Sri.Phaniraj Kashyap vs Sri.S.R.Ramakrishna on 11 November, 2010

[Cites 17, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri.Phaniraj Kashyap vs Sri.S.R.Ramakrishna on 11 November, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2011 CRI. L. J. 3239, 2011 (2) AIR KANT HCR 593, (2011) ILR (KANT) 2347, 2011 (2) KCCR 91 SN, (2011) 3 KANT LJ 572

Author: N.Kumar

Bench: N.Kumar

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

I')A'1.'1~3l) '_1'1~11s "rm: E M DAY OF N0x'}::Mr31a';§,.. ;.'

PRESENT
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUs(1'Ic:E i$I:. KIJMAR "   1' *
AND A  

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTI:§:E  

ccc '(Cz21.)"'Nc}; ::'8/2609  

ccc: 1{eR1';)' ~NQé1;12:,.z2o09';._'7/2010'£3; 8/2010

In ccc (CRLJ 1'\io.v8';/2009_"'   
BETWEEN: L '

- ._SR1 P'r"«;A1vv__}1'r-uI},J KASE~iY._._A.I¥'

 AGED A1*:.Qm'~24 YEARS.
'--._s,i0" MR; _,ms<r1(: E KSREEDHAR RAO
_r'2Es.1:)I1x:C3"~AT 
MlN1S'FE3R g::APcr121-as
JAYAMA1-ml £=;XTI£NS1ON

3 BANG/'. 1.01114: ~ 560 046.

...COM.PLAINAN'I'

[By SRE K. SUMAN, ADV.)



 $0.

In CCC {CRL} No.9/2009
BETVVEEN:

I

AND

1.

SR1 PHANIRAJ KASHYAP   é ._
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.   1, '
S/O MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHA«R RAO
RESIDENCE A'1'B~6  _  
MENESTER QUARTERS ' _V " .. 
JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION ., 
BANGALORE -- 56o__ 046. 

[By SR1 ii, . SLIOMM   _

sR1A.N.      
MAJOR1:§:~AG;:=.'_,..g'._ '' _; V   .

FATHERS NAM ¥~:aa'O'1" - §:NOVvN" '  '
TO '"§':'.HE COM£>I,A1N.AT.._  -  '
ED1TO_R'_ ' _'  
DECCAN HERA!..D'~  _ 

THE PRINTERS [}viYS:OI?..Ef] PVT. LTD,
NOv.'7.5,M.O;-ROAD '

BANGALORE --"5«60...0i) 1 .

_:f'sR1 s.O,v'.~%sRi}~:1vAsAN

MAJ Om AOL:

'-- FA7I'HE3R'VS«-- NAME NOT KNOWN

 '1'm:~ COMPLAINNI'
PRENTEIQ '& PUBLIS}--IER
THE PR'IN'I'IERS {MYS()RE] PVT. LTI1

AA PLO'I' NO. 7-12,

 'KQMIBALGOIJ INOUSTRIAI. AREA,
-:BANOA1,OR1a: M 560 074.

   



 

3. SRI. KAUSHIK CI'"iAKR1\VAR"l'}"IY

MAJOR IN AGE

I~"A'f'HE3R'S NAME NOTKNOW'1\E   ..
COMPLAINAT :
REPORTER.

DBZCCAN" HERALD ,  
THE PRINTERS {MYsORE) f'VT~_._L'I'I)§'v-
NO. 75, MO. ROAD    ._  _  
BANGALORE W 560 001.    ...AcCOsr:D

(By SR1 s.s. NAOANANAOTS/L: RORSR1  ._sR1RANOA, ADV.

OF M/S JUS'1"LA'aV Am"/_;s.,.) 

In ccc (cRL.1 Nazi/':2o1Q_
BETWEEN:    ' '

1. SE\/I7If!_VKLV"'£fI'J}3:E{A_  _  
AGED "ABOUT7f52 YE'.ARS, _ 
W70 MR, J'1.I':3:r1'cTE'-5:.sRi3§:OI-iAR RAO
RESIDING  __  
MINISTER QUAf?f1'§:',RS
JAYAM;AHfxL_E3XT"}?3N:'3ION
_§BA}\IGAI.OF:_I:'. R 560 046. ...COMPLAINANT

{By SR1 K. SUMAN. ADV.)

1. SR1 S,._R. I,A%£2X1A\/IAKE{iSfRiNA
 IN AGE

 O FA';'m;R's NAME) NOT KNOWN

» TO.fI'1~1E: COMPLAINANT

 " RESIDENT Ii2E)I'£'OR
 'MID DAY' BANGALORE
__ * 30 E, CARL'I'OI\E TOWERS



NO. :1. AIRPORT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 008.

SR1 SUSEELAN. G

MAJOR IN AGE

FATHE.'R'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE COMPLAINANT ' '
PRINTER & PUBLISHER

'MID DAY', BANGALORE

301, CARLTON TOwE;R._s

NO. 1., AIRPORT ROAD  _ __
BANGALORE W 560 008.  '

SR] B.V. SH'1VASHAN§KAR  4  :
FATT1ER's''r\zA.ME- 'NO'F..}~:.NOWN_   '
TO THE cO1vEPLA1NAN_TTA~.O'R_A A'  
REPO--RTER~g.  .   
'M113: DAY'; 'T3ANGA;.O.RT:_ _

30 1 . 'CARLTON TOWERS  '-

NO. 1, 'A£I{POR'I'  " 

BANGALORE; -- "56O.Q08;f_.'AV ...ACCUSED

  ss. NAGANANAD. S/C FOR SR1 S. SRIRANG-A. ADV..

OF"N1'/S JUST LAW ADVS.)

E1  (cRLG.')r~{O;'8 /201.0

E3f:f'FV_\_7E3E.?3~I~:   '

_ SAAT. K. VIJAYA
"--..AGE}f) ABOUT 52 YEARS.

V' ' -- ..W/O MR. JUSTICE KSRIEEIDHAR RAO

R£<3S1[)IN(3 AT 343 
M'INIST1£R QUARTERS 



JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION
BANGALORE -- 560 048.

.:..{I,A1[NAgV*I*T' ~ 

{By 5121 K. suMAN.""A.t)'v.}  -1' T

AND

1.

SR1 AN. TILAK KUMAR
MAJOR IN AGE 
F'ATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN' - 
TO THE COMPLAINA'i*.._  ~_ -- . "
EDITOR 
DECCAN HERALD

THE PR.IN'£'EVRS' {MYs:;'3R[§:);;éV"1ff:;*1*p. V' " V

NO. 75. M.G_. R§;1)A_3 _  
BANGAI.QRE_«~; 'r;.e«;«:3_oo.:_ ...___V 

SR1 s,.v..sRiNNA;$A1\:'--_ 
MAJ:oR1N'A<;_.e:_«  _ '  _ --
FATH1:R«*s Nmruj:-Nofr'%i--:TN'OwN
TO Tm: C'OMP£,AI.NAT"  
PRINTER .3: ' PUBLISH

THA1:._,PR1NTE,Rs MYSORE) PVT. LTD.

PLQT N0. M2... _ _
KIJMBALG-AOD INDUSTRIAL AREA.

A  BANC}A.LQRE f" 550 074.

._  K5351-ii.K"b1-~IAKRAVAR'1'1»N

MAJOR 1N3,.AGE
I+'A'['}-I3r;R'£3" NAME NOT KNOWN
COMPL';.'\1NA'l'

 A. PEPORTER.
 .VI)I«3«;f:cAN I--IERALD
 'rm; PRIN'I'f.+3RS (MYSORE) PVT. 1:11),



NO. 7'5,1\/I.G. ROAD  
BANGALOREE -- 560 001. ....ACCUS£<:D<.

