Karnataka High Court
International Society For Krishna ... vs International Society For Krishna ... on 15 September, 2009
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna
BETWEEN: 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF sEP'rEMBER_,H:;?'o(§9"rI'*5 V' "~ V. PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.._JUsTIcE-K;'L;1~e.4tA1€1,JuNAm AND _ TI-IE HON'BLE MRS.JUST_ICE»B.VINAGARA'I'HVNA' MISC.CVL.NO. 140.57/2009 --RFA,No.§42~1--./2609 INTERNA'I'iON1"'L.-SOC.IE'.€Y"FOR_V ~ KRISHNA_.CONS£CI'OUS1\I_ESS, -a society registered ungder the Sd'é1f'jeties...Act;; 1860. as also Bombay '}'"'(1§:)1ig: Trusts Ac.1;_,V @950. havirig itVS'0fl¢iC€ Ha_re._Krishnéi Land. Juhu, Mumbai¢-49Va'IS1d'=also haV1i1g'its branch office at Hare Krishna'Hi11,SCh0rd..=Road, Rajajinagar, Bar1galo'1--'€*10. O . B'h;iniar.Dasa."'M_ajDr V" .« Krishna Goswami, Major V 2 3.v4a'bDvé:t'a.::'e having their office at " Hare Krisiijmfal Land, Juhu, Mu:mbai--49 (1"3y'si~:. UDAYA HOLLA, SRCOUNSEL _ " M.V.JEEVAN KUMAR.) 1. Jerya Swamy, Major _ ISKCON, Mayapur, Dt.Nadia, W.BengaE APPELLANTS FOR M/ S LEX NEXUS SHASHIKIRAN SHETFY, D.R. RAVISHANKAR & A AND: W?) INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR é KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies registration Act, 1960 and oiaiming to have its registered office at Hare Krishna Hiii, Chord Road, Rajajinagar, Bangaiore-10, represented by its alleged Secretary Stoka Krishna Das. . Vinay Karlo aka Vibhav Krishna 1:)aé'a~«. '_ Major Father's name not known ' Ashok Kumar Gupta Major Father's name not known B.Kiran Major Father's name ;iot__ ' V. Sudhir Major . Father'_s__na"me" 'i'I-Es? V' '' Respondents 2' 35-5 R/oi' '
I o1'oss}Sripuram;' "
Sheshdripnrarn, "Ba11ga1oi;e-20 Sasvaishvaryailasa ESi{_CON, Hare Krishna Land, 1 0_(_}*Feet new scheme' Road.
V' 'Coimbai;oorn,'Tfamiinadu.
6. .Sa'i1ra"i1ishw'aQry'a Dasa, ISKCOISL ' ' ~ Combatore "C entre, Harekrishna Land.
' .100 Feet New Scheme Road, * Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu __ . Registrar of Societies, " .. _..Karnataka State.
32 Jamuna Complex, 5"' Main Road, I Gandhinagar, Banga1ore--09 State of Karnataka, Represented by ;
The Commissioner ofPo1ice, The Commissioner of Police, Infantry Road, Bangalore--O1 . . RESPONDENTS (By Sri. MATHAI M.PAI KEDAY, SRCOUNSEL F'OlV?~=__M/S CHALAPATHY & SRINIVAS FOR C/R1, AMARNATH S.I_MIjIA FOR R6, V.I-LRON FOR M/S LEX PLEXUS FOR R1] C This MISC. CVL. is filed under Section--jl'51...gof ~ CPC1 praying that Hon'ble Mr.Just1ce K.L.Manj_unath Vnriay be ._ pleased to recuse himself fro1_I_1..... the jben"c'h:g healing' RFA.No.421/2009 for the ends of justice and".consr;_ienee." ' H A This MlSC.CVL having been lheard. ancixfelserveciy Orders on this day, NAGARAI?rlN--J§. J, made the'V_foleleoe.2ingi--
oRD§aau2'RCl The prayer made by respondent
No.1 in the appeal is thatEion'bled&1l(lr.';T1istiepe"VK.L.Manjunath reeuse the appeal in the interest Vofjtistice go'o.d"eonscience.
2. Before ueonsidering the said prayer, it is necessary to V. '"€_'~€'f the faetual leading up to the filing of the said apyiiicmong - "
3. A-__lFor- sake of convenience the parties shall be
- 'referred t,o3in terms of their status in the appeal. : This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 Challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 17.4.2009 it passed in O.S.No.7924/2001 by the IX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The said suit was instituted by- 3 the plaintiff / respondent No. 1 herein against defendant/appellants for a declaration that the Executive Committee of Bureau of the first appellant/Society bar or authority to remove the President orfany.-a ' Bearers of the respondent No. 1 and itsettemples ovrutotv eXercise'i'._p V control over the possession of the pro'per:tyl No. 1 or administrative the declaration that plaintiff thenowner. No.1 of 'A', '1;3= and 'C' schedule"--propertiies,'.as--Van:independent legal entity and for Pfififianent' '$1031 and 11*"
respondent to eiterclisellllthe statutory and regulatcgitifllpowevrs in them. The said suit was decreed «in ':_j»aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, tdefelndaint Al-'E_os:"l to 4 have preferred this appeal.
5. ..«§.Misc.Cvl.l\§o;.1Q216/2009 was filed by the appellants seeking _Veariy:hearing of the appeal, in View of the direction giVeii._by"the.__Ape§t Court in Contempt Petition (c)492/2004 V . in Civil i\'£o.5657/2002 to the trial court to dispose of suithir August 2008 on a day-today basis considering the"'subject matter of the suit. On 19.6.2009 when the ~~appeai was posted for admission, the appeal was admitted V and taking note of the submission on both sides, the appeal 92 .a/°.
M6"
" 1. RFA 421/O9 is pending before Justice K.L.I\/Ianjunath.
2. Parties in RFA -421/O9 are ISKCON Murnbai Vs. ISKCON, Bangalore, ~j »
3. Above picture shows close association off Justice K.L.1\/Ianjunath and receiVing_gifts'*atV the premises of 1SKCON Bar.I.galo_re. I
4. Inspite of having close assocliatiolnt ' from 2003 and continue of receiving _ . . A gifts,..,..,: Justice K.L.'M_anjunati: is still. hearing the above RFA 4'21/O9, for .re'asoinsfi7_ best known to
5. Morally and ethic'aiiy isxit
6. AS a honestVJudge to the high rep'uta'iion=:of Justice K..L.Man}unath, is he right injhearing this rnatterat all ??? Ycififdweiiigsashéf 'I The Chief Justice of India * and all iiipspther companion Judges. 2} V 'Hon~3u1*:abAie Chief Justice of Karnataka.
3. Honourable Justice Kumaraswarny, _ "~._High Court of V _ ,. iiarnataka.
Fourth Estate."
At 'T ._OnN1O.'7.2OO9 the following order was passed:
"The Matter was heard in part. After the case was adjourned, we have received a cover which contains two photographs said to have been sent by Jayapataka Swami Sisya Samuha. These photographs were taken when one of us Justice K.L.i\/Ianjunath had given a visit to ISKCON Temple, Bangalore somewhere in the year 2003. The photo contains a presentation of 92, -7- a picture of deity. Below the photograph it is stated as hereunder:
" 1. RFA 421/O9 is pending before Justice K.L.l\/lanjunath.
2. Parties in RFA 421/09 are ISKCON Mumbai iii". J" J Vs. ISKCON, Bangalore,
3. Above picture shows close associatiorioft' * " it _ Justice K.L.Manjunath and receiving g'ifts'~at"the g ~ J A premises of ISKCON Bangalore. '
4. Inspite of having close association V g from 2003 and continue of _rece_iVin_g gifts,«._.,v._.,: Justice K.L.l\/lanjuziath is:still"hearing the above RFA 421/09. for reasons 'best'
5. Morally and ethiciai-1§rit*--xjightf5'v_ 1 "
6. As a todcontinltie with the high refputgatioi"17o__f J'ustVic'e_K._LIMarijunath, is he right in of thisvvmatter at all C???
Your Well V' C_.C.: 1l.a"'i'he Honbie Chief Justice of India and pp . his other corripanion Judges.
J6 p Ejloriourabie {Chief Justice of Karnataka. Honourable Justice Kumaraswamy, High * [Court ofliarnataka.
" V J'-Counsel .Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy. Sri.Udaya Holla submits p. F-onrtl1.l'Estate."
-. .._'Th-esle Photographs were shown to the le.ar;i_ed Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Sri.Udaya Holla and learned Senior appearing for the respondent that his client has not dispatched the cover and there was no occasion to get the photo wherein Justice K.L.i\/lanjunath receiving a photo of deity from ISKCON, Bangalore since the dispute between ISKCON, Mumbai and ISKCON, Bangalore was there much earlier to Justice K.L.1VIan;'unath visiting the temple. He further submitted that he and his client have got gull fl:
3' /.9 _ 9 _.
Considering the contents in the cover with the photographs, We are of the opinion that it is a black--ma.il tactics adopted by the persons who are involved to avoid this Bench and to scandalize Justice K.L.Manjunath and bring down the reputation of this court. We are also of the opinion that what has happened to Justice K.L.Manjunath in this appeal shall not happen to other Brothers/Sisters Judges who have ' visited the temple as devotees. When_;"the " ;. photograph is taken by ESKCON, Bangalore in._' 2003, it is for them to explain how this .c9i..1_ld,be[ . sent in the name of opposite -p'ar'ty.p '.§'herefi;r'e, 9 both the parties are directed to filethje affida'vits.. X, g giving explanation. . ._ _v «. V _ Office is directed torlreep the cover and the Photo in safe custoC1Y- " . V _ Call this matter on i7*»..i7.'2o09."" -- Thereafter, the matter "posted ..i7n;§?..009. tjnfthe said date the'ffolloW"it§gv the court:
9 "'1'l1e'app_e11a'nt the respondent have filed their affidavitsf; Learned Seniois counsel appearingv for '*the'" respondent Mr.Mathai V, ._§M.Paikeday- requests the Court to grant a week's time tofile an'""a'dditiona1 affidavit looking into the iordergsheet of this court dated 10.7.2009 T "and that the respondent is yet to obtain the _""._pcertified copy of the order dated 10.7.2009. In ' V the cpireumstances, time is granted.
Matter is adjourned to 31.7.2009."
was posted to 31.7.2009. On that day at the request of the counsel for respondent No.1 the matter was adjourned to the following week and it was listed on 7.8.2009, on which date the following orders were made:
Per K.L.M, J: K; _ /4 ...10__ "This matter was heard in~part on 2.7.2009. Thereafter the matter was adjourned.
to 7.7 .2009. Subsequently the matter was listed ' ~, before this Court on 10.7.2009. After the ~ » was adjourned, on 2.7.2009 a cover was sent to_"- both of us. The details of which is narrated.uby.V:' . us in our order sheet dt.10.7.2.009--.and'_ thatldapy ' Sri.S.A.1\/Iaruthi Prasad, a Member of"i:h"C_B,a1*..'vv... clarified the circumstances under~._which'--photo "
was taken in ISKCON and the' nature of Gift [which is a photo of Lord--_K'rishna)' said to have been given to Justice;K.tL.Manj'unath' by ISKCON. Thereafter, we... _di.rec.ted b"0th_ the parties to file tithe _affidavitsp giving the explanation and the" rnatteiél }.avas._"lad3'ourned to 17.7.2009. -- I Agajn'gtp1_r_i_e rnattes was --.ad_i_o_urned, from 17.7.2009. at; the requ_Vest.__«-of.the respondent's counsel to_.-431 .7 .'200'9['.'- . A In ~ {the 7'; rn_eanwhile_, two letters are addressed V'ti)"-Justice"'wK.L.I\/ianjunath, one by Sri. She-khar 7 etty," ~ . 0 Advocate dt.24. 7. 2009 statir'rg_ that" Sri.V;Rarr1esh Babu, colleague of Sri.S.K.'V.Cha1apathy" ff had approached him to __appear for, one of the parties in RFA NQ;-42}/2009'"pertaining to ISKCON which is ' V. 3 pendin.g"b_efore_ this Court and that he refused to T "appear. in this case since the matter was pending bef0re..,_Jufs'iice K.L.Manjunath and the letter V "further I reads that even after the parties were '=dir.e'cte.d" in this case to file affidavit, he had approached and requested him to file Vakalath. Similarly, another letter is received by V' {Justice K.L.l\/ianjunath from Sri.S.V.Srinivasan. Advocate which discloses that Sr1.S.A.}_\/Iaruthi Prasad working as a colleague With Justice K.L.Manjunath and S.V.Sn'nivasan had approached Srinivasan requesting him to appear for ISKCON in the appeal pending before this Court and that he declined to appear for the party as requested by Sri.S.A.l\/Iaruthi Prasad. Though these two ietters were received by Q _11_ Justice K.L.Manjunath, on the last date of hearing on 31.7.2009 to avoid any unpleasantness these two letters were shown to Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy and these two letters were also shown to Sri.Udaya Holla. On perusal of these two letters, Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy requested us not to disclose the contents of this letters. Accordingly. on his request the mattelj'-W; ' was adjourned to this day.
