Kerala High Court
Jomon Puthenpurackal vs Lok Ayukta on 18 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(1)KLT705
Author: S. Siri Jagan
Bench: Rajeev Gupta, S. Siri Jagan
JUDGMENT S. Siri Jagan, J.
1. Petitioner in this original petition is the complainant in Complaint No. 804/2001 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta. He has filed this original petition challenging the order of the Lok Ayukta passed on 17-10-2001 in the said complaint. The facts leading to the original petition are as under.
2. The complainant is a person who claims to be a public interested human rights activist. He filed the complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta alleging as follows.
(i) The respondents in collusion with each other manipulated the Engineering and Medical entrance rank list of the State for the academic year.
(ii) The first respondent (Minister for Education) with the mala fide intention to delete the name of a student from the rank list and then to insert in that place the name of a student who has not even appeared for the entrance examination collided with the second respondent (the then Entrance Commissioner) and committed the manipulation of the rank list.
(iii) In the Mathrubhumi daily dated 25th August 2001, the second respondent had alleged that the first respondent had demanded him to do illegal acts concerning the said entrance list, to which the respondent replied that the attempt is to black mail him.
(iv) The above statements of the respondents show itself that they have committed the said offence.
The above allegations were wholly based on a news item in the Mathrubhoomi dated 25-8-2001 and the Sunday Express dated 26-8-2001. He had absolutely no other material whatsoever with him to substantiate the averments in his complaint. Despite that fact, the Lok Ayukta did not reject the complaint at the admission stage, but conducted a preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Section 11(1) of the Lok Ayukta Act. The Lok Ayukta directed the Commissioner for Entrance Examination to produce the relevant records pertaining to admission to Engineering and Medical Colleges relating to the relevant academic year. After perusing the documents produced as also the report of the Registrar, Additional Registrar and Deputy Registrar of the Lok Ayukta filed after perusing the records produced as directed by the Lok Ayukta, and after examining the files, the Lok Ayukta did not find any substance in the complaint of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Lok Ayukta dismissed the complaint. While dismissing the same, the Lok Ayukta made the following observations about the conduct of the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings before the Lok Ayukta:
(10) We are afraid the complainant seems to have filed this complaint more for publicity than for any bonaflde reason. Immediately the complaint was filed, the news was flashed in the newspapers even before this court passed any order. After we issued direction for production of the records, the petitioner caustically commented several times through the media about this court not issuing notice. His anxiety for publicity seems to have outweighed his sense of propriety, dignity and decorum and his solemn duty to court and the responsibility to the public.
(11) The complainant started issuing press statements and giving press interviews which also were given wide publicity in the T.V. and other media. He gave press interviews, made provocative statements, based on his own wrong conjectures and surmises, on this pending complaint, several times at different places forgetting the fact that an issue, which is subjudice, is not a matter for public debate. In fact, the filing of this complaint seems to have generated a "publicity phobia" for him. He does not resist the temptation to go public in respect of a matter which is "sub judice." He went still further and made unnecessary, unwanted and untrue statements in the T. V. interview in the Kairali news channel on the 27th of September for not acceding to his prayer for issuing notice to the respondents.
(12) We called for the tapes/video cassette to ascertain correctly about the statements made by the complainant. The Kairali Channel, it should be mentioned, promptly expressed their unequivocal apology in their news telecast on the 29th evening and the apology was telecast thrice, 18.00 hours Pradeshika Varthakal, 18.50 hours Kairali Vartha and 22.30 hours Kairali Night News. The apology was prominently carried in the news items and the entire programmes. The Chief Executive Director, Kairali Channel informed us thus:
In this connection, Kairali TV has already telecast an apology/clarification in the news telecast dated 29-9-2001 as per transcript marked Exhibit-1. A video cassette containing the apology which was prominently carried in the news item as well the entire programme telecast on the morning of 27-09-2001 is enclosed as directed.
(10) Exercising the freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution and maintaining the rich traditions of the Press, 'Kairali Channel' has very promptly expressed openly its genuine regret in telecasting this interview of the complainant, especially on a matter which it is still sub judice. We do appreciate the sense of journalistic ethics and propriety of this TV channel and accept the unequivocal apology tendered and televised by this channel almost immediately after they were directed to deliver the tape to this court.
(11) We could have taken contempt proceedings against the petitioner for the damaging statement made in that interview; but we desisted from doing so only because Kairali Channel has risen to its greatest heights of journalistic propriety by its continuous telecast of the apology and we hope that this will open the eyes of the petitioner for restraint in his conduct and behaviour in public about court proceedings in future. A contempt action against him would have only achieved his purpose of cheap publicity.