[By SR1 S.S. NACANANA13. S /C I<'O:e»SR1 S;'sféifvimOA.,'_'_A1)'aeT.[V' "

OF M/S JL§S'E'1,A}.?\7 A_I')V_'fS'L')_ " _ *

T1~~1I«:S1«: PI3'1'1'1'1ONS ARE _E11.1«:'O U-N1)1~E:R:..SEC'1'rO1\.¢"'15'{'1u}E

{b} OF THE CON'i'[f3MP'i' OF 'C_O"U..R'1'S 'AC'1'. _19.71"g_RF»A§ W1'1"}"i'

ARTICLE 215 OF T1~1E CONST1'1'U1'IOI\E" QF'~INI')1A PRAYING
T1~«1A'1' THIS 1»-»1ON'ELE COURT 1y1_M_E3:~; PLEASESI) TO ENITIATE
CO'N"l"}33I\/lP'l" OF CO.UI?.f1' I?ROC.¥§EsTE§S1.NGS ACAISNT THE
ACCUSED PERSONS £?--OR_AH_A\f_1'I'£G'*~.CO'M§\/EI'I'1'EI) CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT OF THIS I»ION.C.B14E-VCOUm-'- .ANL>__ TO PUNISH THE
ACCUSED PERSONS 1N.v.AC.CvOR13ANC'E WITH LAW" AND ALSO
AWARD COSTS QF~'.£'Hl§S I?RQ«C1£}$D'1'NG.. 

'1.'HESEi  ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY. N Kvmgm. .1. V. Mz3.I>.1«:Efe-1.E' 'FOLLOWING:

 D E R
The=..S'ubjeC.'t Ii'1:_Vu,€.ei'---,_c3iT ail these {our complaints is one

a1nd4§th"e,_Sa11{e:;'» _ COmp1ainant in CCC (C3ri.} N038/2009 ('$1

  Phaniraj Kashyap and i"hC Complainant in CCC

  81 8/201.0  Sm1.f{ Viyayzz. mOﬁ.hC1' Of I-'h21niraj

Kass.hyz;"1p.' '_I'hCjy' 1'1awC }:)rCfe1*t*ed tllese COn1plai1"1iS ziftier Obtaining

 I'C€1L1iS.i':".{;j "per111iSSi()1"1 f1"Om {he Acivovate GC'.1'1Ci'E11 Of Karr1al.ak21.

"_;1':'1;'1 §11i1.iz:1t£:d ]3}"()('('.("'.d§l'igS e1l1C§,§i1'1g.§ <.'ri1'11i1'1a-11 ('(')I.'}lCE'11p1 Of "this



Court and 10 punish the 21(',("?L1S5€.'(T1 pei'.<so1"1s in 2ic:coi*da:.a§;.e';\17ii.h

Iaw.

reporie1- oi' Doczctan }'If31'a1d and MID  i:jiib}_i§s'i1g:d

from Bangalore.

2. The avciised persons are tho edi1--4o"1*.' "§.i3.,1."'C.IE.'.'S"1'1E'}"17V and"

3. The facis leading  compiaixits ﬂ;?;1*e clearly

set oui. in  7/2010. It is averred that
Sri phe1nii'--a;.j{s.g~,'h5}';;;pV.tinfceriipiamzixit in ccc [CrE.) No.8 of
2009   LLB Course: in M.S.Ramai_a11

College, Ba"';1'galoi"Vé'. _  ei brighi student. He has been

pi*osog:L1"ii11g his"»s3A1:u'(:l"iesV'i11 right. earnest with the fond hope of

V"'iiL1r1:':in{g %,_o,L11~--ic> be«V'éi""g_§ood acivocate with high p1'Of€SSiOI1<";11

C()~E1;1'I}£?'iZCI1'CV?'y'~.:v'}J"i.'3-U the previous 8 S€II}C',S1('3l'S of the 5 year LLB

Cc>Li'i's:e. 35ec:t11'ed average of 60.2% inarks. In the 9"'

seI3'1E:«si:er.__"eixamitiaiioii. he got 61 marks in the paper/subjec:t.

'' -v_ "~C1'in1i1ia.},V_' 3i"1'oct'C1L.ii'<é Code': 4.3:'? }I1Eii'kS in the paper'/subject.

"«?I§i.'i\»"i1'~:)niIic?mail Law" mid 55 1'1'1ai"ks in 'Ad1a1i11i51.i'2.11i\*e L'c1\2v'.

 .

However. to his shoeli and dismay, he secured ()11l3*'.l8_"i1]ﬁ§ujks in the Sl1bj€(.'l./pE1p€[' 'Code of Civil Procedure'-:XJ€1'1.iV{:lfi'he done exceedingly well and Vas e;;pec,:ti:1gI higlli-lIV§irs{,. Immediately aﬁ.e1- the result. he E1.1[";>E.)li:ti'.'LtAZl"lOI':lf7(§'l};1lL1Ell1iv5ﬂ.l:Aé1ll(3l obtained the eertifiecl copy of ihe ans'we1- .s_he.e1.s§._lo--iT. his CFC?' paper on 19-2-2009. a11s\V_ei;:sl1_e"c>i_s dis(:'losV.ed hoVv he has become a victim of 1141-es:;oo;1si.bl.e :vll.2ii;(;i..':1feobkless valuation of assessment of answe'rs-V" marks. Dr. T SL1b1'?lI118.I1y€:lf1:~,.:v of Law, Bangalore University is fit. for revaluation.

Even 'b.efo1_'e E1lI'1~l1Vf3.Lill":(2€i'£1(lill;' off the results. he had secured adihissiori 'izo LLl\/IrCotirse*-..in.~ Texas School. USA in the first week of M2;:f_eh,_ 2009;. exa1'1"1ination for the law Course of Otl1€I';'S€"[T1CSl:l€l7S_'ll1'3lV€lCOl'l11'I1€ﬂC(3d from 4i»~5~2O09. The 1.0"' 'V * _sen.iels;l.e1.jqe::.;1mi.n.2iiio--n--oi' the 5 year LLB Course commenced on Ma}'r'~« The resul1.s.of the 10?" semester were il"c.2il'Jl'3..(?teltl:"i_;.1._'1,lit:""t?i1d of June. 2009. Al. the lat.es1'., he was l'~.C(.)urse_i_I'i Texas lgm? School. USA W'il.l1 all lhe mzlrks sheets requireclv'toV'.éiit.ei1cl Visa i11E.ewie.w for being admitted E10 LLl\/I IO and other test'.izi1onial.s by the end of June. 200.9-tl_«' secured Visa and he joined the course in Texas LE:1"V'{S'CT:l'1'O()l. [He C Painfully Waiteci for 2 '/2 mcmths i'()1'i*'>et_.ilt. of "fa1,Lt'aiioiﬁ of his CPC paper. It was not done ev-enC'a_i°te1' re_e=_:so.r1e;ble.' wait. He apprehended the po'ss'i'oility o!".i'eva'T;tzaiiotil being V negieeted by the Unive1*sii:y and"e'oh_Seett1e.i'1tlyliaeiiigja risk of loosing admission to the School. He therefore SubI1'li'tT.C:C:'l his Chancellor of Bangalore _ V

4. _1VSf:_3_1l3';'s' V Chancellor of the Barigalore on his plight at that point of time his career was at stake, inasmtieh as, if the revalitatiori of the CPC paper was not done imri1e'diat.ei'y. 'he W0L1llC'lWI1Ol§. mereiy loose one precious year in 'll.l_S:V the chance of being admitted to the LLM eotIrs_e iI1v.Teix'-as Law School. USA, the admission to which 'course. helhacf already seetsred a seat in the first week of 2009 itself. The Vi<"e Cl'1a1'1.celEor of lE3ar1galore // 12 newspaper 'Deccan Herald' dated 9~5~2009 in Bangalore wherein gross defamatory allegations made against him and also against.;hie..fath-er,"husbandélof 'theu ' . c0mplainant--SIr1t. Vijaya under the lcapiioiiy dishes out special favour tol__V"£I' $011'-' A_ the said' news report is at Anr1eXureAgB:_Vl:'..:"'l'§1e con1plVaina§nt~Smt. K Vijay;-355 husband Mr. is a sitting Judge of the High Courtrof Kari"1ata:i:aV.v'-- publication 35 al3l33v'=11"€d_ coined in such a manner attack personally on the social respect of complai'nan't's son, but is a direct his father. The reference to 'a judge' of High Conrt' in the said news report/publication was eastlal reference. but evidently a well intended one jscandaiising and lowering the dignity and majesty of Honfble AlCou1't of Karnataka. Evidently, the persons Z""'.__VV"~resjporisi.hle for the publication of such unjust defamatory ' allegations are also guilty of 'criminal Contempt' under the Wt:(§)}'1l;€',i'I1plZ of Courts Act.

--.

