gives distorted version of Court's proceedings and invites people to judge the judiciary on the basis of such distorted versions of judicial proceedings, in such a case the Press cannot take shelter under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. In exercise of the right of freedom of speech and expression, nobody can be allowed to interfere with the due course of justice or to lower prestige or the authority of the Court.

15. Cases may happen in which the Judge may be mistaken, but the law has provided a remedy for correction of such mistakes. The party injured is entitled to pursue every method by which such mistakes may be corrected. The Press if it thinks that a judgment is mistaken has a right to criticise the judgment and point out the supposed mistakes but in a temperate language. But what the Press cannot do is to eluminate the proceedings of a Court of Law which has a result of weakening the administration of

: 36 :

justice and in consequence to undermine the very foundation of the Constitution itself: because nothing is more important to the proper functioning of the Constitution than a strong and effective judiciary which is respected and obeyed by the people and also the administration. In the case of Prospective Publication (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharastra, reported in 1970 (2) SC Journals p. 35 it was observed by the Supreme Court that the publication of a disparaging statement will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the judge, or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the Court's administration of justice or if it is likely to cause embarassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties.

At paragraph 23 which was observed thus:

23. Corrective power of the Press has a universal application. Society in order to prosper will have to have a free Press, but as noted above, free Press does not imply without limitations and without restraint. The Press has a responsibility towards the society at large and that responsibility can only be discharged in the event the Press comes out with a fair and proper comment and attitude.

14. The High Court of Madras in Madras High

Court Practising Advocates’ Association Vs.

Registrar General, High Court of Madras and

: 37 : others, 8 2012 (3) CTC 225 extracted the observations of the Apex Court in Rajendra Sail v. Madhya Pradesh

High Court Bar Association, 9 and at para 32 observed thus:

“32. The reach of media, in present times of 24 hours channels, is to almost every nook and corner of the world. Further, large number of people believe as correct which appears in media, print or electronic. It is also necessary to always bear in mind that the judiciary is the last resort of redressal for resolution of disputes between State and subject, and high and low. The confidence of people in the institute of judiciary is necessary to be preserved at any cost. That is its main asset. Loss of confidence in institution of judiciary would be end of Rule of law. Therefore, any act which has such tendency deserves to be firmly curbed. For rule of law and orderly society, a free responsible press and independent judiciary are both indispensable. Both have to be, therefore, protected. 37. The power and reach of the media, both print as well as electronic is tremendous. It has to be exercised in the interest of the public good. A free press is one of very important pillar on which the

8 2012 (3) CTC 225 9 AIR 2005 SC 2473 ,

: 38 :

foundation of Rule of Law and democracy rests. At the same time, it is also necessary that freedom must be exercised with utmost responsibility. It must not be abused. It should not be treated as a licence to denigrate other institutions. Sensationalism is not unknown. Any attempt to make news out of nothing just for the sake of sensationalism has to be deprecated. When there is temptation to sensationalize particularly at the expense of those institutions or persons who from the nature of the office cannot reply, such temptation has to be resisted and if not it would be the task of the law to give clear guidance as to what is and what is not permitted.

15. Having regard to the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court, it is needless to reiterate that rule of law is the foundation of democratic society in which judiciary is the guardian of rule of law. The confidence, which the people and the citizenry repose in Courts of justice, cannot be allowed to be tarnished or wiped out by contemptuous behaviour of any person. If the judiciary in order to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly

: 39 : entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. It is therefore said that the foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded. Those who indulge in acts, which tend to undermine the authority of law and bring it in disrepute and disrespect by scandalizing it, are to be dealt in right measure and hence courts are entrusted with extraordinary power of punishing for contempt of court.

It must be noticed that when court exercises its power it does not do so to vindicate the dignity, honour of the individual Judge who is personally attacked or scandalized but to uphold the majesty of law and of the administration of justice.

16. Freedom of Press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of speech and expression

: 40 : which would amount to an uncontrolled licence. Being wholly free from reasonable restraints would lead to disorder and anarchy. Freedom is not to be misunderstood as to be a press free to disregard its duties and responsibilities. In the conscience of the journalist must be ingrained the element of responsibility since in an organized society, the rights of the press are recognized with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality and such other things must be safeguarded. Wrong doing by the press disentitle it to the protective cover of press freedom.

17. In Re Harijai Singh v. In Re Vijay Kumar,10 the Supreme court observed that presentation of news must be truthful, objective and comprehensive without any false and distorted expression.

18. Lord Atkinson in Andrew Paul Terence

Ambrad v. Attorney General of Trinidad and

Tobago 11 , observed thus:

10 AIR 1996 (6) SCC 466 11 AIR 1936 PC 141,

: 41 :

“No wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercised the ordinary right of criticism in good faith in private or public. The public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err therein, provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice are genuinely exercising a right of criticism and not acting in malice or attempting to impart the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men.”

19. Lord Justice Donovan in Attorney General v.

Butterworth 12 , after making reference to Req. v.

Odham’s Press Ltd. ex parte, A.G., 1957 (1) QB 73 said:

“whether or not there was an intention to interfere with the administration of justice is relevant to penalty and not to quit.” This makes it clear that intention to interfere with the proper administration of justice is an

12 1963 (1) QB 696

: 42 : essential ingredient of the offence of contempt of court and it is enough if the action complained of is inherently likely so to interfere.

20. In Morris v. Crown Office 13 , Lord Denning

M.R. said: that the course of justice must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who do it strike at the very foundations of our society. In the same case, Lord

Justice Solomon spoke: “The sole purpose of proceedings for contempt is to give our courts the power effectively to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed or prevented.”

