Karnataka High Court
Mr Shridhar Prabhu vs Mr Pratap Simha Ck Deva on 29 January, 2013
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B SREENIVASE GOWDA
CCC [Criminal] No.13 of 2012
BETWEEN:
MR. SHRIDHAR PRABHU
S/O. LATE G H PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
ADVOCATE
HAVING OFFICE AT
SHRIDHAR PRABHU ASSOCIATES
NO.209, II FLOOR, SWISS COMPLEX
NO.33, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001 ... COMPLAINANT
[Party-in-person]
AND:
1. MR. PRATAP SIMHA CK. DEVA
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO COMPLAINANT
MAJOR, WORKING AS NEWS EDITOR
AT KANNADA PRABHA NEWSPAPER
HAVING OFFICE AT EXPRESS
BUILDING, NO.1, QUEEN'S ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. MR. VISHWESHWAR BHAT
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO COMPLAINANT
MAJOR, WORKING AS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
2
AT KANNADA PRABHA NEWSPAPER
HAVING OFFICE AT EXPRESS
BUILDING, NO.1, QUEEN'S ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
3. MR. K SANKARAN NAYAR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO COMPLAINANT
MAJOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER
AT KANNADA PRABHA NEWSPAPER
HAVING OFFICE AT EXPRESS
BUILDING, NO.1, QUEEN'S ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
4. MR. MANOJ KUMAR SONTHALIA
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO COMPLAINANT
MAJOR, CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR
KANNADA PRABHA
PUBLICATIONS LIMITED
HAVING OFFICE AT EXPRESS
BUILDING, NO.1, QUEEN'S ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001 ... ACCUSED
THIS C.C.C.(CRL.) UNDER ARTICLE 215 CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA AND THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 BY THE
COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED, JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY AND INITIATE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT,
1971, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS CCC [CRL] COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
A practicing Advocate of this court has presented this contempt petition complaining that the publication made in the Kannada Prabha, News daily, being published in the Karnataka State Edition while reporting certain court proceedings is not a bonafide news item; that it is suggestive of casting aspersions on Judges hearing the case; that it virtually amounts to interference with the course of justice; that the accused persons - first accused being the News Editor and author of the article of the newspaper having its office at Express Building, No.1, Queen's Road, Bangalore, second accused being the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper, third accused being the Printer and Publisher of the newspaper, fourth accused being the Chairman and Director of the Kannada Prabha publications, are all responsible for publishing such irresponsible, derogatory news report about a court proceeding; that it per se amounts to contempt of court proceedings; that it is in the nature of criminal contempt and therefore the court should take cognizance of 4 the same and accused persons should be suitably dealt with and imposed punishment for their criminal conduct.
2. Mr. Sridhar, appearing in person, submitted that the derogatory report had been given wide publicity, particularly, by making it a front page news item with bold letters that was carried in all editions of the newspaper across the State and even beyond; that it was also published in the website owned by the first accused to which millions of people have access; that it was not even reflecting the contents of the Judgment dated 30.03.2012 whereas the publication was on 2.4.2012 and therefore the accused persons who published such scandalous materials should be suitably dealt with and the minimum expected is that they should come and seek apology before this court.
3. Various Judgments are relied upon in support of the stand that such publication amounts to committing criminal contempt.
5
4. Mr. Shridhar also submits that unless such persons are suitably dealt with, it may result in anarchy and particularly members of the Public taking courts lightly and passing irresponsible, derogatory, scandalous comments.
5. We have perused the petition contents, looked into the annexures and bestowed our attention to the submissions made by Mr. Sridhar - complainant.
6. While one may frown upon the tenor and language of the news report and it definitely could have been sober and not suggesting any personal motives or other things, what we notice is that it is more a comment on the proceedings in the court and the opinion of the Author - first accused which perhaps had elicited approval of other accused persons.
7. Though no doubt we are aware that news report cannot be in the form of abuse, unfortunately, development of late in the media, particularly, print media and visual 6 media has been only one of expressing views than giving news. A trend which is not desirable or approvable if the purpose and object of the media is to be looked into in particular for dissemination of information amongst general public.
8. Be that as it may, we would prefer to overlook such aberrations and would prefer to act with grace and magnanimity rather than go into the details of the contents of the publication dated 2.4.2012 and call upon the accused persons to come and defend themselves while facing contempt proceedings.
9. By looking into the larger interest of all concerned and the edifice of judiciary being not necessarily based on or dependent on a few comments here or there or even in the newspapers whether as news item or as views and on the other hand it being founded on firmer ground and not starting to oscillate at the comment of every and any person, we would rather prefer to ignore these things than to initiate 7 contempt proceedings against the accused persons in exercise of contempt jurisdiction of this court.
10. It is only for this reason that we dismiss the criminal petition, but reserve liberty to the complainant if so advised to pursue the matter before other Professional Bodies where such matters can be looked into and if need be the Media and Press in particular can be disciplined or chastened for erring actions and which can be made applicable in general rather than being evaluated in individual cases.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-