Today Sri. S.K.V.Chalapathy in. l " .
presence of Sri.Ramesh Babu s.'.--1'b'm.itS that these two Advocates are denying __fofr having approached the two Advoc2,tes__ ''who'- _have_ "
addressed letters to Justice_'K.L.lVIanjunath.-- . . V' It may be noted at "stage thatlldustice K.L.1\/Ianjunath had worke_d'~..asx._g a junior _or Sri.Shekhar Shettyzirom I531 September 1974 to 10"' February 197'?" and froin:.ll'.--2Q;2QQ7 till his elevation Sri.S.V.Sriniv-asanwas_--~pr'ac'tici'ng with him and that Sri.M3I'uthi Prasad ;w,a;sVa junior colleague; "of_'-- Justice Manjunath and Sri.S.V.Sriniwasan;. W .
* the' the submissions of S_I'i.S.K.V Chalapathy""it is for Sri.Ramesh Babu 3 4andtiSri.1\/Iaz"-u_thi Prasad to file their affidavit. f:.List~._this matter on 11.8.2009 at 4.30 p.m. if Per::'C_,R.K:;;j,1araswamy,J V. the dictation of my brother, His "Lordship Sri.K.L.l\/Ianjunath. If a Judge is defarned in such a way as not to affect the V " :,adri:iinistration of justice he has the ordinary remedies for defamation. It is of fundamental V importance that justice should not only be done. but should manifestly and undoubtediy be seen to be done. Therefore in this background, post this matter before a Bench of which Justice C.R.Kumaraswamy is not a Member after obtaining necessary orders from the I-lon'ble Chief Justice.
L,/,i _12e In the circumstances, place this matter before the P§on'ble Chief Justice for necessary orders."
The matter was posted to l1.8.20O9p.W On that» theft '* request of the counsel for respondent l\lo.il,7 the matter :'w_aa_i if adjourned to 18.8.2009. In the-rneanwhile, iri"yi'e'sy_of orders dated '?.8.2009 the matte'r.:'was before the Hon'ble Chief Justice was directed that the matter be heard by Hon'ble Mr.Justice matter is posted before this f 2 . if f
7. Inflthe and particularly the orders made by this court period, Misc.Cvl. application has beeniifiled d:i..3§¢ha1f of respondent No.1 on 3.8.2009 to of objections have been filed. Before ¢;ms:;1er;;p.g ~vthe.:'sa"id application on merits, it is necessary to V by _ mention V-_abcu't the affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant do respondent No.1 pursuant to the directions of this court. On 16.7.2009 the appellant filed its affidavit stating that it has the fullest trust and confidence in the Judges hearing the appeal and that it had absolutely no objection
-13..
for the appeal continued to be heard by the same Bench. On 17.7 .2009 respondent No.1 filed its affidavit advertin_g..to..the newspaper reports dated 11.7.2009 with _ proceedings held on 10.7.2009 it statements made in the newspaper .-reports' is"- correct, .7 attributed to have been made.by.___l\/Irduslticeg would demonstrate his the first respondent, as the statements andddinivmensely tarnished the image of the The said affidavit including newspaper held on 10.7.2009.
Furthery asmgii filedmby gthewappellants on 30.7.2009 including: in response to which additional affid_avi.t rejoinder to the affidavit dated "v30.7..2:0Q9. was fi1ed"by"the appellant No.1 including certain mean while, the application under consideratioxddiated 3.8.2009 was filed, to which objections shave beeii: filed by the appellant on 7.8.2009 to which A ...lffe._Ajolinder affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1 on 18.8.2009.
9. 1n the said application dated 3.8.2009, while narrating about the order dated 10.7.2009 and as to what transpired .42 A ' 9 are as foll ws:
\ .. -. an Jr. M14- in the court on that day, by referring to para 9 of the affidavit dated 17.7.2009 it is stated that it is the practi.cee.of the first respondent to take photographs of _ festivals and visits by dignitaries to the temple:':'a.nd.::thosel0' photographs are displayed freely in reception and other waiting rooms a'n_d'.also displayedl'; on notice board in the first respoiid_ent_V ternpleiaccesisible to anyone. There is no' taking photographs by general public who are preseritllon-"those in the sanctum sanctorum is not prohibited.
Referringll or materials from the possessilonll of V with reference to the affidavit is also "made, Athe'~~fi1rther averments at para 6, 7, 8, _ However, on reading the Order dated
10.07.2009, any reasonable man can conclude that' the photographs enclosed are (only) from thegpossession of ISKCON Bangalore and that .. _ ISKCON Bangalore is resorting to blackmailing ' 'gand scandalizing His Lordship Mr.Justice ..=K.L.Manjunath and the envelope was sent by ISKCON Bangalore in the name of the opposite PaITY~
7. it may be recalled at this juncture, that in Paragraph 24 of my affidavit dated July 1'7, 2009, I have extracted reports appearing in the newspaper Deccan Herald on 11.31 July, 2009. The reports appeared in 'Deccan Herald' dated fin _15W July 11, 2009 quoted Justice Manjunath as extracted below:
'He said he used to visit the Temple as a devotee unit! 2003 and stopped thereafter due to several',_ doubts. "This should not happen to the innocent' devotees visiting temples he said.' Similar reports have appeared in P?raiatranig"
Indian Express, Times of Indi_a,~ I)NA.'City;'ATl'1eV" is Hinju, Kannada Prabha, Samyuktha;Karnata_kapV.__ etc. Copies of the news items'=.pu.biished~_inthe 20 aforesaid news papers were». produced'; collectively marked as i%ni1eXure*~I~i along my Afiidavit dated July l7l;"2_009.
8. It is most respectfully stdimitted, that any right~minded person' who {_reacis' aforesaid News Paper reports will reach a...conclu's;ion that Hon'ble Mn: Justice» K}L.Ma'njunath is biased against ISKQQN i~.':{anga.lore«.. entertaining serious doubtséand {opinion. against 'ESKCON Bangalore. That the iearnedJtidge-- .is_havi.ng a belief that ISKCOFE I3-an;galore'--arc' 'Blackrnai1ers' who adopt scu1'ri1--ou"s met.;hod's.gilor 'axfoiding the bench' and that p delVo_tees'<_should be beware of them. Obliviousiy of the temple is put at stake. " = It submitted, that the Appeal R.F'.,A.l\io.._ 421/2009, came up for Admission on ~ g "dunes L19, 22009 before 21 Bench presided over by Pion'ble ffill/Er.Justice K.L.l\/ianjunath and V "lstrangely,' the Appellants have moved at the time of admission itself, an application for eariy hearing of the R.F.A. It is submitted that Counsel for this Respondent did not oppose the by 9 'early hearing of the Appeal, and the matter came ' ' .to be listed for hearing immediately, on June 29, 2009 and intact, the counsel for Respondent No.1 waited for three full days prior to 02.07.2009 from morning till rising of the court for the matter to reach and the hearing actually commenced on Juiy 2, 2009 at about 4.00 p.m. and thereafter the regular Bench for hearing RFAS changed. I also state that on 10/07/2009, when the anonymous letter was shown to our ,9 _/ti.
sign.
counsel, he instantaneously submitted that the same be ignored and request this Hon'ble Court to proceed with hearing of the Appeal. These l . facts are narrated for the purpose of showing the" -V ' bona tides of the 13' Respondent and to the Appellants unfounded allegation of '-.chA--_V"»." ' hunting'. '
10. Thus on the facts and circuinstVa1<1_ces,* V 151 Respondent is havingihuf *'reasoné1.bie apprehension that ,Hon'bi'e Mr.JLi_stice' i K.L.l\/ianjunath is biased Aagairistf' _ t.l"iis. Respondent. it is my huiiible subrr:ission= that since the learned Judge___i_s'~pre:wdisposeC1 and having prejudices.as,stated abovefvhe is unable to act as a Judge inthis, Case'.'f "
Thus the two aspects heing for having an apprehension of against Mr. Justice__K:L.Manjunath are, the coiljvt/en--ts 'dated 107.2009 and the newspaper reportsxlcf .
4, _10. '5'.:.in__pAresvponse' t0___the said application a counter affidavit "beenv4'fi1:<-;C1h"'by the first appellant stating that the sole intentiondv the said application is to protract the g procefediiigsfx The same lacks bonafides that it is an "ggnstancevllof contempt of this court as any litigant cannot choose and judge and any such attempt must be crushed " a heavy hand. That initially an attempt was made to it connect this appeal with another appeal and the said request was rejected and with the consent of both sides when the ta W1'/'it matter was to be heard a courier which bore the address of the branch of the first appellant situated at Bangal.o_re<l'lisv stated to have been sent by the disciples of the tiff' . Thereafter an affidavit has been filed on it"
attempt that the matter is not he»ard::-ratiid d'ettieréeaftef-e._the;_at application has been filed specific further averred that there is a _thatflthe first respondent had taken Honble Judge when he had visited the of the order dated of bias on the part of the dated 10.7.2009 was dictated" _ vfldeponent of the said application!' and that sustenance cannot be drawn _ from lithe newspap'er reports to contend that the "Pres'i:dingA*-»}u'dge islbiased in the matter against respondent of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtby dated 29.4.2008 which was brought to the "notice lithe court, it was agreed between the parties that inatter would be heard at the stage of admission itself on '''.''account. of the urgency and by consent it was posted to u".2'9.6.2009. The matter was taken up at 3.20pm on 2.7.2009 and it was heard till the end of the day. That the allegations of bias made against the judge are false, 4';
.f")j/sh _ lg _ scandalous and contemptuous and the prayer sought by respondent No.1 is wholly untenable. if such prayers are allowed, then it would encourage the litigants in _' bench hunting and forum shopping and the . flooded with such applications. Therefore.--"tl1'e:fappellant..:it No.1 sought for dismissal of the saidl=.applica*tion..: it
11. In response, on i7.8.2oog,@-oiliaer' has the respondent stating that the dated 3.8.2009 was filed Justice C.R.Kumaraswarny__\zvitl\\EJ by his order dated dateldWi.0.7.2009 is opposed to the principles of 'j--u:stice and that there is absolutely no urgency lI;o'rV_hearing'v.the. appeal. On the said date the "If1atter:'w:.a»S takenlllupat about 4.00p.m and was heard for only; that the filing of application for recusal doeslelnoit amount to contempt of court; that the two 'letters pvurported to have been sent in the name of two A '~ namely Sri .She-khar Shetty and "."Srl;.S.V.Srinivasan in a bid to avoid Justice K.L.Manjunath hearing the appeal is probably on account of the involvement of the appellant who had earlier approached the counsel for first respondent, namely Sri.Maruti Prasad by 21» _ LAAAA writing a letter and including the Demand Draft requesting him to switch over his loyalty from ISKCON Bangalo1=F;_ to ISKCON Mumbai; that Sri.Ramesh Babu 8: Srt;lvEaifu:ti.A' Prasad, Advocates against whom the allegations"haVe"iaeen'"' ' made in the said two letters have denied' and therefore, re--iterated the avennents' prayerpnniadlsifi./_:
the application. _ V V _ V __
12. We have heard the learned 'Senior Countsel'lSri.} Mathai M.Pai Keday for the applicant/--'_resppo'ndenttNo.1 and learned Senior Counsel, for the respond_ent/ _ --
13. vSeni_orz_ "Co.iJnsel for the applicant has «. p_vsub3_ni:tted' that thoughflie applicant has not furnished proof ofulsioas--,_neverth.eless the application is based on what transpirevd the court and also on the newspaper reports.
'V While' narrating the facts, he drew our attention to the order if if V' 1d;J7.2009 and particularly the following portion of the
-- order and particularly to the last paragraph of page 5 of T "the said order namely the words "blackmail tactics adopted by the persons who are involved to avoid this Bench" and to the words "when the photograph is taken by ISIgC.'ON. W29"
Bangalore in 2003, it is for them to explain how this could be sent in the name of opposite party" which are the_4vcou.rt~'s conclusion of the probabilities. That the newspaper' _ and particularly the quotations in the said .r°ep*0r?£, b nanaelyvgr "he used to visit the temple as devotee until s'toppedVu h thereafter"..... "this should .7no__t happen. t::t)"l' other brother/ sister judges who are two aspects which give rise apprehension of bias. Therefore, according to__ iirajrervvanade in the application reference to the order of Mr: dated 7.8.2009 he stated He has also submitted that till 'date no sent to the court to the sender. of the 'co_u1'ier--. He has relied upon certain decision of V' "the i'lSpex,'Court whichshaii be adverted to. ,__l'VhPer_ learned Senior Counsel appearing for the l'appellantirespondent, in the application while adverting to "tlthel two aspects being the basis of bias drew our attention to l the fact that the order dated 10.7.2009 directed both the it parties to file affidavits giving explanation and therefore, there was no conclusion in the matter and neither was it a case of pre-judging the issue. He has also stated that the ab VVVV ._ does not hear the matter and such practices have to be curbed with a heavy hand, keeping in mind the dignity of the institution.