(3. The eomp1ainani/ son was shocked E1I1€l:V.]iV)'I!il'}"),V7.€'.V'Ll_' to read the cralumiiious news 1'epo1"t in {he '[)ee.ea:*i .l"'1er.al(l'l 'L"laiIed*. 9w5m2009. The news report was .higii1y ci_efan1a--i;ory" v\xf*it:1'i._Vzi' potential of Lmdiiiy pi-ejuclieiiig the "mi1';_rA._ll:=I"oi' i'he";7eacle'rs'~... allegations made therein agaii_1_s"t.._ihe son andh'iis"'l7a.th:er are.' false. The status and so.1l1;'t:oii1p}7ainant has been lowered and his friencls in the social Circle arid. v€V€Ii.""i'i/i:.~ friends started quesl.ioning.l'1is:V to get 65 marks in CPC paperlonlyllliiziiii inlluence wielded by his father. his fat.he1' has nothing to do with this issue ande Judge of the Hon'b1e High Court who zjioes not veniui*e iiito such acts as is sought to be imputed ih' t.he_newslfepo1't by Deccan Herald by making such 'i--.1hsinua1;l'1~ig' i}f'£'E.1l.:Ef?l1ClO€3S therein. which are blatantly false. SOI't---If? of .'il1€3n{§"-L't?.AI1.1,(:'.1f1(..'€.*S iii the news report would clearly disclose "that these false a.(:(>usations have been made with the heiishoigiest. inteiitioii of defaming the soii/eomplainaiit anti : 1<;fimvi1'ig fully well that S1.i(',l1 a s1'a'ieme11't wouicl not niereiy l4 bring down the name, re;)u1atio.1'i. respect anci siamdiriglof his father in the society and fu1't'lrier, 1..l1:«;-11. it woulci 21l_.._<,=.o_4'i'iaVelj:1l'i'g1r reaching effeczl in the minds of the. readers as 'tolltli1'e._.iVf1tegfi'[ylV and honesty of sititing Judges l.Co_luri't-,_Voll;l' Kamatalia. In fact, the whole i1"iS'li:i[.11?"iO[J-:' Hligh"'C1'ot1i=tVroi' Karnataka has been de1'1ig1'ated_in the p'roeess.~7?. The. reiporterﬁd' printer and publisher and E11e'--v._e:éi*i.t:()r ofvihatAjfi_C\ii?'.%3ljjé115er are Conscious ofthe nieaning and the limp'u.tatio11."ofthe,etatements published in the I1€WS_.lf33pO'lfl €:;_i1{:.l":i!_is..r{féi1#reaching effect and that sizeli publication will oertalifilb}-7 l1aifr.1'r'1V4hemeputatiori of the eo1i1pleii11ani._/Sofie wetIl"-..._21e-. his father and that it also seandalisess lamd lowers_th_e"1i'1ajesty. dignity and authority of the Humble g-h" Co't1ri.loi' iiarnataka.

7. _"i'he f)'e1'£s_o£1vs eoncemecl had the moral and legal 'dulty--, II"\")'vV"€:'I}'Ci'l:ii-lit'? with the Complainant:/son before the pvb1'iea.i,io1'a.l."t;o :i'iI10\K--' the true and complete facts regarding the j epis(3lLEes;",Vof revaluat.i()1'1. The report is unfair and the :ﬁ.,'I.'A)elC:e_21r1 Hemld' has cfainaged his replitation irrevergibly by its ~ _/' i,1nilat.eral act of 13iiblishiz'1g such. defama'iory z11*i'i'(?Ee";.._"gfI"'If1e son/complainant. 'iherefo1'e went 10 ihe ()i'i'i(.te__--cé! tl"i'e['yDecez;1lri.b rlerzild and n'1ei' Sri Siibranianya. Associe1tc::'"EIdiioai of VD.eccai"iV_ 2 Herald on 9A5~2O09 at about 5.00 9i5m2oo9 as addressed to m'e.-4..i«:diid'r.._d'i* ihecv'V:Dejc;c--&1n Hera}-di"

stating in brief the facts as dei.aile*d_ above aiid: gave a draft rejoinder to be pL1b1ishe.d_ﬂby they;acc:i.1_$ed'~in their News paper 'Deccan Heraicl next day, ctliiimllaieiéani along with his letter dated al.so?Vl"tirni4shed.llhediceriified copy of the answer sheeiry fOilf.S'CF'U'liT'iy'}'1i;i(l"V€fllAlClalil!Of1 by any of the persons of iheincliqjigrril'to.'iind yyo4i'iiyWtl'ze' integrity of the revaluation. In his letterldated Jreqziesied the Deccan Herald to publish. ihe lllalllitexlt his rejoinder to refurbish his sullied l"--vir11ai-gel' iI3,Al"=1l}'iE':A.f1'()1'1l,'v}§é1'g€ of the news paper with a bold head dated 9--5«2009 in specific unequivocal tern'i:%{ he --i?I1adA'}=emphasised that the false, unfair and unjust

-- report: })l:1Abli.S'l1€Cl by the accused has gmssly defamed him and _d;i::.ii:1_e1ged"' his £'C'.].)Ul.2?tl.i()i1 irreVe1'sibly. A copy of the lE?l'.'l,€I' is 'a.ls(--'3. _eiic:lose(;l as ')(,'.I' A111'iexi.ires-C éiz ii") res )eci'ivel . The , V 1 I 2/"' '33.

8. The second rcpori dated }2»~5w20--§):€) Herald is .insid.ious and iainis ihc (il1a1'21iéie1"'t5i"" soiici ihe'. complainzini and also the i'11icgrii.yi;0£' his {'e1'ih.e1i'.'V__'_I'l"ic believe tliat. midue favotir is shown bypassiiig the "})v'.'(j3C€l'i?l1','1'l'.'€lOf rcvaluaiiion because of VIP st-gm_i's~..._ If ilieirueli}1c5i.s"r'eVl2{iir1g to predicament of the c0rI1plainani"'-sv sen repzresentérd to Vice Chancellor. is (?011s.id::_rEEd 5vis¢.:l1{'visn_i.'he powers of Vice Chancellor of Bangalore Uni*.?e'rs'E7t.y_.~.iitiIii:<:,r'Section 15(5), it becomes clear the ;readea~;s _i;l'i3i.V_i.l1le 'v:accéL1sati0n cf illegal i'av0L1r?_ii1 ihel7'r:e1_).VQli'ieA ci:«1ied__ 9-E32009 in Deccan Herald are totally baseless ~31916:~c_c:2--cE5ciecl. While this is the factual and legal posiiitm, the sQii'..oi't.'9ic c0m.p}air1.ar1t was informed by his l'1*ien«r§i by marine-..'Sri VSar1ai,h Kumar Keclilaya who is a lpracliicifig zidi(Qc21i',.e in B::111gal0re that. while he was browsing :i141.i,ei'1Vie1._l.. he canlc across 21 news report:/aiiicle

1)l1bliSl}t?Cl"l.l3y--3 the accused persons in ihcir web site 'lii'if5': / /*;i?V\,:r\».x--ri'«.";'l1'i1ic1-day.c0m'. This news report was reported by Wihe ih.irs:l__ :'ac(:1,1scd whc1*e1mdcr a}lcgaii()1i}s liavc been niade by 18 the accused persona which are not mereiy dei"ai1121i':oi*y.f'btiig, a direct attack on the siitiiig Judge of the Kari"iataka which has aiso the effect of.~e3--3.aifitiaii$i1ig the 'V judiciary and bri1'1gii1g down i'i1e l1»1'€{j'€'iS't'}'. -1 a1,iti1Qrit.y' " afid honesty of the sitting Judges of What. niisehiei' was pEayed"i_by._ DecIc:.-aii been"

magnified by the accused pe'rs_oi:sV deliberatelyg with the dishonest intention of ;hriyiigii:iVg:meio'tyi"::Tt:1qe 1'iaIiiAe,"wstatus and reputation of the SOI1/ iuyils' father and in the process denig1".atiij1g ti'i'e"*--yg*1'toie.',__ii system. The son/ctdmplaiiiaié:t'; i;iierea.ft.er___made enquiries and to his further shock a1id__dismay_.i3auiid'».tl§;at in fact. the very news report as was displayed on' the ihternei by the accused persons in their "'~wjeb'e----sitefS*. E1ISOv'f5i,'1bIiSi1€d by the accused persons in their ﬁaizigagaiore Edition 'Mid Day' on Ié1~~5~2009. A spergific v.ife1'ei'e1i(:e was made therein not merely to the V'-.,S0n/Cttjrilfilétillalli, but afso his faithei" by naming him. The gross 7"c1efa:i'i«aio1'y portioii COI1E'c.1i.I'1t'.d iii. their news report as reported by the third a('(tuSes 1't'?EldS as UF}C.1f:'.I'I %'%"&'<~ 19 "Kashyap had appeared for his 10'" se.rp11_e'ster.."~.. exams last Fel;)1'ua1'y' and had ll11I1l{ect§V__irI'tilfie :_. 'Civil P'r0ceclure Code i.imit.ati0n AC't.'_ thzeary M paper. Sources said. the "LJv--r1.ifV.ersity--A aut.h0rit,ies acted fast t'ojcleel'a«!fe hint.qual.il'iecl--.f; on May 5 because ofFhis,.datl's:_ii1'llu.e11ee...__ They even suspect that ariditionalv sheets_".