21. Frank Further, J. in Offutt v. U.S. 14 , , expressed his views as follows :

“It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage.”

13 1970 (1) All.E.R., 1079, page 1081 14 1954 (348) U.S.11

: 43 :

22. In Jennison v. Baker 15 , it is stated :

“The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope.”

23. Chinappa Reddy J., speaking for the Bench in

Advocate General Bihar v. M.P.Khair Industries 16 , citing the above two decisions observed thus:

".....It may be necessary to punish as a contempt a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice, because unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and so it is contempt of Court not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against Contempt of Court may seem to suggest but to

15 1972 (1) ALL.E.R. 997, at page 1006

: 44 :

protect and to vindicate the right of the public and the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with."

24. Krishna Iyer, J, in his separate judgment in re.

S.Mulgaokar, 1978 (3) SCC 339, while giving broad guidelines in taking punitive action in the matter of contempt of Court stated thus:

".....If the Court considers the attack on the judge or judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream"

25. In Brahma Prakash Sharma and others v.

The State of Uttar Pradesh 17 , the Apex Court after making reference to various decisions as well as of the

Privy Council, observed thus:

"It will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the

16 1980 (3) SCC 3111 , 17 AIR 1954 SC 10,

: 45 :

people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the Judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the Court's administration of justice, or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. It is well established that it is not necessary to prove affirmative that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory statement; it is enough if it is likely or tends in any way to interfere with the proper administration of law."

26. In Surya Prakash Khatri & Another v.

Madhu Trehan and others 18 , the Delhi High Court observed thus:

“18. It is often said that to err is human but to forgive is noble and to forget is divine. Majesty of Law continues to hold its head high notwithstanding such scurrilous attacks made by persons who feel the law Courts will absorb anything and every thing, including attacks on their honesty, integrity and impartiality. But it has to be borne in

: 46 :

mind that such divinity and magnanimity is not its weakness but its strength. It generally ignores irresponsible statements which are anything but legitimate criticism. It is to be noted that what is permissible is legitimate criticism and not illegitimate insinuation. No Court can look with equanimity on a publicity which may have tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. Power of press is almost like nuclear power, it can create and it can destroy. When it is aimed at the judiciary, it finds a soft target because it has neither the power of the purse nor the sword, which other wings of democracy possess. Pen is mightier than sword, it is said. Pen used by the press should not be dipped in poison, it should be used for creativity not destruction. Judiciary should not be like flies in the hands of wanton boys. Judge bashing is not and cannot be a substitute for constructive criticism. While a responsible press is a boon to the society, an irresponsible one is a menace. It needs no reiteration that on judiciary millions pin their hopes, for protecting their life, liberty, property and the like. Judges do not have any easy job. They

18 2001 (59) DRJ 298 (FB)

: 47 :

repeatedly do what rest of us (the people) seek to avoid, make decisions, said David Pannick in his book "Judges". Judges are mere mortals, but they are asked to perform a function which is truly divine.”

27. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in jail In South

Africa. Referring to Caesar’s speech, Mandela said :

Cowards die many times before their death. Valiant never taste of death but once”. History is replete with examples where judges have shown courage and boldness. This is part of judicial fabric and culture.

28. Needless to state that judges must think positive, act positive, do positive while negativity is counter productive. Judiciary as an institution is recognised as a productive organ. An example of positivity of mind, that occurs to me is one of Alfred

Nobel who created a trust, instituted Noble Prize for the richest contributions in the fields of Literature, Physics,

Chemistry, Economics, Medicine, Peace. Our judges too nurture the same. Without the role and contribution of judges, it is not possible to translate the meaning of

: 48 : justice, and ensure that each action whether of an individual or the Government is in accordance with the rule of law, in addition to ensuring Parliament and State

Legislature remain within the parameters of the

Constitution. As noticed supra, judicial decision-making is important. Judges to do what others avoid. They interact with lawyers everyday, ask questions to witnesses in courts since lawyer must know what is in the mind of the Judge. Professor Griffith in his book says, “Judges are a product of a class and have the characteristics of that class….The judges define the public interest, inevitably from the view point of their own class”. It is elsewhere said that being a compassionate judge is an indispensable judicial ethic.

29. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.N.Nanjunda

Reddy, representing the Editor-in-Chief of Kannada

Prabha news paper is candid in his submission that an error of judgment occurred while writing the caption and contents in the paper publication hence the Editor having shown remorse for his conduct has tendered an unconditional apology with an undertaking to publish

: 49 : that apology in a conspicuous place in the news paper within two days. So also, Sri P.Karunakar, learned counsel representing the Editor and Sub-Editor of

‘Hosadigantha’ newspaper adopts the submission of the

Learned Senior counsel while expressing similar remorse of both the Editor and Sub-Editor and also submits on instructions, that a publication would be made in four editions of the newspaper tendering an unconditional apology over the publication, in the like terms as would be done by Kannada Prabha, if extended two days time.

30. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel and regard being had to the statements in the affidavit supra, tendering unconditional apology, it is appropriate to accept the same on the condition that the deponents would not in future bring upon themselves such a situation, while conduct the business of the press in terms of the norms of Journalist Conduct 2010

Edition of the Pres Council of India.

31. Further proceedings for contempt of court against the Editors of two paper publications, stand

: 50 : dropped. Compliance with the undertaking and to file the newspaper carrying out the apology by 30.11.2015.

Re-list on 10.12.2015.

Sd/- JUDGE

Ia