15. Referring to the affidavits filed, he submittedptthpatpinWV the first instance, the applicant did not speaksahoutfp:the*'...._l.' . photograph in question being stolen. Byut it has'b~e:'e_nlVstated so only in the rejoinder affidavit. The wavepring..stan'dl 'of'-ethe applicant shows the total lacIt:___ of .fi3.onafideesV,l'l' that thevl applicant had earlier filed a simillarilsuit before: the Bombay High Court which was disrnissec.iA andvfuthterefore, the applicant has been consio't.entl:3r in Forum Shopping and Bench hunting taetica. also stated that it is the prerogative 0ftl'fl1¢%Vl'IO.I'l'bllt-'. Chief Justice to allocate the work. file also ieferredvvltlollcertain decision of the Apex Court lwhitgh 'sh all.ppl:)e'VaV<i:Verted to. In" reply learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that it is not just the newspaper reports which is the ___"'basis of the application, but the affidavits also have to be llvtaken into consideration. Adverting to Annexure--1 dated 30.7.2009 it is stated that at an earlier point of time the head of the institution of Bangalore ISKCON was the _ 23 _ Chairman of Jaya Pataka Swamy Shishya Samuha but not presently. He further submitted that the reference made to the prerogative of the Chief Justice of the High Court to ailocate Work has no relevance in the matter.
17. Having heard the counsel on both sides ' perusal of the material on record, thefollowingflpoiiitls' if for our consideration:
1. Whether the prayer inade in the ought = if to be accepted? __ $2. If the answer "toil point the negative, whether the filing"0f:"sueh'»_anxVapplviclation amounts tofprinia conternptoflthis court.
18. V"rWe _ have pp detail the contents of the application'a.nd»the-_statenient of objections as well as the . porderspmade on varmuslstates. From the material on record, it apparexitthat the applicant has raised the plea of real on two aspects; namely) the order dated _p the newspaper reports. However, in the reply if learned Senior Counsel for the applicant stated C thatleven the contents of the affidavits have to be taken into if consideratiori and we shalt presently refer to the affidavits.
2» IIAAJA LLLAAA
19. Pursuant to the order dated 10.7.2009 both sides have filed affidavits. On 16.? .2009 the appellant has filed its affidavit stating that with regard to the courier sent toflthe Judges which bore the address of the branch appellant situated at Seshadripurarn, BangalQ_re;~--.,'extensive"<9 enquiries were made and that neither the 4in_appel1antp:n(jVrp any of his discipies had said the comrri1inicationg..Jigitis "stated ll that the appellants have the fullestitrust in the Hon'b1e Judges heaiingthe
20. In the affidé.vit.fi1e§d by' _t,'t1e~.app_lieanif fflI'St respondent, the proceedingsflof hahvelbeen referred to and on account of the "of the order dated 10.? .2009 not being yetlavaiialole.."liherty was sought to file a detailed .9 9. ''af£id'avi't.a._''it isalso averred that a similar cover with photos "=t151e;f_ to the Judges Was also received on first respondent, which was noticed by the ' deponenton 10.7.2009. The receipt of the similar cover was ._ " to the notice of their counsel; that the addressee of said courier is the 411" defendant in the original suit from lexwhich the appeal arises. However, at para 9 8: 10 of the affidavit it is stated as follows:
_.26a
21. While referring to the incidents of theft of docume_'n_ts,_ it is submitted that the appellant has the abi1i_ty;V.. to ~ material and information of the first_respondent" it"
means and using the same to prejudice"etiie first respondent. That the appellant also bee:en;flta.rgeting the persons who are present false-..ltallegat.ions so as to create prejudice and loring dis-
repute to respondent 24 and 25 of the afiidavit * .... C IV:'::t1brIii._t that these'glaring instances evvidencedlitby unwimpeachable documents clearly establishes' {a"c--~:_ "that it is not the 1st Respondent .pbu[te.thep_ "Appellant who has most probably" indulged "in"_;sending the said envelop with photos ethusattempting to scandalize and ,, .'_E3ring dis~repute to the judiciary as well as to the _ = l'5t2,_Respondent;' "" 'Tliis is a clear case of abuse of ' u _, processpof the Court and contempt of court. details of the incident that took place V in Court on 10«~7«~2.009 are reported in Various ''''--newspapers. The reports appearing in Deccan Herald and Prajavani issues of the newspapers . dated 11-72009 are extracted as follows: "He C "said he used to visit the temple as a devotee V until 2003 and stopped thereafter due to several doubts. This should not happen to the innocent devotees visiting temples. "Similar reports have appeared in the Prajavani, Indian Express, Times of India, DNA City, The Hindu, Kannada Prabha, Samyauktha Karnataka etc., Copies of the article published in the aforesaid newspapers are collectively produced herewih as Annexure-H series.
./,j W30"
appellant No.1. In the said affidavit while re-iterating the contents of the earlier affidavit dated 17.7.2009 and after receipt of certified copy of the order dated 10.7.2009, para 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 1'7, 19, 20, 27, 31 and 33 read as "-4. I submit that, it is stated in th6_.oi;de"r»l.' -1- dt 10.07.2009 passed by this I-Ion'b1e lC.our:t",=. 0' it that Sri S.A.1\/laruthi Prasad, advocate..'wh'o..,was'e. ' _ appearing for the Respondent No.1 in; the.tri«a_l, ' court, when interrogated by this :_Ho,ri'ble Court,' 'J admitted, that he was taking a__ll*the judges-to ISKCON Bangalore and '.__during_ those yjisit, photographs were being-ftaken =,I,S_V"._KCi',)N"l Bangalore. In this regard,most humbly and respectfully subrnit. , that, "the ._:F1espondent"-No. 1 , through Marathi ----..Prasad, ;Adv-oeate. _ had sent invitation to only two l~io.r1fble_ judges of this Court, namely... _ '--,I~ionTble"v. )l'».dr.Justice K.L.Man}ui1.ath_ gland ijI'o.n'.131e' Mr.Justice Chandraisheléégaraiah, [ad forrnenjudge of this court; "I s1._ibrr.i_t that__ apart frornithe above two Hon'bleJii._1dges,"' no 'm;.¢a*uon 'was sent through Sr} Maruthi "'1i?3r.£1sad.i-._inxriting the other Hon'ble Judges "tel',I.SK(?3,Ol'i.T, 4B«a.ngalore. g submit that on one such occasion, '*I::{t3-n'ble~ Mr Justice K L Manjunath was invited spec"ii,'1cally"'for a puja on one of the festival days "lalong'r.Wi'»'§h other respectable persons like our do.f:iors«,' sponsors, etc. On that day Plorrble Mr Justice K. L Manjunath participated in the puja ., _ arid' after the puja, as is the custom, he was 0 "«-invited to accept one of the souvenirs, a photo ..*frame of the temple deity, and prasadam. Souvenirs of the temple were given to all the invitees and Hon'ble Mr Justice K L Manjunath was one among them. At the time when the photo frame was presented, various other members of the public were also present including devotees in large numbers and the members of the public including devotees have taken photographs of the said presentation Q =/, M:-32..
R.F.A.No.421/2009 for the ends of Justice and good conscience.
XXXXX
12. Re Para 6 & 7: The averrnents in para 6, that I have filed some new_sp«aper*v..:"' cutting, which wrongly reported the proc_ee't1ings= dt.10.07.2009 and has sought. to draw"*false'i conclusion of bias against the judges"._are-fa1's.6, 9' V and the same are not adrnitted. i{.tiis significant to state here the admitted fact on record, tl_1?lt"C11 ' 10.7.2009, when the" _Hon'ble'v. Mr. *§justit'..em K.L.Manjunath passed "over. the co'ver'.= with photographs to Sri S.K.V.Chalap.athy, the Senior Counsel appearing~..for the 1?' Respondent, "the instant reaction ofS.;K.V';*Cl2alapathy, the Senior Advocate was, that:'he i2're_quested the court to ignore their-said. cover photographs and to proceed _:',furth~ei'w._hearing of the appeal." 3Thi;s"instantreaction ontiie part of the Learned Courisel fu;.,,,,the,_ l1?*l"Respondent clearly indicates 'iiheg full 'conii_dence, téfust and faith, the 15* Respc)jndenftl1ad.,.'for theWHon'ble court. The avpprehension, or t'he'.i=*'- -Respondent that the Hon'ble ..E__{."L,§!.-Ianjunatli is having bias and '*--prejudi'ce 'against the 13' Respondent has started onlypoin the 'reading of the newspaper on pg _{ 11.97.2009,. _wherein the said newspaper i.e. ~ 'Deccan Herald--arild Prajavani have attributed the statement published by them to the judge, that 9 "they '11-i'on"';:)1e Mr.Justice K.L.Manjunath was Vi'siting1SKCON temple of the 1st Respondent till 2003a_nd that his Lordship stopped visiting the te1:_jnp}e»'because of doubts. The starting point of apprehension on the part of the 18* Respondent, that the Hon'ble court is biased and prejudiced 00 llflpagainst the 1S'~ Respondent is due to the said Jstaternent attributed to the judge, which appeared in the newspapers on 11.07.2009. However on reading the Order dated 10.7.2009. a copy, of which was received by the 15* Respondent on 22.7.2009, which order also very clearly indicates that the Hon'ble Court without holding any enquiry and without giving proper opportunity to the 18* Respondent, has obviously come to the conclusion, that it is the 1*"
5% [7 . , ;on facts. "
M33...
Respondent who has sent the said letter and photographs in the name of the opposite party.
13. It may be further clarified at this stage ~u itself, that the 13* Respondent having expressed;..,__a' 5 _._ full confidence in the court on 10.7.2/009,V'vv cannot be attributed with the act of sending,the"
said letter and the photographs,' if the." 191"
respondent or somebody on: their' be«l3aLEf* _ , sent the photographs and: letter, the _ lst ~ A T Respondent through their Senior Advocate would have not instantly _eXpressed and reposing full faith and confidence in._th'e Court. The very fact that the Senior' Counsel for the Est Respondent had irilstantlyn requested, the conrt to ignore the said letter" and the photographs and to proceed to hear the 3r1atter_..further'__ itself is sufficient proof of their. i'nnccence"andvbonafides. It ffilay by sublnitted that the Deccan Herald ll"an4d"--.'P.raj'avani newspapers are rep1.1.ted"newspapcrand of..l,or_1g5 Standing and are k7.iown"foir _vthe:ir honest and accurate reporting. 'l'b,e staterrl:':'nt"of 'the«-- ..Appellant that the said reports are wro_ngand~on the said wrong reports, the LES? Respondent cannot allege bias against judges"etc'., are ansiistainable both in law and Para 10 & 11: I have explained in l"'idetail*he:*ein above that on one such occasion "~«...wh,_er1.,Hon'b1e Mr Justice K.L.l\/Ianjunath was invited specifically for a pnja on one of the festival days along with other respectable ~ in «persons like our donors, sponsors, etc. On that " ~_ day Hon'b1e Mr Justice K.L.Manjunath participated in the puja and after the puja, as is the custom, he was invited to accept one of the souvenirs, a photo frame of the temple deity, and prasadam. Souvenirs of the temple were given to all the invitees and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L.Manjunath was one among them. At the time when the photo frame was presented, various other members of the public were also /V» M34."
present including devotees in large numbers and the members of the public and devotees have taken photographs of the said presentation _ made. It is pertinent of state here that excepti". for the sanctum sanctorum of the temple where the main deity is situated, in all other places' 3 and especially during festivals, photography 5' ' freely permitted. it is significant to state,_here.. 9' that the Appellants with a malafide.'in'i:en'tion.. ' influenced and allured, over a'peri'od aofp lastnin:-g 1 ' years, the missionary devotees in»a.bout 2.0" in number to switch over their loyalties from ESKCON Bangalore to ISKCQN Mumbai andfpwvho are now actively associated "with the Ap.pe,_E_lants'.'"
It is submitted that such"=devotees"who have defected to ESKCO1-'~1..Mumtb'ai;. have givenihe photographs taken by them .o"n,_th_at.yoccasion to the Appellants, who _srnay_,have 'dispatched the same to this Hon'bAle_VCopurt_ in order' prejudice the cases of the _ Respondent. The Appellan:p£.Nci..si' admits" that" they have no knoWledge.__ *abfou°t._: _the_ averments made in Paragraplri 6.: and 7 oi"foiir"'aifidaVit. "19. " _3_e'--. 9"-ara~*'l 13: I submit that the _§ayer1nent" ~._hat Jayapataka Swami Shishya Samuha is ti'ie"'creation of Mr.l\/iadhu Pandit Dasa is absolutely false and baseless and hereby T' "vstc.iit1y"ic1eiiied. It is submitted that the said organizatien by name Jayapataka Swami A "aShishy'a Samuha has been in existence for last three-decades. It is false to state that it is the creation of Sri Madhu pandit Das. It is true to state here that Sri Madhu Pandit Das was once A «elected as the chairman of the said Samuha in ..the year 1983 or 84. Since the beginning of the theological dispute in 1999 with Jayapataka swami, Madhu Pandit Das has nothing to do with Jayapataka Swami Sishya Samuh. It is Significant to state that the said organization consists of thousands of disciples of Jayapataka Swami, Defendant No.4 in the suit. Several Disciples of Jayapataka Swami even reside in the address from which the Anonymous Letter _37m
26. In the context of biasifthe English Courts have that to disqualify a person from acting in a _ quasijudicial capacity on the ground oft' subject matter of the proceeding, realallikelih:o.od- .A must be shown not only .»i1'o_n1 the l"inate1'i'ais.:'_in ifact ascertained by the party compllainingyy other facts as he might readily:_h:a_ve verified in the course of his suspicions of whimsical, ca1:ii'icipti's =iunreasonable.Lpeople should not be made a action of the court. It might if rested or reasonable grou1'idsll'--.~\Vxllras V generated, but certainly mere flimsy. elusiye. lTiOIV'lIvldA 'suspicions should not be permitted to 'l V' forrna ground of de'cision.