were added when t.he_ I'€V'alt.l._atlQ11 wast done." The said report is terribly ealL1ntliipti3_wit.h'irisicllotilsi immenclo against the High report is mischievously poteilt. to aaihii'-iﬁ§ertéplai11ant's image and implieclly of the report. are false and the report. would get an iInp'x'ess'ie>rr the' Cc.>'i.'1'i*'t' Judge exe1'ei.se(l undue ir1fluenc"'e_oVerli:he 'E§"a.11gal6'rell §_J1:1iversity to do undue favour of allotment marks Ai:.1s't.hle revaluation and also that the "'~._Vreqz.iii¢eclhprQc:ecltlres....were bypassed to show preference in revai-:1a'ti_Qlr1.1*-.Ncme of the accused persons consulted the son / er)r'1'1=plaiiia-iii. about. the l.l"Li€ state of facts before publication. j The a1"tiele ljlatar1t.ly am0'unt.s to c0nt.emp't. of court. besides the .0l'ie1'1ee of Cl {amat i on.

9. The acteuseci persons are well aware 4t'.ha.£__ such aCCL1SE1€i01'1S being made ciirectly loy all the £1(?CL_1:'§t§Ct' "a sitting Judge of the I~Ion'b1e High Court make the readers to ponder whether a'sit'E.in;;§.{--Jtt'€1;geV"Woti'}d resort t.o any such action of trying to iiﬁliieiice _;h'e_a.utl1;o~1fitie.s by misusing his 1f)OSii.i(,>1'_1'_"'~.__. such di1*ect'~.:.J"aogajsato1}ri' statements made by aii the aCoU,sedV persons' in their news report have Caused eon_fu~sion_'VAtx1._the minds of the readers to such an extent that the -i.rea'dei's tx(oulL;'..VbiIiow question the honesty and ivntegifiiy High Court of Ka1'naifaka_. _ news 'ref)"o_rt ptiblished in the newspaper has far reaching effect';A:_i'*The__V1aCc'L1sed are aware that such false allegations/dimputat-ion--s are made in. the news report will in _tii.e esijmat.ionV.Q_{___oihers tower the mora} and intekkectual "(:h,ara.et'ei' o_f'*the son / complainant. as well as his standing and :'s_o_(.;iety and that it will ft.1I'f'h€l' bring disgrace to hinias \7&-'E,'.'1"l"-':,£'}';"V: to his father. The aC.crused are aiso aware that the 'i1'z1p'£,tta'ti"ons rnacie in the news report conceriiing the son of . 't.h:;é _Co1n'piaina1'1t. or his father are not at all true and it is not for L/,..

21 public good. *3Vicie1'1tly. {here is no good fai'E.h in i,heir'~eo:1fi'm(:1 and it is 1'1eedless to st:-me that the a.('eL1secl ha-are r1ot'vl.fr1esrelyl'v. clefamecl the so1'1/corllplairlam. bL1l._;21l'E3()' his i'alhee:V1» \iihorvVis,_Ve1lV' sittirlg Judge of the High Court, I'{.?:..1'lV'1"l:'c1J{.'c:1Vi':€1".. sought permission from t".he_ '}3.glvoea't-3 Ge1iera§._'~-a.r1d--' after!' obtaining permission i1'1itiaLed _e_on1_e1npt. pi*oCeedirfgs agaillst the accused. -- _ .L

10. After service of_ :'i'o1.iee..-~«._1'.he:'V~.respondents have enterecl appear&.hieeZ'* 'Iheygl'}.é{Ve'«.fi'le--d--..sleriemer1t of objections. They do not r.ij_e:*f'Vhe:v..ji1;1l)lication of the report. What they CO1'1l.€I1d'*ViS', the" only points out that the con1p1air1anf.;{sons -N1per'~.-was revalued out of turn and that 1he:"e:3,w;is press"ure._____f}fo11'1 the Vice Chancellor of Bangalore .Ur1i.,v_e1'svit'y. E'Qr"~11r1dert.21ki:1g 1'eva1ua't.ior1. incidelltally. it is also l"1'e[5'o_rieéi~ :f:'.i1,z;1tVl.l:1j'la'e paper Valued out of turn was that of the (2onsi§)1z1ir;'e1:a.l..}'son who indeed is {he son of 21 si1.1.ing Judge of V'-.1his l--5i£,)I/iible court. The Very cause title to 'the present. '(',(.')I§'1'.}"3«lai1'1'( and the coI1'£.en't.s of the (*ompl21.i1'1t also point' out" that .

it omside the court. 'l"heref()i"e. the questiori oi" the £1I'l'lClC being 22 these staten'1e1'11s are true. The article also points (int = i':l'1e"'lT;1(:t':

that'. in the piccess oi" 1'e\='aEtiz--1t.i(.)1.'1. the Uriix-'e1"si'l'y h.21fS"rll()1.oit"e.d'v. certain norms and that illegalittes h.a\='e._(r1'e1Jt: i11t'.0--1i;l1e'procegsl' of1"eva!uatior1. It is subinilted that 'il21sll"oe'er1 110 on the part of the accused hc_re'i..n to AS'CEV1l1€l£1l:iS€*. "«o'1""v-lovfer the.' authority" of this lAIo11'l;>le Cot;_rtll;'~vi:n.'Vany..n1a.nner,l On the contrary. the article of Bangalore University. No l.Hon'ble Court or about any of the complairaant.

it i8 ih€1'€f0Tl€..SEihifgitllfit is not conturnacious as falsely 'con~"lpl3_if1t, No part of this article is c0ntt1maci.otlt;=, no statement which either scatildalises oi*-.a!oW'e'i'eV' the dignity of this E-Ion'ble Court. *§he'i"efor3e"; the_q:,iesti"o'n of the accused herein having committed A'ﬁrlljllllzal.:'C;{)I;li'IEf11'1}l'EI does not arise and the present. complaint is liable to be :di.sii'1issed. The article which is the subject matter of V'«preseril:.__;3roceedings do not deal with the conduct of any "'--E--lr.)'_11'b_'.e Jtidge of this Court either in court: proceedings or s l~e// /""