(12) It has also to be stated that the petitioner is wrong when he believes that notice in public interest litigation is automatic and mechanical. The admission of a complaint and directing notice to be issued to the respondents is a judicial act. Issuance of notice to the respondents in a complaint will necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no universal rule that all public interest petitions have to be automatically admitted. The complainant is either not aware orpretend to be ignorant that there are large number of public interest litigations rejected in limine except those few, which gain publicity in the press.
(13) To gain more publicity, the complainant alleges that he was promised a huge sum of Rupees ten lacs, 5 lacs, immediately and 5 lacs later, when the first respondent came to his room in the Alwaye Guest House on the 3rd September and requested the complainant to help him and not precipitate the matter; in other words to withdraw the complaint. It is significant that the petitioner or his counsel did not mention this fact when the complaint came up for heading on the 4th at the same guest house. The alleged offer was also given wide publicity. Not satisfied with this, he filed an affidavit in this court that he was offered a bribe of Rs. ten lacs for practically withdrawing the complaint. We do not understand why he has filed this affidavit in this court. If he thought that he would get more publicity, if and when a notice is issued atleast on that affidavit, he was wrong.
(14) We do not propose to accept this affidavit for several reasons. This affidavit is with reference to an aspect, which is not relevant and material for the disposal of the main complaint. On his own showing, he has not accepted the offer and withdrawn this complaint; but pressed his plea for issuance of notice to the respondents. The offer has no value even for the complainant. More over, on the face of it, the averments bristle with infirmities and seem to be incredible and improbable. It is impossible to believe that any person will be foolish enough to fritter away substantial sums of money on any ludicrous hope or any ridiculous venture. In this affidavit, the complainant remembers and mentions the names of some persons and their mobile numbers and conveniently omits to identity of other persons specified. Withdrawal of this complaint may not be the end. but only the beginning of similar action by other persons or even a suo motu action being initiated if necessary. The person who promises to pay a very huge amount thus gains nothing and for the petitioner staking his claim on that tall promise it is nothing but an attempt for cheap publicity. The affidavit makes 'much ado about nothing' and has to be rejected with the contempt it deserves.
3. Although the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 itself, in the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments for deletion of the observations against the petitioner as found in the order of the Lok Ayukta quoted above. Counsel would argue that for the purpose of the disposal of the complaint, such observations about the petitioner personally was uncalled for and, therefore, are liable to be expunged. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim . He relies on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of making of disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, in paragraph 10 of the said decision. Learned Counsel submits that tested by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in that judgment, the observations made by the Lok Ayukta in Ext.P4 while dismissing the complaint was totally unnecessary and uncalled for and is liable to be expunged.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Counsel for the Lok Ayukta.
5. For convenience, we will quote herein the relevant portions of the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner:
...If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice,it is this: the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this court. At the same time, it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions, Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair-play and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.
Going by the same, what we have to look into is whether, in the present case, the Lok Ayukta has followed the three principles laid down therein, while recording those observations against the petitioner. Since the petitioner himself was a party and complainant in the complaint before the Lok Ayukta, the first principle is satisfied. Regarding the second principle, there is absolutely no room to even doubt that the Lok Ayukta has made the observations on the basis of cogent material and evidence available with them as is clear from the impugned order itself. The Lok Ayukta had taken pains to call for the video cassette containing the interview with the petitioner telecast in the Kairali Channel and only after satisfying themselves about the correctness of the facts, they have ventured to record their displeasure over the conduct of the petitioner. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence on record regarding the conduct of the petitioner justifying the remarks and, therefore, the second principle laid down by the Supreme Court has also been scrupulously followed by the Lok Ayukta while entering these remarks about the petitioner in the order.
6. Now, the only question remaining is whether it is necessary for the decision of the case as an integral part thereof to deal with the conduct of the petitioner while passing the order. Although, at one time, the courts had encouraged public interest litigation with the good object of maintaining purity in administration, it has been the experience of the courts that this weapon of public interest litigation has been constantly misused by persons seeking cheap publicity and of late, the Supreme Court has come down heavily on such publicity oriented public interest litigation calling upon the lower courts to curb the tendency of such persons to discourage such kind of litigation. We need not refer to the decisions specifically. Suffice to say that in recent times, there has been many such decisions reported in the law journals.