~ .VI'n~.t'n.e"'case of Intemational Airport Authority of India 'iv/§.'i.r:.b.i§a1:(1§.I'R" 1988 so 1099} it is observed that it is not «V every suspicion held by a party which must lead to the it ii.Vconclusion that the authority hearing the proceedings is biased. The apprehension must be judged from a healthy, "reasonable and average point of View and not on mere apprehension of any Whimsical person. The reasonable ta, mggs apprehension, it may be noted, must be based on cogent materials.
28. In this context it would be of relevance to quote:.fr.oi"'a the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in--A4"t11e..eac§e'i ' R.Vishwanathan V/s. Abdul Wcgid (AiR...19e:3.'sc' '~i')ev§}h¢:f«:in,_V it "
it is stated as follows:
"The rate of law db_outju.diciaI'conduct is as strict as it is old. No judge can: be co:nsVidered to be competent to hear acdse in ajhic-3h.he..is.. directly or indirectly inte1_'ested. VAw;:j)roved-- interest in a judge not only 'dis'q:ialy'"ies"" him V '--ba.t__....:renders his judgmeiztv oi 'nutiity._' __«There_" yetanother rule of judicial conduct"wh"tch.bears upon the hearing of case, In, tF1(i:i'fi.,__ the._j'udVge' expected to be serene and eoenéhanded, 'even though his patience may be sorely tried and'*the-._t1me of the court appear to bewasted, based on the maxim which is often repeated" .trtat'justice should not only be done butV5h,oi--ildFbe"seen to be done. No litigant _{ should lea-u_e the court feeling reasonably that his tease was not'?-teard or considered on its merit. if he then justice, even though done in the ¢ase,,ra»;zs----:n the doing of it. " ' 29.3. Tfhesaid observations were made in the context of an :""e}.Eegation'.rnade in the said case about a friendship between Medappa, C.J., of this court and A.Wajid and Mannaji Rao. support of his allegation, Medappa, C.J. and Wajid were it great friends, Vishwanathan swore to a few affidavits. Some other affidavits were sworn before the Supreme Court when certain proceedings for a writ of prohibition were 9:-//g, W39- commenced. The Supreme Court considered as to whether Medappa, C.J., was so interested as to be disqualified..or_that he acted in a manner that his conduct in court _ of justice and answered that apart from the_--fac--t Wajid denied familiarity though Medappa, C.J., there were no.»i1istances of undue leaning in favour of the executors of the went on to show that what happer'1ed':in casewvasengineered by one Sri.Raju. as the letters of suggested.
According .farr1ily which did not know how ilto of a father, however obdurate,macteril__inT s'a}fié'i§§ay with the court. Their conductigun'-and gfroni_»the:""an:1ouncement of the Full Bench was calculaltedfto cexasperate and annoy any judge who held «..Ah1S-i.owr;~-treputation'"dear. According to the Supreme Court, the sons of Vishwanathan was studied and designed further their move for a different Bench. Ultima.te'ly,v the Supreme Court concluded that though A lvv£etda,ppa C.J., had heard and decided the probate case against the family, but that circumstance was not enough to Wdisquaiify him from sitting on a Bench to hear a case in which more evidence had been let in. As far as the allegations about the conduct of Balakrishnaiah, J.. was '%§,, _4oW concerned, there were allegations made in the affidavits stating that he had made hostile remarks against the ..e_as_e~.of Ramalingam while hearing the appeal with _ Pillai, J .. but the Supreme Court remarked: _- " -- "U every remark of a judge made fram the _BenCh " "
is to be construed as int,£t_cattng'.'pr'cjjudt(:e,'l- I. am afraid mostjudges will fatlto pass. __ the exa'c.ttrtg» test. In the course of arguments. juaig-este)q)re,ss opinions, tentatively for.rned,v--. even strongly; but that does not always 'mean that the case has been prejudgecl, Ar}: argument in court can never be effective the'~.judgesI~ do not somettmes_'point out *:.vhati.,."appears to be the underlying in --Vthe"<,appa.r€nt plausibility thereof, ancifjany tatvyer or«-litigant, who forms an apprehension on .th'aij.sccre,--, cannot be said to be reasonably iaoirngy "so'.-- * It has frequently been noticed .that the'objee'tion ofa Judge breaks down an a_closet,examination-and often enough, some judges ar:kr2o'1;vle.:lge. publicly that they were mistaken. 'Of'"«:iou:.rs"e,V if the Judge unreasonably obstrucr.ts"the'.flc.w"ef an argument or does not j allow it to be raised, it may be said that there has f been nofair' hearing. "
Onyltvheitizbasis of the above principles, the instant ",_app1icaftio;.n is considered. On a detailed consideration of the ":,l'rnate~:ia1 on record and aiso the submission made by the ' legamed Senior counsel for the appiicant/ respondent No.1, as 'already stated,the apprehension in the mind of the applicant with regard to Manjunath J, hearing the matter is based. on the order dated. 10.7.2009 and the newspaper reports of the .//« __.41__.
proceedings dated 10.7.2009. Apart from these two aspects ' we do not find any other detail mentioned either... application or in the affidavits to contend that _ should not hear the appeal. In facththe en.t"ir'e---:cjo.ntroversjQ7' has its genesis in the two learned Jiidgesnwho were he'a_I_ing. the appeal receiving a courier' c_ontairnTng pho'tographs _:janci questioning as to how Manjunalthn appeal. it is only on account on thehorder dated 10.77.2009 was passed 'andAA'»~t.hbe--V"proceedings of the said date: newspapers on 11.7.2009. of the controversy with sent the courier to the two learrledjudgesnl to obstruct the hearing of the appeal, onepthing t>"eCo'rnes clear, that is, but for the said ' W.coritroversia.1 courier"'which resulted in the order dated and the consequent reporting of the procleedingsiilofilthe said date in the various newspapers, the 'x_applicantj_had no other apprehension whatsoever. In fact on '~:l_"a_detai1ed examination of the material on record, we do not 0 find any other material which is stated to be the basis of bias 0' on the part of the Manjunath J, which may be a reason for him to recuse from hearing the appeal. In fact when the issue of the receipt of courier was raised by the Bench on 9:.
W42...
10.7.2009, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant immediately submitted that the same should be ignoredi.as respondent No.1 had full faith in the Bench _ appeal. Under the circumstances we fail to understand as to"
how the applicant can take advantage. of with regard to the courier seni',__to theltwo learned llulfiiglles hearing the appeal and the proceedpiiigs and the newspaper reportirgilpef lpzeoceedingllsl contend that Manjunathpptl, is applicant and therefore, he But for the controversy. sent to the learned Judgeshearirigp_voi;::3:§y1e had commenced even prior other point raised in the application ltznderp"consideration. If at all there was any in lthe~~~--n'iind of the applicant, the same could _ liaye' beeln .l"ex_pressed prior to the commencement of the appeal, 'once the arguments in the appeal commenced it is notproper on the part of any litigant or counsel to state A ffthat'--.court is biased against a particular party by relying on the order dated 10.7.2009 and the newspaper reports.
31. Learned Senior Counsel who argued the application repeatedly referred to the order dated 107.2009 and W44- the courier to the Judges. There is no conclusion of any issue in the matter and much less a conc1usio.n*-that ISKCON, Bangalore was responsible for sendingfthle _ in the name of the opposite party. eour"
considered View the contents of the order .dated .0 in no way be held to have-.__caused any .V»s'u'sp:icion; or apprehension in the mind of theV"0apxplicpant.'
32. As far as the newspaper reports'~.are[concerned,certain observations 10.7.2009 are reported. are quoted in the newspaper" be conlsiédered in isolation. The said quoted in the press have to be read in the"'~icor1teX*t of the order dated 10.7.2009. If on ~..learned"""Senior Counsel and other counsel appearing"fni* applicant expressed their confidence I the the matter and that applicant/ respondent No.1 not responsible for sending any cover with A photographers, we are unable to understand as to how the 0' newspaper reporting of certain observations of Manjunath J, "could have lead to any apprehension in the mind of the applicant. Under the circumstances we hold that the .2/r» ".45..
applicant has failed to make out a case in the application filed.
33. As We have already stated that but for _ regarding the courier received by the leamved*dindg€e3 Who"
were hearing the appeal, the same Zwoullddzhairep .d the usual course. We re--iterate-that when the ; to the notice of the counsel on bothilsidpes the receipt of the courier containing ~a_1i.d"'certainAAcomments. both sides openly reposedVilconiidence"-inBench and in fact the learned Counsel 'for.Vth'eva.p:plicant also stated that the' obiection or grievance to the Bench hearing that was the position as on 10.7.2009, nflailpto iinddcrstand as to how the order dated and thesubsequent newspaper reporting of the have lead to any apprehension in the mind of 'g_g34. Atthis stage it would be of relevance to refer to the A f_"eitati--ons relied upon on both sides. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has cited the it Wfollowing decisions:
_45m
35. The case of P.K.Ghosh & another Vs. J.G.Rajput reported in (1995) 6 sec 744 has been cited to J contend that the Apex Court noted in the said decision theta' _ Judge of the Gujrat High Court should not have hearing the contempt petition inspite of: .9 which was not an unreasonable -one onthe undisputed facts. , That if there be a basis cannot treated as unreasonabie for a to should not be heard by a particular» there is no compelling an alternative, it is appropriate recuse himself from the Bench in the said case were that a suspended by the Municipal Corpo_r_ation"'had ch'a11e:_1ge'd the said order of suspension and V. .:f3eth.na [sinceelevated as a Judge) appeared and had obtaineVd."oifVder of stay of the suspension. However, the co'ntempt.prcceedings were initiated against the Corporation since thley had not complied with an undertaking mentioned A of a compromise dated 28.2.1990. The said 9' contempt proceeding was registered as Misc.Cv1.Application W184} / 1993 which came up before a Division Bench of Gujrat High Court, one of whom was Mr.Justice B.J.Sethna and notice was issued returnable on 29.12.1993. When it came 91% if ._47..
up for hearing before the said Bench, objection was raised that it should not be heard by the said Bench because Mr.Justice B.J.Sethna had appeared as a counsel or; the first hearing. This request was not acceded to. the same objection was raised on 10.3.1994 but it On 18.3.1994 notice was issued and~enquiryi'proceedings, initiated against the complainant .we're ._ the order dated 18.3.1994 Spefcialp Lea"ve__ PetitiVon:..;vVas "filed ' it before the Supreme Court. In:the"said..pASpecial..Lea*}e it was opined that Sethna. J, :.iigi'v?é,.j heard the matter in the contempt p¢t«ition_:.""'lhs': case are quite differeritllfrorniithe present case, as the present application' «arises"op1iV_llaccoii'nt of the developments which have occurred p'durVi'ngA'the*"pendency of the appeal after the 'ff'~._ConiIrienceInent of"-~it«sV hearing and therefore while we to the Views expressed by the in the said decision, we find that the same cannot. applied in View of the facts of the present case. ' it In the case of State of West Bengal & Others Vs. if Wéhivananda Pathak 82. Others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 513, the facts were that six Assistant Computers had filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Inspector of m48m minimum wages, Inspector of Trade Unions, other Inspectors, Investigators, Supervisors etc., of Bengal Sub--ordinate Labour Service. The said xvliit' _ came up for hearing before Mr.Justice Ajit KL_1nia«1?. it (since retired}. The writ petition was__al1oWtei:l f that Assistant Computers be promoted' vvithit-effect 13.3.1980. The said direction alfiumber of affected employees filed appeal before the Division the Division Bench modified"'i:;the directing the authorities of promotion of the appelltanltii in accordance with law. it disposed the appeal. In compliance the sa*idn'iVrectior1 the State of West Bengal emp'l'o3*--ees. Two years later some of the earlier filed a writ petition filed another writpetition'praying for payment of arrears otlsalary and ',_a11ow'anc2es with effect from 13.3.1980 in "terms of the it '».:ijJi1dlg'rnent and order dated 218.2004' passed by Mr.Justice ' 'Ktimar Sen Gupta. The said writ petition was disposed and the said Judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court. One of the contentions raised was that Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta. J, who had expressed his views as a M49."
singie Judge in the first writ petition should not have sat» on the same Bench between the same parties though initiated on a subsequent writ petition. The question, thei'cfo1*e_-_'_in*a.3; whether Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta. J , could sit_o_nEthe' :1:):ivision"l S Bench to decide the appeal against;
the second Writ petition. After referring to bias the Apex Court held that not Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta. th'e"Sench in which the impugned .as_i__he had already expressed his apetition which was oyer ruled. himself from the Benched" theVWStupreiI1e Court made a distinctic-nilbetween.» of facts specifically relating to a party, "aga'i--.nst_ preconceptions or pre--dispositions general questions of law, policy or discretion. The tiniplication Ayplthat in the former case, a judge would dis» in the latter case, he may not. However, ',Heniphasis«:_on this decision by the applicant is on the tests for A .11' bias" namely "real likelihood of bias" or "reasonable suspicion <51; hias" on which de Smith in Judicial Review of "Administrative Action has explained that "reasonable suspicion test looks mainly to outward appearance while "real likelihood" test focuses on the court's own evaluation of '$50..
the probabilities. However, on account of the reasons that we have assigned while considering the application, we find that the said decision is not applicable to the fact.sVV_ic.f_:'ithe present case. _.