23

eoni.t.1inacious and the aeetised herein being, g:,.1ilt.y o_fdc:ri11ii:;1a1 CO!1'l'.E'II1pl; does not arise. The accused are e11?§p1oyee:5__l'ai:1€t_ officers who are working as journalists in 1"€:{,1'~.§.1.'(3':(f'1". rie\§is._daily'.--. so The news daily is known for aCcui'at.e 1'eporting-I'of._n'ews"items arid impartial reporting of events. Beirig a res;)oiisible_'ti-ews_ daily, it has the onerous task into to t:he-it forefront issues which are of ..iru--p_ortano--el_and also reveal the good and bad eo1id.ut.:--£: o-ti' various.Vvlatithorities, statutory bodies etc in their day to __Whe11 it is found that a statutory body like the_:'V.Bangaiore'University has ﬂouted the p1*oe._edures ojilrocfess' of revaluation, a news daily is duty bound t.oilrev'ea1"the._ sfarne to the general public. The news daily disthlargred thisv:dut.y by publishing details of the "vsan'1le.lini,.AitS article daiied 'l4~5~«2009. The article speaks of the (:oVnti1_1Ctv._o'i:t.l1e"University and not of any sitting Judge of this l9{.0lIil'.plei"t..is submitted that the alleged report is totally based or';t.he}*illega1iiies made by the Baiiigalore University and it "it citiesznot. point out or defame any sittirig judge of this Court. "'.l~iowe'ver, if this 1?--{o1i1.'ble Court" comes to a t:oii.(.:ltisioii that. the 24 report is defamatory. it is a. settled law and the Apex --(3"ovLii~t;li..2j:s several times held that what 2m'ioi.1nts to c1*in1i'ii-at coziieriipt shoulcl be stibstaiitial and niala ficle i'i)terle1'cii'ce--.With';i'e':;1*l€cSs"iv judicial action and criticism afl'e(;t:ing_ti1e'*_jjtie!ge_s*,;in "t'.1j1_eir represeritative capacity and not those...a'i'{ecti11g.."the'1n" iria tlieiiﬂ personal capacity. It is time held:"_it.lril3tVMpersoziall attacks against judges should l3ea"'s»i.iLscelpt,ible to p.1.1rivishment in the same way as attac:ksl"'u'l1lj[on"-ziriyl lt clearly states that the recl1'ess"'ii':.respectof in personal capacity of a'1i3.;_".J'1£':;:lg'e hits :1e'cVes's':irii3}"'tofoe left to the general law of éioefanliatioitlﬁtridb it "does not amount to criminal contempt. i ll. " The3*.._lt1rt.:hei' st.at.e that press is an iniportaiit: arm To uphold the mile of law, all xi'?iS{.'l'l;1,iVtlvC}li'Sit(}'1:l§,§}"i'i to be allowed to function freely. Such actions je.'ga_i1fist the press would have 8. 'chilling effect' which "'wAould counter procl11.cti\.=-'e to the healthy working of "f§<L"Y-i.1(.)t;::I'€i(?}7. which a basic. st.ructure of the Cor:stii.i.1i'.ion. 25 Therei'0re._ it is submitted that continuance".»Vofﬁ'--.e.t}1.ese proceedings will seliously h.a.mpe1' the l"1'ee.t1€)11i._'(5f'"pif€sSV'_ guaiariteed by Article 19[.i)(a} of U1.'3"'C€).I.1S€ii:Ll1.it)'ﬁ'.'V:. "T1ViQ';.:},'4.'c1\:'§'£F.. of' j Coilteihpt is not intended to stifle p'z1bi»5__C Atiis(€O:.1_V19&;;ey a.I1c3_?ti.eb;3,te about i1istitut'.i01is. " V '_ 'V "

12. Without prejudice the alleged' '3i1€gEtEiOI1S, they furthei' Co11t.eI1d that 'sit: this. COL:41{'t.'v"'i.S of the View that publications are in anyway :c0ii'tteriip_i:tiVOti§:V in nature, there is no intention Q.n"b_eVha1fLQI" a'cc«i3$fedV_to:f'eithe1* scandalise or lower the a:,:i,h':§.:ijity of tfhtiéé'-ii_Ic~:'17'b}e CO'L1}'1, in any manner. The I'Y1t€I1UOI1'~{_)f"t?h€ a.eC'uASebd:"~w';té bonafide and in public interest. and i_.he1'eIb1'e, they' 'that? be pardoned for the same. vviThey"Vhhgm:"a1so filed an additional statement of 'G':3jecti<jr-ztgs" gii<)_iig. with the documelits after obt:.a1'ning them :,1.is.d'é.'1t'A I{ightj'jt_~:3.e:'II1I'01'rItatior1 Act. Reiying on the Ccmterits of the d0ct1ni.eh'-.{s, they submit that, in the light of these i"hat.e1*ia1s. ..f;ii"t'.i:?}«£';:% in questiori do 1101. straiiciahse the juciiciary or the E 27 denigrate the judiciary or any Hen'ble Judge, is deeply regretted as it is never the intention of the V'

14. The learned counsel for {lic-._:*Cornp«l.ainVar1tph- Sn' Surnan contended that a reading of. l in the newspaper make it ,__abundantIy that complainants answer paper wasvV.revajlued'onlyhecause of the inﬂuence wielded by his:_'I'athe_r. '--in the puhlications of Deccan Herald, the name Iiibdgeeis"ij1:a_t.V--~mentioned in the publication, in" n'ewspaper."'hisfname is categorically n1entie'ned__ anci'i't'here'.is'repeai;ed reference of the phrase 'son of the High' court '¢Iud.g"e':_4"an_'dJ'.in the publication of MID DAY paper; 'there list-.eXp1"ess'wo1'ds 'that because of the influence of ilthpevl revaluation was done'. Further. he submitted that A"-it ..alsovv.VV'g'i\{esV"i~an impression that even in the process of reva1_uatio~n_,'fthings are not fair. it gives an irnpression that Vadditionial sheets are added, revaluation is done by a person "who_:is not competent to do revaluation and it was done hpvforthwith leading to an inference that it is because of the it/""

inﬂuence wielded by we Judge. it happeneci. 1'iie1*e:i;oi"-ifpiiéheii it. was br()L1ghi: to the notice of the accused how ihi_ri'gs"

happened with reievani. p£r1I'{iCLIiE1I'I-.'-.~','"W'i'{hOi§'ﬁ[. t'2}.kiiig 1V'es_eeci'ing' steps. they have again pL1biished°;the_iepori:_ miseh'ievoi1isiy pointing out the finger at Theiiefoi*e';"..;hemstibmitsV that ii. is 21 clear case o;i".sczi11;ia.1oA'u.s ziiitacit o'n..ih¢,EJi.1.dge and the institution of which it%3;n'e!.:'>&ii'1ei'eIo1'e, it squarely iaiis within the §iefi'nitiQ.;'1' and a Case for proceeding o5§;$i1'i'fiiade out.

15. __ counsel appearing for the respondeiit,s¥acc'useciHs:iio1n'i't.ted that the whole object of the 3.1'i'.icEe "is to.' pqiiiijii 0117:. to ihe genera} public maiaclies in Vaiitonoriiloais'~,_auih.o1'iiy like Bangalore University and its '-fimfcti;'ioning.n is in this context, when it. came to their notice thai,-..__300() _a§)p1ittz1t.io11s were pending for revaluation. it. was "'»z":i.1rioL1sv.i__o note that one application was taken out of turn and Viifeirgiiiied. The object" is noi to de11i§grat.e the Judge or this x in3sI.ii,ui.ioi1. The ob_je(:i:. was to make these autonomous a .... .

29 ixastiitutions responsible to the p1.'1l3li(I needs and to Iiglii-é1;;_§Tei'inst' ._,' ir1'egul21i'it.ies 21nd ilEe,ga.lities in the said i11stit.zlt.ic»1is. .._liil _ the':

entire report published. the.i'e is I1IT}"'i'i1.l..(3111.i{)ll of'-sc21'nd_alis'ing' the Judge or the institution and iii view'loi"ll't,.hAe ..set;t'leid..lAe'§.{:al position. assuming that th0seltv_o'i'ds aitiounti to _<;iei7a"i";v1.31:ion, the ' remedy is to sue them in civil kevfolqfvviilefantation and not to initiate eo11t.e'ni:;5t.AplroC%.eeiellii1§gs.,i:in 'fact. the Advocate Generals have not vEipplI:€'(}"ll1::t-3'iI'l and have given permission. . has not given his opini'oi1:ariei-.ll;ieV and therefore he is giving r'7E'l1er_eilore. he submits that no case for initiatinglerir1iine1}.eo'iit.eriipt"'proceedings is made out. as such, COI1lt€;'l'I1'f2't. iaroleeaelings clropped. ._The eoi*--'----p«l'a1i:it.. upon eoiisicieration of the repiy ﬁled'by'V-LliC,Vlar;Ct--i.sed and the doc.ument.s relied on in the said stfa,i.e'I1ie1'1I.. t"il"j_Oiijetttioris and after hearing the parties, it is Clear that ease Of the (:()mpl2ti11211'1t,s that: the said publications {Vii} t:.l1§', news ciaiiies Contain clel}1inat.()1'y st.at.e,ments. The said . L',/' 30 st.21€"er11e1'1€' has the effect of s<:a1'1da1isi11g {he jL1d'i.e'i0.1'3'VT ' é1.'E1d bringing down {he majesty, amihority and hor1es.t:j$z:"of judges of the High Court of Ka1»1*m1._ta1{2.é_' a r'ic}.7jv»r.ﬁ'e.'_'_;;:}1-Q1c>"' instiiiuijon i.e., High Court of K211'1i:-11e11§a'*is éic:rrii_g1"a1te(:1Lfin"the process. These aiieged de1'a%11'&tory Asvie1ten1eT'm.s~~.i."1"e.i'g:1-fed to!' relates to two persons:

[a} Student M son _ 7 (b] Father of i11:e"st1o1C.i'erV1'L-- Courie Judge

17. """ s112ﬁ5er1'1'en1s made against the son of a sitfir_;g'}_Iig11_Coi1rt V{3a.n1'1ot be the subject matter of a contempt ;V)'i'Q£V'.e~<3(:lVi'1'1-g iz1i'de37the Contempt of Courts Act, 1973.