7. The petitioner claims to be a public interested human rights activist. In the course of arguments, we asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to what is the petitioner's avocation in life. The reply was that he was a social worker. Counsel has also produced before us a list of public interest litigations filed by him in various courts including this Court. From the same itself, it is clear that his main avocation centers round filing of such public interest litigations.
8. Whenever transgressions are noticed by courts and Tribunals in the name of public interest litigation, it is certainly the duty of the Courts and Tribunals to deal with such transgressions sternly and with an iron hand. Otherwise, the persons involved will further be encouraged into indulging in such misadventures, which would be at the expense of genuine litigants. It is absolutely necessary that such tendencies should be curbed at the budding stage itself. If the budding stage itself has already passed, then also the Courts and Tribunals should take special care to see that the particular litigant does not continue with his misdirected adventures in future. For achieving that object, it would certainly be necessary for the Courts and Tribunals to comment upon the conduct of such litigants in their judgments or orders with the above laudable object in mind.
9. From the materials available on record, we cannot but hold that this was an eminently fit case for the Lok Ayukta to make such observations in their order. This Court had directed counsel for the petitioner to produce the English translation of the interview conducted by the Kairali TV. with the petitioner on 27th September, 2001. A reading of the same reinforces our view that the Lok Ayukta was perfectly justified in making the observations they have made about the conduct of the petitioner. We shall reproduce herein one answer which the petitioner has given during the interview from the extract filed by the counsel for the petitioner on 14-10-2003. It reads thus:
The case which was filed on the 24th August, was taken on file on the 4th September. Ordinarily, in any case before the High Court or the Supreme Court or any other courts, notice will be sent to the respondents. Even on an anonymous petition or false complaints, when the case is taken on file, notice will'be issued. But, in this case that it did not happen. Since I have a habit of speaking truth in whichever place, on the 4th September when the case against the Minister Soopy and Alphonse Kannanthanam was taken on file, notice should have been sent to the respondents. A question was put to me by many in Kerala knowing legal position why the notice was not sent.
We have absolutely no hesitation to hold that this has been a most reprehensible conduct on the part of the petitioner in going to the media expressing severe criticism on the Lok Ayukta for not having issued notice to the respondents in his complaint, that too, while the complaint was still pending consideration. As such, the Lok Ayukta was perfectly justified in making the observations they have made in Ext.P4 order. In such circumstances, we categorically hold that the third principle mentioned in the Supreme Court judgment has also been followed in the present case.
10. There is yet another reason also for taking the view that the Lok Ayukta was perfectly justified in making the said observations. This is contained in paragraph 11 of the order which has been reproduced hereinabove. (There is a mistake in numbering of paragraphs in Ext.P4. Paragraph numbers 10, 11 and 12 have been repeated. We are referring to the second paragraph 11). Going by the same, it is abundantly clear that while making those observations, the Lok Ayukta was considering as to whether it is necessary to take contempt proceeding against the conduct of the petitioner. For consideration of that question, it would certainly be necessary to advert to the conduct of the petitioner as was done by the Lok Ayukta, which is the basis for such action. Of course, ultimately, the Lok Ayukta did not initiate contempt action against the petitioner on the prudent reasoning that a contempt action against him would have only achieved his purpose of cheap publicity. For this reason also, the Lok Ayukta was perfectly justified in commenting on the conduct of the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings before it. As such, we do not find anything in Ext.P4, which requires to be expunged based on the Supreme Court decision supra or otherwise. The observations made by the Lok Ayukta in Ext.P4 order was only what was necessary in the circumstances for disposal of the case and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to interfere with any portion of Ext.P4 order.
11. We must also note a very relevant aspect of the case. The petitioner filed the case solely based on the paper report which contained certain disclosures made by the 3rd respondent against the 2nd respondent. Despite that, the allegation made by the petitioner in his complaint before the Lok Ayukta accused the 3rd respondent also suggesting a collusive action between the 3rd and 2nd respondents, which itself is a pointer towards the improper motive of the petitioner, and cannot be left unnoticed while dealing with the matter.
12. The petitioner's counsel would argue that the observations made in Ext.P4 would constitute remarks on his general conduct and personality as a whole, which may be detrimental to him in future. We do not perceive any such intention or result in the observations. We note that the Lok Ayukta was very restrained in the matter and has commented only on the conduct of the petitioner in relation to the proceedings before it and the observations therein cannot be regarded as any indictment on his personality or general conduct as well.
In the above circumstances, we find no merit whatsoever in the Original Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. We were inclined to order costs also. However, we exercise restraint and refrain from doing so. Accordingly, the Original Petition stands dismissed.