37. In the case of G.N.Nayak Vs. Goa Others reported in (200212 SCC :'?12',"it liham/Alt not every kind of bias which in law tollvitiatre _ It must be a prejudice whichV1s__ir1~ot founded reasonsland it actuated by se1f--intere,st--whet1*;er. "fpe'cuniarv "or .-personal. Since bias is consideredhtoybe' pé:Xte£ision of principles of naturai'lVju'stio§;f, Vi*1Or'I'1'1}c'l'I1 be a Judge in his own cause. 'li.tiganvtVtio~_succ'ess--ful1y impugn an action must establish rea,sonab_ie'*~"fpossibiiity of bias or prove ..Vcirc.uii1st.ances from -------- --Which the operation of influences affVecting.v'a'ifair:' assessment of the merits of the case can be ini'eri'ed. said case the facts related to the selection to a post of Professor of Marine Science in the University of Goa it that context, it was stated that it is not every kind of ' bias vwhich in law is taken to vitiate an act. If a senior officer expresses appreciation of the work of a junior in the confidential report, it would not amount to bias nor would it preclude that senior officer from being part of the 3 //fr
-51..
Departmental Promotion Committee to consider such junior officers along with others for promotion.
38. In the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of _
82. Others reported in (2007 (3) SCC 62, C4 W at Raipur had not shown any dis;inc1i.nation "C C matter although his brother was to heavy weight which according could not stand in the way judicialflxfunction impartially without fear of the said case was Sessions Judge before whom? elder brother of sitting father of one of the main a.cc'usged.l court was at the final stage and about 150 _:prio.s'ecu'tion: witnesses and all the defence " V'v.*I1tne.sses.A*-ewere examined and what remained to be done in the arguments and post the judgment, prayerlvltilhefore the Chattisgarh High Court for ltzjansferring the petition was rejected, against which, an filed before the Supreme Court. in the said ___"'l'deci;sion the Supreme Court opined that "A judicial offzlcer in it "V.tol1atever capacity he may be functioning has to act with the belief that he is not to be guided by any factor other than to ensure that he shall render a free and fair decision, which he f __ ...
according to his conscience is the right one on the basis of the materials placed before him. There can be no exceptions to this imperative, but at the same time there should not scope given to any person to go away with thefeeiing Judge was biased, however unfounded the irnpressiionprndy' _ be." In the above view, the Suprerne' 'f;ourt' ensure that justice is not only done, vi:-ut"also seen to be 'done ~_ and on the peculiar facts of the"'sa'1d case; despite sure that the Sessions Judge' x1§r0u1dt'ha*.teac'te_d in the true sense of a judicial officer, feit app'ro'1;3riate the case to some other Se_ss--ion-s Cour: bykznaking clear that the tr;:'nsfe'rA.. be construed as casting any aspersions on the'}e'arned"'Sessions Judge. We have taken note of thisbdecision andiiave acted accordingiy keeping in "V '~ 'mind"th.>e _obrservation--s« rnade therein. 39:. "tint of Rattan Lat Shanna Vs. Managing Comrnit'tee,h Dr.Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher »Secog1dcir~y School 32, Others reported in (1993) 4 sec 10,
-- the" test of bias has been indicated by stating that it is Wvirhether a reasonabie intelhgent man, fully apprised of ail the circumstances, would feel a serious apprehension of bias. In the said case reference has been made to several tee V ,k. ".i_..y iL's1't'\..5,.';-",g;,:'t_,,V,';'.'?' -53- English decisions and I-Ialsbury's Laws of England, 4*"
Edition, Vol.2 para 551.
40. Lastly, the order of the Supreme Court M in R.P.No.999/2009 in SLP (C) 5939/2009 was-cited drairsf our attention to the fact that even after.,the disrr_1pis--sa1V.Ct1:ie Special Leave Petition VVh€1'1V,'th"€ petii_ioner .¢x;5re;;.séa that one of the Judges was biasledjdtiringCthelihearing and in View of the said appreherisiton 'p_etiti--oner, theudismissai of Special Leave Petition matter was directed to be plaizedbeiioreg for consideration.
We have aisiofl 'order of the Supreme Court V
41. Learned' "for the respondent in the application" has cited fo_1.iowing decisions:
42. pin the "ea_se=ot' M'.Y.Sharee_f 82. another Vs. Hon'bie C' iaf the Nalglgpfifdfligh Court and Others reported in 'I is with regard to an application for the traiisier of'ttie'l::case from the Bench hearing it to another '<.BenchA1':he High Court on the basis that the observations A .,:C.andC"i*eference to the Supreme Court by Rao 8: Deo JJ, C created bonafide belief in the app}.icant's mind that they were 45,, _. ..
prejudiced against him and had made up their minds and indicated that he shall have to go in appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court held that the application for constituted contempt because the Judges . with a View to divert justice, the twomadvoca'te's----té\;*l1o"e.signea:1l' and prosecuted the applicatior1:i.__we_reffotlndl contempt. The Supreme Court held that wl*lenv:4_the1f:e is conflict between an obligation olfl'a;co_unsel'to:lthe cioutt and his duty to the client, the forrnerxixiiiich prevails in the following words,_ "when applications or pleadings contairliintjg matter" the court without reasonalalpl _:tJce_'n1selilesl about the prima facie existence. ofeaclequateglrorln.:ls--~therefor, with a view to prevent or delay the V_lCO!i1".S€'A"{)_fll"_]:Il.LStiC€', are themselves guilty of ()f«.courtllartd'that it is no duty of a counsel to his interest in such applications; on the other hantit is to advise his client for refraining from _ H making lallelgations of this nature in such applications it " x4'3~;e.__ Invlthe case of Radha Mohan La! Vs. Rajasthan High .' (Jaipur Bench) reported in (2003) 3 sec 427 it is "held that the initiation of proceedings for contempt of court was on the basis of the averments made in para 4 of the 1;-.=.,_;1.;».;a:"=g,,e=,2,(.i:--l,.*;:a1:u _ 55 _ application dated 18.9.1991 made before a learned single Judge of the said court in a Civil Revision petition which 'was listed before the learned judge. The applicant u some observations made by the learned Judge in the course of hearing argurnentjledto fialzpout s'en«ior"; citizens representing to the Chief Jul'stiee_tl1at petition ~. heard by some other Judge. lthelllinatter 11 came up for hearing before the.1learned"-single'judge: the fact of representation havinglbeg-.:n Chief Justice was given out and led application dated 18.9.1991. to initiation of proceecliil1gs"r1:'r::3V5;f_v of and the finding of contempt. and .andp:Apltt:1ishment on the appellants as well as his advocate. A"v'_lT"he"ilsame was challenged before the «.._Sup'rem;e.r.:C0urt, lwhicliupheld the Judgment but accepted apology of appellant and set aside the punishment of siinple imprisonment and also the fine imposed on him. lwy_pHoweverl,}_the Supreme Court held that the liberty of free {expression cannot be equated or confused with a licence to ' make unfounded and irresponsible allegations against the 1' Wjudiciary as the effect is lowering of the dignity and authority of the court and an affront to the majesty of justice. Referring to the case of Shamsher Singh Bedi Vs. Hglgh & fr _55_ Court of Punjab 82. Haryana reported in [1996] 7 SCC 99 the court held that an advocate cannot escape his responsibility for drafting a scandalous notieenfi-o"'*.Va Magistrate on the ground that he did so in ' capacity. An advocate is not mereiyan agent ior't';m*vgni it his client. he is an officer of the:":co13'_rt;~ He towards the court. There ca1i_b'-eznothing more seri<ox--rthan ' an act of an advocate if it tends to impede,_ obistmct or prevent the administra,ti0_nrofj ;I.aw.f; it destroys the confidence of the people in
44. Refererme 3:A::illZ{1S'vI:I1aC,k$. to; .decision in the case of M.B.Sa.nghi of Punjab 82. Haryana reported "in 600 wherein it is said that "the tendency. of the reputation of judicial officers by .désgrt:ntle.d.4eiements who fail to secure the desired order is and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And; wiien-id member of the profession resorts to such cheap jgimniieks: with a view to browbeating the Judge into 'tsluisniission, it is all the more painful. When there is a wcieliberate attempt to scandaiise which would shake the confidence of the titigant public in the system the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the Judge concerned but also to the fair name of the judiciary. flit/g/3 mall-.;..e -.z a V _ ,. , .e, »
-57..
........ .. Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of not only the Judge concerned but the entire institution. ....... .. It is high time that we realise thqtlma-eh cherished judicial independence has to be protected' 'hot _ from the executive or the legislature but dlso_frorti::' «wholl are an integral part of the system I
45. In the case of Chetak = L' Prakash 82. Others reported yinV:fii.998) 4.'SCC_5?f§7 it was stated that no lawyer or shcsaldlllvbel'permitted to brow beat the court orvmal§.gn*theV?resid.iv11gx:lT)flicer to obtain favourable' orders. .71 and litigants cannot be aflowedlto l"«terroriZef_'~.or<..'%ir;.tir;1idate" Judges with a View to "secure? orders," whichhtheyhwant and that any attempt made ~._on of thefllitigant to go "forum shopping" or to have "'.'forum" must be crashed with the heavy handl at the same time it was stated that Judges 'hnmust impartially referees and decide cases objectively V' lffuAn'ilnfl.uenced by any personal bias or prejudice. In the said ' 'learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ll "having been appraised of the facts and circumstances of the case did not Continue to hear the appeal but while technically recusing himself had made certain comments so
-1 6 rev .1. . .:',¢:u'..'a I . d".k?U,.' m_58W as to give vent to his feelings. The question arose before the Supreme Court as to whether the learned sing1_eg;ii.idge should have continued to hear the appeal or recriisel . While referring to the said comments at .pai'aE;'.OV"vo§'«.flied' Judgment, the Supreme Court he}d.14that,it learned Judge to hold an eriqui-iy intovthe talte appropriate action. It is reievanttoystate instant case in the order dated la' l.,3i1Qi¢ct.ion vrasltvissued to both the parties to file the sending of the courier comments to the Judges has been no pre--
judging or coiicviusidn in g the matter.
46. the t"'»..iH.Subbarao Vs. Southern Petrocfv1emicat$.VVI:1dtgsfries Corporation Limited & ;g_reportecAil"izi------AH{ 2002 Andhra Pradesh 183 the tfacts" the matter was heard by the Bench in the foienoon again the case was taken up at 2.i5p.m. At lthat lti.rrile«.._ counsel for the appellant stated that the writ it lfpetiti«on be posted before some other Bench since one of the ' iearned Judges on the Bench (Dr.A.R.Lakshmanan, J. as he "then was) had taken a View that the Writ petition against Southern Petrochemicals was not maintainabie, as it was 1" .,l a. '.,,'£3' 5' . 5 *1'-J.,) :' 2 1.2 U U Z' M 59 V'WVn neither an instrumentality nor an authority of the State. While directing the Registry to place the matter 'before another Bench the court opined as follows: V "It is unfortunate ...th_at _~'sucii..f» la' representation was made by the learned counsel ' forthe appellant/ petitioner sli-nce["or;e ofusdhas taken the View while decidingland'-identicalcase ' against the very spme Corporation as ea Judge-.QfV Madras High Court. is. settled *1a._w that counsel and parties cannot-,choose'tl<1e Bench and Bench hunti:ig.V_is d.-eprec.ated-..._ We are Very much disturbed in regard to tknemrepresentation made. We are thereforegnot _.i.ncV1_ined_ to hear this matter,.'_' _ u
47. Two decisi;-ns .reported"'V.'l"I'993} 3 sec 151 (s.A.Kzig};}id' Lai"8);' another) and (2004) 3 sec 363 union of India 3;, Others) have beencited to newspaper reports, being only 'St'v.hearsay_---,evidence "cannot be relied upon for initiating and that it is too much to attribute authenticity:'i_ credibility to any information or the fact lgumerely. because it found publication in a newspaper or fj;oui'nal or magazine or any other form of communication as ' though it is gospel truth. Reliance is placed on the said "decision is in the context of the applicant attempting to make out a case of bias on the basis of the newspaper reports dated 11.7.2009 with regard to the proceedings held 'V77! 69 V'WW on 10.7.2009. Though the deponent was present in court on 10.7.2009 when certain observations had been made by Manjunath J, {which fact is evident from his affidavitfetiie applicant did not perceive any suspicion of V' observations made by the 1earne.d>*"J.1.1dge_" 'i')2.009'..., However, what is stated in the reporting of the said observationsin the press had~._:given':rise * C to an apprehension in the min_d.VVof..thep applicant there was bias on the part of _
48. Two other decisions reportediin-"{1v9Q_8,) .1 sec 1 (State of Rajgistfidrt 82. Others] and (2001) 2 KLJ 1 tifitate of Others Vs. B.Krishna Bhat
82. Others} reg.ard"v.tof"the administrative powers of Chief '0 0' vtlustice :_i-so constitute"'Benches providing roster and transfer _fcase'sc.h'ave.."beei3" cited in the context of the order dated by the Hon'b1e Chief Justice on the administrative side directing that the matter be posted before A ffierach headed by Manjunath J. We do not have any View ' contrary to what has been stated in the said decisions. 0 HHHowever, despite the allocation of work by the Chief Justice of a court it is the prerogative of the concerned Judge to recuse himself from hearing the matter if the facts and _ 61 _ circumstances present a situation which necessitates a Judge from recusing himseif in a matter. Therefore, While it is the duty of a judge to dispose of the cases a11ocat_edV'Vby*VtheV. Chief Justice of a court, the propriety not to lies with the concerned Judge.