Def_3fna1.o'1"yVv stal"e'me_n11s made against: a sitting Judge also 'c;;h'not --v1_)e~st'h_e"vSubject' matter of proceedings under the Act, uI:11e"ss 1.h'e7.s<c1i ci statements have the effect. of seandalisilag the 'V ir1sti{.o1.io:} of judkriary. That' is where {he relevancy and if,i.1i;;)@_r1.arice of the AC1. Comes into force. The statemerlt. of

-- o§j)_}'e.C.i.s and reasons of the Act. reads as under:

§// //// he "It. is getleraityfelt that the e.\'r'SttI1_q law r(;%lc2t:izj1g'--Vt:t;v. "'. Contempt' Q/' Courts is s<)meu.~h.at 1.Lr2§eeft.'0Qit:--,.. -1- wldefineci and 1tI1SC1I"IE{fCl(?{Ot'y. The _jLtrHt,sfciI<Z'tt(;--ri'~to p1em1'.5t'1for contempt t.o1.tches-'ii;)'c;z=1 tn,-0 _tr'z_ipe1_'t'anti7:

fIlI'I(ICU71eIIIaI rights Of the etttyzenfhuthety, 'the to personal liberty anti the rtg_h.t"' to expression. It was, therefeezi:e:tconsideted ezdtihitsahle to have the entz'reA,.l.aw 011-3-!=:e"s1tE_r;'ect. scht.v.tni.9ed by a Special Corr1tn'1'«t:tq:r;-e.' '«,In ;_ Of this, a Committee was th ._'--V-'urtder the Cha1'rr71qn...e:hif3'. Q1' ithflejiette VVN Suttyal the then Add.ttte~riat kc.i.%.)>:_i'I."'.V{:l'r(',\I:-"($6?-|.1.€)r(ii« 7_t'he Comm.ttt:ee made a COt'Itl1t3:t".f:?uhé',".i'_'1V.';§':l'Vl,1e 'e.»g£i:%m1;:::':&;:-1 til" the law and of court. in the light Qf the "p'_()s'ittc5Vr1~ _.1'h our own country and UC1I'iVOI.tlS" foreigtc. eiotmtries. The recommendations *wh1'ch the "C'ominit'tee made took note Qj' the in}-po:*vt'a:1ce g'ive"ri to freedom of speech in the C'Qttstt't_1,i"tto_r1 and Qf the need for sc_L/'eguarding the V.s't'a.t'e:5_ dignity Qf Court's and Ifnterests Qf ad 1 ni_hf5trat.t()r1 Q]':_}'11SI'I1?€.

The TCCOHU'i"I€t'I.dC1{iOTIS Qf the Ctmlmittee have been generally Cteeepted by Government C{ffZ(3t' c:c)n.stdering the views expressed on those it/' 32 recommenda[ions by the State Gc)u-ernmenls.

Tem'.fory Aclrniniszraiions. the Supreme '7' High Cou.rt'.s and the Judiciai C()I71ITliSSiGt1_'e:i'SV7v Bill seeks to give e[}'%-2czj'V «F:j_h¢:

rec0mmen.dat.ions Q/' {he Saz1ya'E¢Cc}?_ﬁr's"ii (fear. _

18. Therefore, ii. i:ha1' A :£spects.

which need to be kept, in mind '{1} 1:he« _t,_w0 imp01'tar11.. fundarnemal rights OfH165:"Cii.i:}§'€1'13,: i1vElﬁ'1é};ff:"I116 right. 10 personai Iiberty and the right. to vfreedbmv =.ex";«).i*f3:Vs:é"iVo'.'i.; and [ii)1:he need for safeguard_iﬁg tlie _S[E1.ft1S1&1E1d di§2,'ni'i3,'V 6f'e0u1'is and in1.e1'es1. of adlilinizféte1*ati6n1fQVf is in backdrop it is to be seen whetherie * V Ia) Lfhevre rare Eiikegations in the pubhcatlon against ut11ej't1dg:~;_,_¢.v those aliegaiions are def21n1ai'.ory.

A [e)¢ the allegaiions have the effeei of affecting the st-atus and dignity of courts and irlterest. of

3.dr1'1inisi'1'a1,i0n ofjustice.

33 I9. Reliance is placed on ihree ;311b1ic?21l.i011§._ _"TIV"1"1e4*§'ir:;l one is gaublislaed in Iingglish Daily News Paper. I'}:;ft:ca:11.. }*ie1'al§l 0' dated 09.05.2010 with the Caption "I3dfIgfa.l§>7"?e out special favour to V1"? son "Hu}*§rié'diy reéeva!.uate$'~ai1'e_ paper as 3000 others wait". "i'.€'p()1'.t:. w__l1i'<:Ij1VIs §5~:.:":c4>uC'it1ciVecl asl"

Annexure~B to the peiitiofﬂI'€&1dS=3€E,iQiI1ClVf3.IfZ "BANGALORE ;_1'z' :;q'.bét:ezV"'z:ge rules g' you are a 'I-1':'gl_1 as over 35000 lllelfr"ei;al:lalion resulgﬁ, Bangalore vllellrruicgdly evaluated only the Q;'.;LCl~~VIP 'slvudevril. and despalched .V*:7_1arlgS'vl._:e'ard -01.0 his college. under dllbiouss cirC:lrﬁ:3:fanC':;2§'L" 2 ' Pl'la?*!l_I:VClfV" Kaxshyap, a IOU' semester LLB §t1.éds2r1l,j}'orn'VMS"Rama.ia.h. College Qf Law, failed a ..llLe 9'" semester and applied for February this year. Kashyap, the A gsorg.q}'_aII*ligl1 Court Judge, secured. 18 out: of 100 in the 9;."" semester Civil Procedure Code paper. After evaluation. the marks went: up to 65.

W-"l'1ile his paper was re-»eual:.zaied as lazie as May 5 34 this year. there are thousand others. with lzfﬂle. ' no "c()r'lr'1eCh'on:9". who contintle Io rerna.iIf1.':---ir1,lhe:"

dark about lheir-final performance.

Several of lhese st.uderlI.s 1':lil€*'l1d':'§O"]?llr'.Sl1C§'..' LLM and m.as1er's prograi"m_7'zes abroad.

In his defence. 1'3CJlll;q2"L-"!l:(')r':€IV?_» Urllihvereily Vice. Chancellor Dr. Praljfm Dev _ Illlaware of the matter. "I um; the pending revaluation. rresuhg; -"bu-I Elle" 'or 'revaluation has 'V 'Fhe--reglslrmjorTe«valiLat'lorL S K Laxman. loo c.laimedA"5ihVa1V7ll1e._rr:a_l;z'.er_' had not come to his allenllon andr comment on the delay in the re ..evaluat.t'o:'1rprogiess.

; 'finder pr*e$$'t1re ' ' .""Rel£able s§'u'rc'e:; told Deccan Herald lhaf paper was personally evaluated by the Uruversily Law College under pressure A from :l'f::z;ol'ter azllfloriﬁes. particularly the vice- c:ha;_Icellor. 1)' 4} been appoinfed. ViCe--Cl'1aI1ceHor I)r. Prabhu . had said. "The process has just. begun. " Asild V was unaware of the pending reevaluation..re_§§V:.1Vl£s--,:' However. he now puts douzrel to fni.e'rr1'a1f.. _problems. "because Q/'1.m',u'r:I1 we"could r1or'.vap;ooii1t ' the custodian In time". He *In'S1TSt"ea that: {here "awe" no 1' rregtdari ties.