49. The reasons we have assigned on"th~e issue of supported by the decisions and keeping the precedents cited on both sides, vuvveibare of' view that the application being "~--.*.I"1P.br"i't._ deserves to be dismissed. If the appellant fullthe Bench, we fail to totivihy thewappellant would have sent the courier J, not to hear the matter. If the res_pond'ent"a1sVQ--_ had Vfutll faith in the Bench, then we fail * to understand asttttohow the respondent would have sent the of the appellant. The truth however, has by a thorough investigation. We therefore cannot aiiovv the matter to rest.
this stage it would be pertinent to refer to two letters dated 15.7.2009 and 24.7.2009 Written by Sri.S.V.Srtnivasan and Sri.S.Shekar Shetty, Advocates and received by the Private Secretary of Manjunath J., at his
-62..
chambers in the court. On reading of the said letters, it gives an impression that the applicant/respondent]"No.1 herein have tried to get the authors of the sai.d~..l.ette_rs' appear on its behalf. It is a matter of record;.._v'ic_1.e lo1'der:
dated 7.8.2009 that the authorsrhofl thesaidi' 'ivereV« erstwhile senior and colleague respectively to :lviar1jttna'th"J.l'-- The said letters state that Sri;'S...}&..Maruti._l1'ras'adt;ifldvocate V and Sri.V.Ramesh Bahia;..AdV0c'ate'V...hade-approached: them to appear in this appeal to do so.
Under the circ.vu.m&staI1cef:.='sl the submission made by ::Senior Counsel for the app1ica.ntl'lo'n~:..f?v said two advocates had denied authors of the said letters addressed to 'M.a1':guAi1atl*i" J. a direction. was given to * Prasad"and V.Ramesh Babu, Advocates to file collecting the copies of the said letters in thelcourtl itself. But, the said letters were not received begin the. hall. However, on 18.8.2009 a memo filed if lffseeliing a direction to the Registry to furnish a copy of the ' letter written. by the two advocates so as to file the affidavit. m"Il'll1e fact remains that there is no affidavit filed by the concerned advocates.
W53W
51. It would not be out of context to mention the roie of a Judge in an Advesarial System of Administration of Justice.
It is said that the Judge is nothing but the law speel{itig"e:'2uaid a good Judge conceives quickly, judges slowly. of the Judge to enquire not only into 'tile .ma%j'ter.,ll< itiLo[the.. circumstances of the matter. A Jii«dge__fiiust"i3_ear that when he tries a case he is._li1mse1t'on trial he * V put on his robes, he put off his.r'elation to any: lffhen the Judges are put in an .'£AOlc.'lFC1:':,"Vl;1'itE1;iVL"jli'S!;iCrto is "also in "an ivory toviter; It would also-be re'lev2;trit.Vf_'fI3t: Rose E.Bird. American Jurist a;iid_.Chief ;.lustice,i. Clalifornia State Supreme Court Vxthi) lvsai'-:,l;riV1'i i978; V To Sorrielextertt the questioning of the eourts 'simply'*paf't of the increased attention V. that has been paid to all our institutiorls over the ., {past several What concerns me is that the focus .of~this questioning of the courts seems» to be T rtot'»_on"m_at--ters of substance but rather on points of prejudtee and personal pique. A judge's V ' integrllLy;i"fatrness, temperament and knowledge off law are all pertinent areas for public inquiry. However, what is happening instead is .. that judges are being perceived as easy targets "and are being portrayed in a manner calculated to Create prejudice in the public mind. "
it If thelforum of the judicial process is allowed to mount scurrilous attack on a judge, the t;uest.ioi'i arises whether the forum of the judicial process of viiification of the juclges or M64w imputations to the judges in the pleadings presented to the court would give liberty of freedom of expression_l'-.t_:o@_an advocate or a litigant.
53. The above question was raised in the lcauseifof in "Re Dr.D.C.Saxena and Dr. D.C.Saxenci§ lllfilionterrinori'f,lio'ny'vble' the Chief Justice of India reported in SC 1, a case which called to strike 'ajlbalance'betwe'ennV"freeldom of of speech and contempt, the forrnel';bein'g..a salz'i'tory"Vright in a liberal democratic Court upheld the freedom of expression as one of basic conditions for the progressmof' thelldevelopment of every man including the leglala'i1*ater_nitypracticing the profession of law. According to the slupi+_em--é' Court. the advocate or the party appeiaring .__in pe'rs--on',' therefore, is given the liberty of V they equally owe countervailing duty to n1aii1tain*"fdis_;'nity. decorum and order in the court proceedings or judicial process. The liberty of free A » expifiession is not to be confounded or confused with licence to inake unfounded allegations against any institution, much do less the judiciary. The court further held as follows:
"....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, 1% M65- he cannot have a free licence to indulge in writing in the pleadings the scurriious accusations 7o_r';_ scandalisation against the Judge or the court} to the reputation and dignity of the Judge;'-iigho 'A ;_. decides the case are allowed to be prescribed 'in the pleadings, the respect for the co_u_r't=,wouEd quickly disappear and ir_Ldep_ende'-nce " of the; judiciary would be a thing of the past.*"_ -I 'A i -
54. The court further said""t_hat the reauire a degree of detachment o'i>je'c'ti'vvi:ty judicial'dispensation, they being duty bound vvith taken by them in adjudicatinglthe the court. The objectivity obtained if the judges have shoulders for fear of harassmeiit ht irresponsible demands for prosecutio:1j_'_,' to refrain from discharging their upe.ndingV" iiirtheré action.
of in Re: S.Mu1gaokar reported in AIR 1973 so 72% his Lordship Krishna Iyer, J., in his divergent :"view_ and in his inimrriitable style has given the broad guidelines based on precedentially validated judicial norms ...i.nE the matter of the courts' jurisdiction to initiate it proceedings for contempt suo rnotu, fie held that after evaluating the totality of factors, if the court considers the attack on the judge or the judges scurrilous, offensive, .__fi;/-t aggw 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 challengeps.y:the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling stream.
56. In the said opinion reference was -made"to"3. decision Queen V/s Gray (1900) 2 Ai31).._i36)V'to. ldistiriguish._Vbief;;veeri.ii; any act done or writing published,-sj_calculat_ed bring a court or a judge of the~--..cburt'&.iint_oiclcinteinpt, or to lower his authority whichis a classs:.of.co--nt:ernp't ofcourt and any act done publishecfcalciilated to obstruct or interfere with due' or the lawful process of the courts which is another ciass of contempt. The former class «--._Abe1or1gsA--.ito«the category of scandalizing a court or a judge. Aniotheit.flistinction has been accepted in the case of fiublication Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra I SO 221)where it is said that the distinction made A between a mere libel or defamation of a judge and what amounts to a contempt of the court. According to the "Supreme Court, the test in each case would be whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it is calculated to interfere with the due _w""';, i...67M course of justice or the proper administration of law by this court. It is only in the latter case that it will be punishable as contempt. Alternatively, the test will be wrong is done to the judge personally or to public. The publication of a disparaging' stat.eni1fent will injury to the public if it tendsto createan appreliensi-onviin the minds of the people regaidiiig the"i.ntegrity,7_ahility or fairness of the judge to'.v'ldlete.r:'alctua1 and prospective litigants from placing the court's administration..:fQf-. likely to cause embarassnient"--.in"the l'lthe.« Judge himself in the discharge of judicia.,lv.d.utie_s.-- 5'7. V'According~tfo,,the S1.1pT¢In€ Court, it is open to any one to expressfaixg. reaso11at;1,e'j'and legitimate criticism of any act orv_~c3ondjAur:t of a"'}'I,1__d_g€ in his judicial capacity or even to ' make a 'proper__ and fair comment on any decision given by hirn.ibeca:1"se"justice is not a cloistered virtue and she must be l.alloiiéred'to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though H out.sp0vl§en, comments of ordinary rnen." However, that does not 'mean that a litigant or a member of a public can wrongly l assume that he is privileged to say that he can say anything against a judge. The judges are expected to perf rm their ./ sage duties in accordance with law, but they cannot be maligned for that protection must be extended to them so that"=are able to function fearlessly.
58. In this context, it is relevant t:o'erefei'.._to. :the"l:§ase'i1rof CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UN1oN___oF lmriim, ;.~'¢';'5.:»i~t..:s;:1Hi:ti1 Ainslie» 1988 SC 107, wherein Ia petition"«v'srasVVfiled."bit eitperienced advocate of the Supretne'-- a public interest litigation whichAV_accordi_n;;l5,' couched in unsavoury intentihonallattempt to indulge in mudslingingl Supreme Court and also ojfliéf At one place in the writ petition ; « the b lieged that-
"Thus the, working of the judges are cocktail bbasedp on Western Common Laws and American techniques, as such unproductive and outdated _ a:ccorcl'ing"- to socioeconomic conditions of the \ CC!ii1.i7U.f '
-. one another place, the petitioner has ..st'a_ted that.'-
V " "This Court has become a constitutional liability without having control over the illegal acts of the Government ........ .. Thus the people for whom the Constitution is meant have now turned down their faces against it which is a disillusionment for fear that justice is a will of the wisp."
Yet at another place the petitioner has stated that this Court is sleeping over the issues like Kumbhkarna' .......... . . *7 ;
w'''°"' a/" ' W 59 ..
The Supreme Court held that piirna facie the petition had been drawn up with a designed purpose of bringing the Court into contempt and also expressed its surprise advocate with a considerable experience had chosen to * such an irresponsible manner and_.d.ire-cteclhtthe' to draw up an appropriate contempt pjifoceeding~ Contempt of Courts Act. _ . V _ --
59. At this stage it is pertine'i1t_"'i:o men"tion"that}after the conclusion of the arguii1entst'tto_1i s..ihp§'i'-instantttt application Manjunath. J, mentioned on receipt of the J, met the Hon'ble Chief Justice and shpvved.ljlthecontents of the courier and at the said metetingtlx/1'anj'vunath.J, categorically expressed that .---.,._he not hear""'the appeal and the matter be posted p_bet'oI"'c_ Bench. But the Hon'ble Chief Justice stated thattthe said Bench oniy would have to hear the tx_pappeai~. However, Manjunath. J. informed his Lordship A i~lf"CAhief.Justice that he was not inclined to hear the appeal on ' merits but that the matter has to be investigated and hence it matter was posted for that purpose and the order dated 10.7.2009 was passed in that regard. Thereafter in view of the orders dated 7.8.2009, the matter was placed tgpfore the § 3:' {E 1'_,./ )4"
.,.w'"
-71..
were present in court did not understand and realise the implication of the observations made by Manjunath..tJ"-..after /g the conclusion of the arguments on both not inclined to hear the appeals' "
opportunity, the applicant had to unfortunately "wise counse1"5did stage.
61. After the concitlsion l'ofi'»lithép-luyafiatguments on the application, he had stopped visiting he' having a feeling of devoti.-on,_Alconslitlerirrgjl' the deities are quite different the: temples in South India and that this "'*fact and in particular it was suggested to lSri,lS.A.BlIaruti Prasad, Advocate, who was court that this was the reason why he had temple since the year 2003 and which was"'-alsolkntiwn to him and the same was admitted by Sri. Vlpp."it{[at'uti Frasad, Advocate in court on 10.7.2009. But the . 0' newspapers had reported as follows:
"He said he used to visit the temple as a devotee until it 2003 and stopped thereafter due to several doubts, this should not happen to the innocent devotees visiting temples."
it ,5' -72- Though the reason for not visiting the temples since 2003 was clarified with Sri.i\/Iaruti Prasad, Advocate, even then the applicant and their counsel did not realise that--___ the newspaper reporting of the proceedings dated could not have been the basis of the applications':
62. As far as the role of the advocates of the» this case is concerned, from the order apparent that Sri.S.K.V.Cha1apathi, iearfied for the applicant submitted and had fuil confidence in the and "were not responsihie the hoover with photographs.
Sri.S.A.iVIaruthi* for the applicant had admitted that g_Vpri.o,1--' 2003, on three occasions on his 2\/AEanjtina'ti1;J, had visited the temple and he that he alone was taking Judges to ISi(_C0N,.'Ba:1galore on festivai days. He also admitted that 'quwhat was; given as a gift was a photo of lord Krishna in a A e~:i'w:ooden frame in a presentation cover and no Valuable gift ' had been given by ISKCON, Bangalore and that whenever hiluudges had visited ISKCON, Bangalore, photographs had been taken and all the photographs were with ISKCON, Bangalore. Though on i0.'7.2009 learned Senior Counsel for 35 Z .9/"7';¢ m73m the applicant stated that the applicant had full confidence in the court and is recorded in the order dated 1037,2009, nevertheless the instant application has been pursued.
63. From the entire material on record what._.W_ev.pe:iiceive is"
a concerted effort made by their advocates to see thatpathe appeal is heard lb;/'Vii Manjunath. J. Though we do say anythifigat stage about the persons involved courier to the Judges hearing the appeal,~l.3lr'eetl lthle9Vfol.loWAifng_ lflacts have to be re-iterated: "When the issue of the courier receivecibv the 'ii.ea;fi:ng the appeal, both the learned Senior _v Counsel .Sr'fii..iAJc_layal Holla for the appellants and " ,S1'i;Sf'K.fJ;Cha1apathi*for the respondent No.1 submitted that hald.confidence and faith in the Bench hearing the the order dated 10.7.2009, it is also clear that l V _Sri.S.:1i.i\i&aruti Prasad, Advocate instructing A » ll' S~..K.V.Cha1apathi, Senior Counsei, for the appiicant/respondent No.1, categorically admitted that it at his instance, Manjunath. J, had visited ISKCON Bangalore and that a picture of Lord Krishna was presented to him sometime in the year 2003 had at that time, the m.'7.z_}_ photographs had been taken. Since the courier had been sent in the name of the appellant, both parties were directed to file affidavits and give explanation and the matter was adjourned to 31.7.2009 and later to 7.8.2009. interregnum, Manjunath J , received two letters Sri.S.Shekar Shetty, Advocate and l Advocate. In order to avoid any unplealsantrieiss,V._tiieseltwo} letters were shown to Sri.S.K._V.Chal.ap*athi an.dSri.U'da"yaVWp Holla, Senior Counsel on bothllsides andas request made by S1i.S.K.V.C1ialapat.hil ' Couvnselv not to disclose the contents of thei.'Ietter:,l the..irrart:er'_.was adjourned from H31i.7i;2io_o9 73. :ff_'v7.s.2oo9. On 7.8.2009 Sri.S.K.l'/2Chalapathijg' "Counsel in the presence of Sri.R8TI,1esh .andA':31'if:Maruti Prasad, Advocates. denied 'JV'«../the-iclontentsx of tl'1e""Ietters. Hence Sri.Ramesh Babu and '*9'raéad,"--.. Advocates were directed to file their affidavits, till the hearing of this application, the said 'x_paffidavits";.had not been filed. instead, a memo was filed A a direction to the Registry to furnish a copy of the l letter written by the two advocates to file an ailidavit. '4 Therefore, the said two advocates have intentionally avoided filing their affidavits. There are no reasons for Sri.Shekar Shetiy and Sri.S.V.Srinivasan, Advocates who have fiut in 5/!' #' _ 75 IIIIAAA practice of about fifty years and forty years as advocates respectively to address such letters. These are the on!-y__ two advocates who are disabled to appear in the ef Manjunatlid. There is no contra material placedvsolasl V' dis-believe the contents of these tWo~>le.ttersT:' it having stated that respondent No.21 had"
the court, nevertheless has an applicatiofi'..§n:..3;8.2'OO9. " V But from the order dated and "the ahsence of affidavits of Sri.Ramesh= xBabt1 an-:1 it "E':ri_.:pSd;A._l\/laruti Prasad. Advocates, we prima facie. applicant and counsel for they ap£pili_can't« have leftfno stone unturned so as to avoid Manjunath. J. ilhe filing of the appli'cation.'ls:V' proverbial last straw on the camel's_ baci: aticl "final attempt made by the "ll'vapp-iicant/respondent""No.1 to somehow ensure that the heard by Manjunath. J. Further the lengthy argumentslrnade on the application by the learned Senior "._ppCounselV"iTor the applicant and no attempt being made to A fwithldifaw the said application, even after Manjunath. J, l clarifying in the open court that he had already mentioned to it the I-Ion'b1e Chief Justice that in View of the receipt of the courier and its contents, he was not inclined to hear the appeal, is nothing but a concerted effort made by the _']6,., applicant/respondent No.1 and the learned counsel to ensure that the case is not heard by Manjuanth. View this is nothing but an aspect of "bench _ adopted by the applicant so as to avoid Manjunafih. hearing the appeal which is nothing buitnfjoruayni 4s_hoppin_gT"' ingenuity earlier adopted by the applicant/respioindgeznt before the Mumbai High Court';'..:_V'l'lf_ learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 clients i.e., respondent NQ:1 court hearing the appeal, We how the controversy surrounding the Judges hearing the appeal, "ll0'.7.2009 and the newspaper reporting in0aitsv_Vovm'.'--wa'y proceedings of 10.7 .2009, could «..havver°16:_dVA to the"applicant/respondent No.1 having a p_suspicio11_:'tthatV TD/lanjunath. J, was biased against the applicant; . Q p_ it well settled that any interference with the Judge . 'in_dthe'« discharge of his duties or in relation to his judicial ..fL:r1ctioniI1g amounts to contempt. In fact. interference with V the administration of justice can take different forms. The importance of non--interference in judges' discharge of duties is expressly stated in Article 211 of Constitution of India. It W77- states that no discussion can take place in the legislature of a State with respect to the conduct of any Judge the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge»:oflfhhist. duties. In the context of litigants and lawyers'pa't--ternp'tinr1g to b get a case released from a judge, tvheHSupre';ne-I case of Chetak Construction Lin1it_ed,._ referprejdj to' deprecated such a practice as'v»it"would"*aIno1int7to forum shopping. This in pour cco"nsid.e'red-.._view "aniounts to interference with the administration of
65. It is "said1"ti'ia_tV a.m__oIigst'l_ the _rarious types of mis- conduct byHat'eo~i_1nsVe:.lV,' there is none more reprehensible than such conduct as_tenVds"todA"impede, obstruct or prevent the administration of the lawllor to destroy the confidence of the people such administration. In D.C.Saxena's case, the Supreme Court while acknowledging the right of an advocate to freedom of 'g_expression in arguing a case before the court, however, A feInpih--asized the countervailing duties of the advocate to the ' court as well as to the opposite party. Irresponsible and it reckless allegations against a Judge or the judiciary cannot be condoned on the ground of his obligation to state 2'?
E"
M __ whatever he is instructed to state by his client or on account of freeéom of expression.
66. In Radha Mohan Lal's case, referred Supreme Court held that liberty of free be l equated with a licence to make unf:ounc_iedg a;-n.d'1irrespor_p1silglei' allegations against the judiciary. aclvocate--".l.'Ail1'o«' rn°al.<"esV7q unjust imputations of unfairn'ess"»or bias _agssins't;' amjuclge exposes himself to criminal conternpt. ill} this eontext it is of relevance to quote from Mu.nieip'alV Cprparation of Greater Bombay Vs. _A:~'trV1a.tte§;'_ ne,.g.;,,,m;;»i:an;g»¢:a, Smt. 1987 Crl.L.JtI'tV)v38~ is larger interests of the administration' of--~ example be made of such errant. rnemlaersvoftneiprojession. Instances of this kind are '~v.late§y'l:,pz._1i.A the increase 'and the administration of justice is "at various levels in various ways. Some hsophisttrsated methods while others do it in crude ways.
"._'BOth arexegually guilty of contempt of court and the courts will A ftaisely to bring them all to book. There is no other way to ' stop the rot and arrest the degeneration that has set in the uflwprofession and in the administration of justice. Let all concerned know that the legal profession is a service profession and not a trade or business and the courts of law ,x ,.>»r"':.
M79- are not shopping centers. The administration of justice, i)' it is to command respect and confidence, must be kept parent all costs." Any advocate making any false aliegations judicial officers or judges is prima facie guilty' V' conduct. ..
67. In the case of M.B.Sangi, refe"rred_A_Ato(Vsu'pra', that veiled threats, abrasive 'behaviour; use_of.jdisr'e'spectful " l language and at times blatantucondemnatorygattacks are often designedly employedltwith taming a judge into submission to secure a:de'sir:ed order. The 'foundation of our systemtyvhichea shine independence and impartiality of those. vlvhol 1na'n'f:.t'l"u§§1'i~.éye shaken if disparaging and derogatory rem_ark;S.'--ar"e made against the Presiding Judicial " '~ Aimpunity; 'V contents of the affidaxdts filed by and on lV._tbeh.alf..of«applicant/respondent No.1 it is evident that first it 'f_*resVp'o.ndent had invited Manjunath. J, to the temple and ' alfterlthe pooja as per custom he was presented with a photo a Wframe of the temple deity and prasadam. The photographs were taken on such occasions and the same has been sent in the name of the appellant by courier. While referring to the ,5?
K W80", newspaper reporting of the court proceedings ___dated 10.7.2009, it is stated in the affidawt applicants/respondent No.1 that if ~ "attributed to have been rriadeflby Hori'bie:'jMf'.Ju.stiee0"' K.L.Mary'unath", correct" den1onstra'teS--r' pi*ejudice"'afg.aifi:s_t the first respondent. Therefore, the'-applicant' sure if the statement report'ed.x_in.VV'» lvizould be attributed to Manj , ~.._so"x'Ihether they were correct. In factgthe tihaitanya Das was personally his counsel, Sri.S.A.i\/Iariutj "'£ii'i.uVS3v.K.'0J.Chalapathi, Senior Counstii _th'eWp'roceedings on 10.7.2009 and exvitpretssed in the Bench hearing the matter. Despite this thetapplication has been filed, While at .,..th€'-':_.:i:Sa1'{Il:€ 'timed dcoiitending that on 10.7.2009 when . ''--.raised the issue of the courier with photograp.hs';__-i§ri.S.K.V.Cha1apathi, Senior Counsel instantly btureacted vthat the court should ignore the said courier and 0' 'ifiphotographs and proceed with further hearing of the appeal, ' clearly indicated full confidence, trust and faith of the 04*,"applicant/respondent No.1 in the court. If that was the instant reaction on the part of the counsel for the applicant/respondent No.1 on 10.7.2009, we fail to egg"-
understand as to how the said counsel could have filed the application attributing bias against Manjunath. tI,"=on.._tthe basis of the newspaper reports of 11.7.2009. _ the deponent "the apprehension of Jt»he>_respohde.nt: that .0"
the Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.L.Manjut:.ath::"':'3:' prejudice against the respondent«._No.1t"h!_Ls started }onl_t;Hor'i the * reading of the newspaper on 1 0' stating so, it was also stated that 'had expressed full confidence in thecourt their counsel. If the counsel 'expressed confidence in the eve fail to understand as to have drafted and filed an J, should recuse himself from hearin the a" neat, While the de onent claims innocence and .' V' on the xhasi's"of the statement made by the Senior if.-spondent No.1 on 10.7.2009 to ignore the 1et'ter'tand.photographs and to proceed to hear the matter. ',.NeVerthexle_ss the application has been filed alleging bias on it of the Manjunath. J.
_69§. Under the circumstances we are of the considered View that this is a fit case where suo rnotu contempt action has to be initiated against Sr1.Jai Chaitanya Dasa @ Jainarayan K, S/o Mr.K.C.D.NaInbisan, Aged 42 years, M82- Secretary of respondent No.1, Madhu Pandit Das, President of respondent No.1, Sri.S.K.\é:Chalapthi, Senior Sri.V.H.Ron (Lex Pluxus], Sri.Rarnesh ~ Sri.S.A.I\/iaruti Prasad. Advocates.
70. Office is directed to register the cognternptgiproceedings in this regard and place the matter. beforetiiet Chief it Justice for posting.
71. As far as the J, on 7.8.2009 is ;:--_Wgt_are that it was the opinion of «;i€7'a.g'V'%aVV.¢;LaS€ of a Judge being defamedandl' administration of justice. However'.*«vve-- that the entire controversy is one _V affeactingi.theA'*.adn1inistration of justice and the V' ~.allega'tio_ns are prirnaiacie contemptuous within the meaning the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The the applicant and also the affidavits of the 'V._applicant;';respondent No.1 are prima facie conturnacious. A Senior Counsel for the applicant when specifically ' asked about the basis for the application, he submitted that is not only the order dated 10.7.2009, the newspaper reports dated 11.7.2009, the affidavits filed in this case as well as on the instructions of the counsel that he is raising s83"
the plea of bias. Scandalising the Judges or courts tends to bring the authority and administration of law into and disregard and tantamounts to contempt. . bring the court into disrepute or diSI'€Sp€Ct*0I'='Ei\%hiCh::OffC11d '* its dignity or its majesty or challenge contempt committed in respect_ of singie J11d'ige~ single court or in certain circumstances' =e_om_mitte'd in respect of the whoie of the judiciary ohjudicial "'syste'mt. Hence, we are ' constrained to issue the above dismissing the aplllication unriei'"F?§I1sid_er£ition.7 =
72. case, it would be apposite to refer tovxa 'dec1s~1on"i:of_ »i'the"'~Supreme Court in the case of T.Arqvindarid¢j;tn_Vs.A'*T;VQSatyanal & another reported * SCA§42«1--«Wh1ch arose from this court. Though thein the context of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, whatis reievvanivwfor the purpose of this case is the fact that 'V the c5u.n's4;1'£¢r the petitioner who appeared before this court 'ifhadii---subvmitted that Venkataramiah J, (as he then was)
-- should not hear the matter on the pretext that the petitioner had mentioned the name of the said Judge in the affidavit it while describing the prior proceedings. The Supreme Court noted that the unhappy Judge adjourned the case to the ,4/",.