Unbelievable feat ' _ V V "It's a n1irac_le," saé-a-.sVy.r1dicaie fiiéziﬁber. "The University', Rﬁjvounri, for ::fi.3'xlei'harg:y' ; .I_1_cis _f1'n1'shed re-- eualaagling _'3 a,r1sVu.2e'r .shee'iS. Its unbelievable. "

""" his 10"! gemester exams 'last had ﬂanked in the 'cm Procedure Code"Lim.i{f'a£ior1 Ad' theory paper. SoL1'fCe3vs_atd, the University au!.hor1't1'es acted ' I'.O_'C3:{3.(?lClT(3 him qualified on May 5 because of "h.ig.:"'«._(iafi3S'jI.r1,]1uer1ce. They even suspect: that':

"'vad.di{.'i€)jio--1a'E' Sheets were added when {he re; evaluaiforl was done.

SuiJra1'nanya:n. principal of LIr1ivers1'Iy Law College. who had re--evaluated the paper. declirled 42 to cormnent. He said, "I don't remember how ?"4I1(>/VlI"t_¥.j:".,. 0' papers there were from [Bangalore L;f1<af:.:eréf£.§{;*-- There were papers from rrzany other. .u--r1.i:r}e;2rs'i«!1ies. 19 too Sources alleged t.hat Jdr'r1a.t'V«h.ad. pér<$.oVnoilg'i'; talcen the answer scripfo4L:.f!'or11 "the V 82c§i_r?"200iV7--:VVc"i't'iori0 Centre to the college for__re}eu_aEVz4Vta£io}i.."~ law says no one is Qt.t.0tt~'€d taI€e'..V_d{tSLzJ§'r scripts out of the examination did it," a source said;

g'Jao1a.I';"f€oweoe.If."*refi;se.d. the charge, saying. %;;_»a's.,%'£ui::.;me, ._dr1othe«I'...,$p€Cfal officer took the aims L'£.'€?'AV . 0 '

22. 0' 'The 'MiD.{I)f4{Y*..bLV0Né:ws Paper has also pubiished 21 cIa1'ii?ica1E_io11 1.011'-.itS'p'L1bfi2ation dated 22.05.2009 at the request V.P:--1.11iE1-5:1; Kashap, with a caption, "Quickie reevaluation " Law student Phaniraj Kashyap clarifies that_ univ_e<i--'$ity law has a provision for emergency 0'-».assesém_ents and he took that route to keep his seat in a mm » . e1v:efjL;if'L:ir71g--.was lega£ Zhereqlwr. 44 Track record Kashyap, wht) had conlpleled the _j'ive--_q-eﬁir LLFB. course, had secu.red.fz'rs!, clc1ss_;.pit.f1 an 'avex{c'_rge"'oi'*. 60.2 per cent. marks in all (.11.:-,3' p«re'a3i(;'i.:'sj_ A' semes ters.

But to his shock, Iivégécored 6r~.l_g)"*}.--8 I'f*:, the Code Qf Civii Procedure pape}f'ir1u"i.he 9"!' Semester. He scored 67 in theCrfIrit'nct§.,'E'rdCeL:';,i.f<;% Code paper and pClSSE:'d iF1 aﬂ I.he_(:j_i.her.§_. .» V .

There--eual(;atiorj'VjoL;h-:1'_--:haI the paper had been £rresp0ff1"f3--ibéyjce_vaiVLLaI_eCijar1d.Kashyap was a uictinl} .He:_g?;)! 65 5:1' fe}e'x2VCLi'1iat:i:ori.

-------- .Wh_i.le 'f:::e«_appeared'-jiorv"the 9"? semester in F'--ebruc:r;j; _iuroi:'e__1V4"I'1e__ I0"! and the last semester in. May, I1/1'e;°VcVtfiL..}ji~"zﬁle;-,__h'e« "applied for an LLM course in a U£3.c0'lIege_ and got the seat.

' Since the delay in re~eualuat1'on would have {'(fyf;_F%.?Cf.(:'af,.i his ddhi1';§sio11, he approached the VC and 45 Kashyap didn't know who re--euaIuaIe§I_ :'zfS"tr. "

paper bu?" is thanicfui to those who did arId..A"i:}*2e ' for f'he_jusi'ice. a statement" said."

23. The respo11den1.s have under the Right. to Infor111ati0'n__ Act '5'S_€?'(:.'-RiI'1g regarding revaluation. It is furfrighed. flwi"-1.{'3'f.'l3'E£iC1. VC.§'.Opif3S are produced before us. dated 21.55.2010 which reads as I N(J.Ex.Vf{1'T/'f'{'.?if;I.;I§'[ 1.1\:"o_\{/'I3et:*'V_';2(V)V_(?'z'% Exa111i1'1at,i0n E53reu'1c21'1 T " ' J11am1B§'1arati Campus Bz111g::l()re -- 560 056 Dated: .?..1#O5#2OIO " ' A ORSEMENT Sub: VV"Fﬂ:1t:'1is}'1Vi11g 4tV:r1A1'(3r1i11"z'*1.I.'ic)r1 u11(ier RTI Act. 2005 rcgztrclixig I£X~;--ur1'i1'1.at'iria11se*r-0rici11c:t(:c1 in Nov/Dec: 2008 far 5 years LLB 'ciegréé cc.xLi_1'sse » Reg.

'- I IL'c..t.te1'1'ccei'{?€ri from Sri Kzu1s:aIr1i.k NC. PI1'11icr:-3 {M'y:s01'e] V.' Pvt ~--!v.tc§ .. I-32111 gge1101'e P2;1.1't 101.1 1.;-11's in f'0m1at.i0n 9;

I V E'INu:11bc:* of set:u(ic11t.S who 1421 st1.1dcnt's; §'1zwc applioxl for "' §'1z':d z=.pp§i(*,d for 1'('Vl1ILi2iU()I'] rm':'1.§1.1at,io::2 in 9'" 5-3e11'1cs.~3tc1' of If11(:i1" u1'1s.~'n.vCrs s~';(>ript5e of [5Yl'S 1,1,!-3 C,0urssC}.

" -._§W:mJm§§f_*_ :':;('1I1c.<a1.c1' 5 y@e1:'s 1.73:3, c:>~:az111i3'1aii.(.x1'1§3M%1ﬂ£}Agg#T ,/"' 52 [During revalttation. the uatuer shail si§;r1..aE5H' ' the sub--dz'vision of the answers r.I1e;;~j;:a£z;e "

but record the marks o_nlA_y_ on zne' "

provided for the purposge. no1_ a;ccoz.tnt';., '' marks or comments S5;t4.Ot.tlt?5. .1g:_r'tt'trer':. inside the answer scripts.

The co-ordinator tv«rZ§t""rn»akeV "packehtis ' "cgf jO answer script'st«'eac'h, and then.

number then; _rart_d--or1'1t_y.:pWhfeVnet.Ser'V"the total r11tr31b'e?.r f'gf' sc__ripts.:...are«. 30 scripts r::r:e:;} «.arev-p7actcect_ in. _pa"cke't's_of 5 scripts. e'Al£V'"ith.e s:5r*a'p'ts.&V't-alcerfbyh vaiuer each time = sI't.attZa'fi9e 'wali1ed"in' one sitting.

marksv. Vihfst shalt be prepared in ct1tpiicat:e....._by the valuers and one shall d irectiy be handed over to the Registrar H,W..vQjejatlt.::'atior1) or his authorised nominee by "c§oordinat,or. and another to be retzamedfor .t:abt.tIat'I'on. "

_' s._2=5V. The 21IEcrge:c1 defanmtory stzxtements agfzlinst the ' " Judge in the said pu'oIi(t21ti()1'1s a1'C only to the foilowing cffe(:'t,.