W84- next day and after spending a sleepless night the Judge heard the arguments without yielding to the bullyingptapctics of the petitioner and impropriety of his advocate"land"--wen_t" . into the merits and dismissed the revision""petfition, *_'Ih_e * Supreme Court noted as follows in the h ''We regret the injlicttion ofthe ordealjgupvon the learned Judge of the'-Hi§f.h Court l3'y_a',calloils party. We more than regretthe _circums_tance that the party concerned has pbeent to prevail upon one lawyer or theother.' to "to the court a case which was disingenuous or'*aéarse.f'
73. The said"learried gdudgelof as a Judge of the Apex Court .l«3.uI-"{.Gupta 82. Others Vs. Presiderttllof4an.d'{5thersl:reported in AIR 1982 SC 149 after sloka, observed as follows:
_ _ trained in ethics or morality, or pr"ais.e.;_.let lakshmi (wealth) accumulate . V " or iéariish as she likes; let death come today itself or_at"the end of a yuga lmilleniumj, men with discre'téon_.v~will not deflect from the path of 'rectiEiJgde'.1="
74. it .. country has always had great Judges and will A feontinue to have men and women of learning and high
-- reputation, as Judges. This court Cannot simply dismiss the application on merits and ignore the unsavory controversy that has been generated in this appeal, culminating in the filing of the application and the lengthy argpments K. /"#3 ..o _.85h addressed for allowing the said application. Hence, we have been constrained to issue the aforesaid diT€CtlQv1'J,,':"'1?\:fKli.ll€ dismissing the application.
75. In View of this order andvgbeinggg.3conscious' limitations we direct the Regi._stI'y V"t«:)_ ddpost proceeding as well as this apbuealtbbegforeld 'a .j§e1ich"f.of which Manjunath J, and Nag_a1<.ath.i1a.§. ~ar.e"'not members, after obtaining necessary ordersvgfrorrhzd Chief Justice.
76. The presented to Manjunath yfeiar 2003 as well as the courier; 'd (if Srishekhar Shetty & to Manjunath J, are placed on recovrd. as the same are handed over by him and would be therecord and the same shall be in safe custody. Sd/--
JUDGE Sd/--
JUDGE KVN*
--w'-w L.~ {rat I _$g, £1.:s.__.f?_e.__J.a_4_r;=:_7_r Misc. Petition filed by R~1 requesting ne,not to hear this appeal was heard by me and ye? fSister Nagarathna J. on 18.8.2009 and prior to that eapté:_gag listed before other companion ;gage;;f.:<rpég¢fore.&f certain events which werefl taken placed prior wto 18.8.2009 are required toPEbe' hronght Eon record considering the backgronnd of this case.0 This matter was heard hyyneValonc with my Brother Kumaraswamy J. on 2L7.8000;:"§herea8ter the matter was adjourned £or5rfi§e£a£.§£g§§§e£§?'l After the case was adjourned Jon i2;j,8009f_aH cgeiiar was received. by" my Private SeC¥%térYe §hd*ra "similar courier was also received by my Brother flnearaswamy J.. The contents of the conrier is extracted by us in our order in detail. Immediateifi fifter the receipt of the courier, on the Ifnext day itself myself and my Brother Kumaraswamy J. "net His Lordship Chief Justice and showed the contents 0} of= the, courier received by us and I personally requested His Lordship Chief Justice to post the matter lahefore any other Bench in view of the false allegations 3/ 81 made against me. However, His" Lordship Chief Justice reposing confidence in me said that the matt;er_'ii~has to be heard by us. Even thereafter I madefai"request,to His Lordship to post the matter _p];A>Aefore_5'any:'_'0ti3.e'rV Ben'chi".:.p However, I sought permission to'a,hea'r..'ithe._rnattier---._oi§.iy fie. "
find out the persons who "dare Iiaehiindp --.the courier to avoid my Bench reputation to me and I also infoinegéq Chief Justice that the records'A'wou1d""ito him to place before any otpherpp _a*f_te.r out the persons who are courier.
In thve*J="to me and to my Brother Kumaraswemyp iivstated that contents of the also heeinwiisent to I-lon'ble Chief Justice of India Viigioimpanion Judges, Hon'ble Chief Justice Karnataka to the fourth estate.
wees? revealed to us by His Lordship Chief that such a cover has not been sent to him. i'hare_after the matter was listed before the court on VTLV-(A16-..«~i7.2009 only to find out the persons who have /'-
'W '88» indulged in sending such a courier to bring afbad name to me. On 10.7.2009 when Mr.Udaya his arguments I stopped him for a. while and the receipt of the courier. Beforethe the cover could be made known cotxnlsel 00 parties Sri.S.K.V.Cha1apath§';:.V:VV:.''»leavrnei?1"jseiniuor 00 counsel aP?earj-1'19 5°17 the re5'P:'7.3'9_deIi£"'V_ exirvenflvvvknowing the contents of the Vcoverfl that I should ignore and that his client has the courtfwhich only inCi5»Cate§":,:il-iliiliiiaiiié'-ii Mr.Cha1apathi what was 'in the coxruiés.-«rip. 0 said that his clients are no way responsibvlehvand have not indulged and that confidence in the court. Though the'" to have been sent to the I-ion'ble :v_:"'Chief AJust_icegj'..--and companion Judges and the Press, I that such covers are not sent to any one of ,e*xc_e'pt to me and to my Brother Kumaraswamy J. . If such courier had been sent to the press, then press would have published the same considering the 63/ Q9 background of this case atleast after l0,7.2099. Matter was adjourned to 17.7.2009 directing both the parties to file affidavits. On 17f?n2QU§'hsenior counsel Mr.Mathai M.Paikeday who appeared for §--I fo;W the first time in the case opened his argueents with an opening sentence that I should ire¢uséV°s§§§1f from hearing the appeal by producind the recent fiudgment of the Supreme Court where His bordshig Justice Markandey Kat3'u in 2.9. iv No.5939/2009 had recused. himseir; tron: §§§£;@§i7;hé matter and at his request matter*sas adjourned to 31.7.2009. In the nean fihiief two letters were received by me one by Srirsgéhekharshetty, Advocate and another from s§i;é<V§§rifii«5$a§f" iiiii "iThese two advocates alone are disabied to gpgaaz before me. It is mentioned in the h~Mri',i'.Si;S.Shekhar Shetty that Mr.Ramesh Babu " colleague .of Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy had approached. him V_*¢a;iie: requesting him to file power for Rul and that isuch_a request was further made by him even after the in parties were directed to file affidavit. Similarly, in <%/ 556 the letter of Sri.S.V.Srinivasan it is mentioned that Sri.Maruti Prasad had approached him to filey§akalat on behalf of R-1 on an earlier occasionfil ffeftere the receipt of these two letters, to put an end to all the"
unpleasantness, contents of the letters were sheen to Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy and Mr.Udaya fie1;a,X1eeefiee senior counsel for both the ,§artiesE em_After""reading the contents of the lettersg Mrtdhalaoathy requested me not to note down letters in the order-sheet and sonfiht tine he ene week. Then also it was inforfiedttbrr eel thetfl matter would be closed if really an attemnt is fiade to avoid my Bench provided an unconditional la§olog§- is tendered by the learned connsel:ehose'nemes are referred to in the letters of Sri:$:Shekher'§hetty and Sri.S.V.Srinivasan. When the lJcontents_o£~the letters were revealed to the learned '*sounsel, Both Mr.Ramesh Babu and Mr.Maruthi Prasad were *,jp:eeent_in the Court Hall. Accordingly, the matter was 'edjeureed to 7.8.2009.
<3 83 On 7.8.2009 Mr. S.K.V.Chalapaqthy submitted that Mr.Ramesh Babu and Mr.Maruthi Prasad had notvV.Vap;i5;:oached Mr . Shekhar Shetty and Mr . S .V. Srinivasan» . In the circumstances, a direction--"V"wa-sv, "is"sVued'"%t"oL Mr.Ramesh Babu and Mr.Maruthi7_Prasr-1d'»._t~o"' "
affidavits and court also Ara-grvcchialvapathy may receive copies of__ the open court to enable Mr.Maruthi, Mr.Ramesh Babu to file their affid'ayitg;;" informed the court that =co_ilec1;; :copies of the letters later. was present and not Mr.Maruthi .J2r§sédf;T gé§ording1y, the matter was adjourne<_:1._.tLo ,_:V8;e2.00A9..VfiVAfter the dictation was over, J. sitting as a Companion Judge hash' order which reads as hereunder:
"I~Ieard»~t_h'feA dictation of my brother His Lordship V Sri;K."I5.Manjunath. If a Judge is defamed in such .__"~a wa'y___"as not to affect the administration of V. ., j'u's--t_ice he has the ordinary remedies for ~jddefamation. It is of fundamental importance that Justice should not only be done, but should .r__m§-anifestly and undoubtedly be seen t-o be done. V Therefore, in this background, post this matter V before a Bench of which Justice C.R.Kumaraswamy is 6*"
32. not a Member after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Qig In the circumstances, place this matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary orders;"
It is unfortunate that a companion Judge who was weii aware of the fact that we were hearingrthe"partie;ioniyAf to find out the persons .responsihle .g5r §§9§1fig- the courier to avoid the Bench has pass§@ an order as if parties had defamed a dudge and that he should resort to an ordinary civil 'interest of the judiciary I feei it'may§n0t he=propér for me to coment about the iiii my companion Judge.
Accordingl§;Jthe'natter*was"adjourned to 11.8.2009. On i1.8.2008 at the request of the counsel for Rel matter was adfiourned to 18.8.2009. In the mean while, in tiew of the orders passed by my Brother Kumaraswamy :c0J; matter was posted before the Chief Justice and His '*iordship again directed the matter to be heard by the 0; Bench headed by fie.
0"-_Ihough there was ample opportunity for Mr.Ramesh "[3abfi and Mr.Maruthi Prasad to collect the copies of the 3% 925 letters in the open court and when the same was offered by the court in the open court without collecting the same at the time of hearing the applicetion filed by R-1, they filed a memo stating" thaty they" may be"
furnished copies of the letters , There are no reasons for the two Senior Members of the bar Mrfshehhar Shetty and Mr.S.V.Srinivasan to addreée letters to me about Mr.Ramesh Babu approachifiqfigmrgfihehhar Shetty and Mr.Maruthi Prasad; iganfiroachinghi'dMr.S.V.Srinivesan requesting thien: -for R-1. At the time of hearinshHMrtQathai,fl]learned "senior counsel made a submission in the open genre that he is argueing the matter in yregard-tto- the bias against me on the instructions "Qt the iiii "$enior' Counsel Mr.Chalapathy and Mrt§on_fihc fig en advocate on record. Though they were lg present in the court hall when such a submission was 't@ade~by Mrtfiathai, they did not deny the same. From 5 ithe conduct of the counsel for the parties and in view lof-_the letters _written by Mr.Shekhar Shetty and :7 My S.V.Srinivasan, I am of the prima facie view that a G3/ 91+ concerted effort has been made to avoid my Bench even prior to the commencement of the argucents. and subsequently.
Since Mr.Mathai learned. seniorfl counsel Vappearing"
for R-1 mainly contends' that this eclientsi have entertained.a1 doubt after reading news itens appeared _ _ Gf E Visiting ISCKON on 11.7.2009 in regard~.__to Temple, why I stopped yisitinc;If§hQN temple from 2003 onwards was also not ciarifiedcwlthlMr.Maruthi Prasad who was present in the esuxfifngii and I nmde it very clear thathl fitnyped visiting lfCKON temple since I was not gettinc devotion considering the appearance of the statue of, the _deity Wand not for any other reason, allecjeid against me on account of the paper repcrtinc was clarified and it was also open for h,lR«1 and its connsel to withdraw the application atleast fl',-v-"
('iv-' '2 V . a an ' after hearing the clarification ween Mr.Maruthi Prasad »..~9"\ lpfwho gis_ also assisting Rwl, reasons for "stopping 'yiaiting ISCKON temple.
6,, ' sleepless snight yesterday".
'day, for me it is for several weeks.
365 After the arguments were concluded. by'gMr.Mathai and Mr.Holla in the open court, I disclosed that even before the matter is placed before pthe@néourt_ on 10.7.2009 I had brought to the notice of fiistfiordshipfl Chief Justice requesting him to post the matter before any other Bench and further made knee? to the counsel for the parties that: I gag "hearing lalong with my Brother Kumaraswamy J. only pg fin@f¢#fi the persons who are indulged in 'sending ifihednphote ito blackmail me. Even then also Lfir:S;K}§?Chalapathi and Mr.Ron or Mr.Maruthi éragaa gr nhihameshflsabu or Mr.Mathai did not venture=tonithdrafi the application filed by Rwl to recuse from hearing the appeal.
Yd. z§ Q ARivAnDnrfiAM Vs. T.V.SATYAPAL (AIR 1977 s.c - 242i}Vxthe:pAper2_Court have referred. to the agony of :edMr.Justice Venkataramayya (as he then was): "I spent a In the said case, I {~. 2% *, as Kr*Venkataramayya J. has spent sleepless night for eke What has happened 1" to me in the present case shall not happen to any other €§/ m' SE Judge. It is the duty and obligation of tIi,ee counse1 for the parties to uphold the dignityg ofii this institution and to avoid scandalizing the qfifiges fog no fault of a Judge. W' t V L In this background I am of the View tnet e einéere attempt is made only tarnisnR§§'ima§eleno nepntation to achieve their ends. N' R K Vt x '{ktf,R/lS6§G9