28. Seeiiiotl 2{C) of the C01'"iI.@I11p1. of C0u1."£.s A(7.I ,i"3s97} defines what erliminal <:<)ni.en1p'£ means. which reads~~aS_;1I§:1'd'er:"

In this AC1. unless the confext o_t.jher1.v:;s e requires. « {(1) Joooooc {Io} xxaoooc (C) "Cr'ir71ir"1*af _ C_0n%{:en1jt>V{.'L' "rr1eans the publicar:ionV (whether b_g_ 1;:ords.--'s~poke:1 or writzten, or by or; by _V',.Uisibl'e'_j~repr%3'senLaii.on, or otherwise) .rfng1;L£.er or the doing of any other not LoﬁAoff.'soeL3'ier wh:'_o'h« ' (1') ' =s'cc:;nd.aE-:1se';:"or tends to scandalise, or ._Iowers '<51'. 1erIds_ lower the authority of, any cou.r1.: or A' 'A f".{iiV)"-- prejudices. or interferes or tends to irti.e.fj,fer'e wilh. the due course of any judicial ;)'roc.r;~ecIir1gs: or

(iii) interfieres or tends to ir1r,.</3fj}"e~re wiih. or obstruct.s or {ends to obsz.rucL, the administrauon of_justI'.cce in any other manner:

$1//x 56 The P2,11*1ia211t11en£. 23111531666 the Act 2-md s11bs1.it.ut.eci Section 13 by C(n1temp1 of C<)u1't.s (An1e1'1cimez'1t.) AC1. 2005..};;yv..'_gmy of subst:.1"tuti()1'1 which wads as tmde1':--

"13. Contempts not punﬁsfiable in cj;ei?f1_'.'aVinf¥ cases: Not'wtt.hst'a.n.dEng ar'1yt}1tr1._qf 'C"OI':l{'(1"if1_(;"('1. _fr'1 7 A lawfor the time being trtj3)rCe.- V

a) no court; shalt__tiﬁ1;3:Qse» a s.ét1.£é_z:tcre tinder this CO]it§e.;_1'2;r§t.~--r;j' court ttnless it is SC'ttEi;ﬁ3_'fA't"c:'.(_1'~.t'?f'IC1I'._.{:tit2,A '€(;I't{€f71}3[ is Qf ._c,-_uch 1. '51' " 1ft;~._?t.i_IatV I ubstanttaliy :;:j:'t.'~'1tV.r.t fféreg 2 tor _ te_n'd.<§ " 'substan tiatly to .;j_r1iti'é?ti'&.ré"with .t.h£3 due course ofjust.ice,' _ 'C6t'._(?'f: may permit", in any 'V _ V'pf"oc.c%:dtr1g for contempt: Qf court' "j11's'I;tf'ic:at.ion by truth as a valid dggjénce if it is satisfied that it is in public V interest" and the request for invoking the said d€ff(3t1C(." is bona_ftde. "

V129. " i' In the light. of the a.E.bresai(1 defi1"1it.ion in the case of Mitlgaokar. rc-:p01't.e(i in AIR 1978 SC 727 a £.1'11'ee Judges 57 Belzch 0f the Supreme C01.1ri.. was Called upon [0 (:()n_$_ider the {)LLbliCa1.i()I1 in lxldian Exp1'ess News Paper .d'a.1:e'-d_"-_13'"

December. I977, where 21 direcé. attzfiek on l.E1_ti'2.Ju:lg'e.§;'----nfv--.--1_;11eb Supreme Courl was made. In the $a.i.d_ jL1dg1irilei'1tr.'_':JLilSLie.e V_.Rl.' 1 ll Krishna {yen has laid down the r:_11es,;"'i'c.)2' l"t:;1._L:;re"gaidzzgiiiiei of Judges who have to deal \vif'i1'<--1:he znaiters i1i_ ¢c.1u~.:=_;;;V 01." iinxr./:.l' They are as under:

2 7. T HE FIRST iilrlis * ._af contempt' power is a wgfse e;:ono:.%:y Q17!-iS.e Court. Qf this branch if;1;3»~'j1.;ri§;diéVifan. _lf'he"C'oar"i will act with where _jusI.iee is jeopardtpgea and / or unfounded attack on {The l_j1ld§'e_sa.4l:azl1ef_;e the attack is calculatecl to ; 'alrsrmet er de';;r.n$g the_ju.dz'.cial process. The court is w'"1L;Ai-llir2gA. to iar*¢.'Or'e,'vby a majestic liberalism, (:'rg'./ling a.r}(li~r 1:efila_l Qf/"eases ~ the clogs may bark. the A.l¢ar£2_uc;:«l'.l':;;:i'zz pass. The Court, will not be prompted t'o_.--c3r.jl'j'..--cls a resulf Qf an easy irri1abiliI,y, Much r'al.'r;.9er, it. shall take a noetic look at the eonspecms ' Qf:/eaL1.1.r'es and be guided, by a const'ellaIl1'on Q)"

9ccmsI:iz'u(ionc1l ermal other' cronsideratitms wl'1.en. if $33 58 chooses to use. or desisifrom using. its power of conlempl;

28. TI--IE SECOND PRIl\lCIPLE n'1usi__ ;_. A' harmonise the corisliiizliorial values cri.iI'cism, Ihefourih estate iiieliided, aricllliei.';'3eedf', for a fearless curial process ad ifs, fimelzionary, ihejudge A h(1ppy'--l.)alanceyV.hVas Viol struck, the benefit" doubt.

generously agaihsi l.he___. sli.ir'ring lover marginal d.e'i:ialia_iis but. _ proving the supremacy of ihe laiv vicious, iir1repei1iaril' vandfAmaliynant..:cor1iemri'ers, be they the'"pou};g(f1il:f91press,V'ganylup of vested inleresis, veteran. V' coilii'myh'isi:s ' or olympian eslablisl1.n1eniai'iaris--.. _l\ioi because the judge, the V.humah" syniieliol °Q]'l'"a high. value. is personally "3,ar_rﬁofed by"a..__re.gal privilege but because 'be you -- 'COlll.(3JTIr1€r -- ever so high, the law v the People's iexiprsessiox1.:~of'Justice v is above you. Curial courage ' overpoivers arrogant' migl'i.t' even as 'judicial l;enVigi1ii.y forgives errant. or i>xaggerai.e(i. critics. Indeed., lo crilicise ihejudgefairly. albeiifiercely, is filo came but a necessary rigl'il.. twice blessed in a democracy. For. if blesseish him ihai gives and him 59 that: takes. Where freea'om of e:<press1'on.. __f'ic1irty e, ercised, subserves pwblic iI'1lI€.'I'(?.'$l. in reas(ma.~';)te.c measure. pubtiejlusticre cannot gag it or manacIe"l' constitutionally speaic1'.ng. A free peopleﬁare"

ul.ttmaz1e guarantors offeartess 'jus 1 ice. 8: ;e'i=:. _ is-. corner.<;tone of our Cc)r'1st'it5utiort,t«&_s--aCl:1'.l;§a_t"he"

touchstone of our Contempt polttenl or1'en'ted on confluence ofjree speech.4{1nd'fai,rljl,est.tce"azflich 116$ the scriptural essence F'ur"ldar*nen'tatl:'Law. Speaking of the social pl'titoéo,olig_ andllpfz£lo;9ophy of law in an integrated.jrnan.né.5v». applicable to contempt. of court,AVV_th:ere no "conc-;ep--tliat polarity but a balance. '-a'n.:i1'-._.;;;dV:c:az 'sap1'ence' t;iI'ClL£)."'§'A"llllv(v3 line. As~.._it happens. our Constttuttorle rI"ialcer'sjores"at.u'the--,he.ed for balancing all these competing Section 2 (1) (c) of the V 'ﬂonternp-t" of Courts Act', 197.1. is an extremely wide .':'dt?3Tlntt"tor'1. Bl1.'t;""'i't: cannot: be read apart 'from the c-o_n::pectf'us_ of the constitutional provisions within '.1tlJ't"'...i":l('.;l.',I' Founding Fathers Qf the Const'1't.ut'ion lI1lé£T"l_Cll<fé'CAl.V all past' and future statutes to have met;jan'1'r1g. Alt laws relating to contempt ofcourt had. ' acec)I'cliI'ag to the provisions of Art. 19 {.2}. to be "rea_s'onabte rest.ri(:tion.s" on the exercise of the right. Qffree ;-:peech. The courts were _given the power » ~f_}>5..

60 and. indeecl the responsibility ~ to l1armon.1'ze cc)nﬂ.ieI:'mg aims. l.lll€l"E,'SlS and values.

29. Z"l'*lE 'l'l'tlIRl") PI€INCII5'I.E is to avoid e_()f'§]i1sVtr2rje_'t. between personal protection ofa ltbelledjuctgeieland prevention of obstruction of jJl'.IlJlfCJ'L.I$l.'lCe'lﬁifld thej. eommun.ity's confidence in t.he11' great process. former is not con.temp1',._ the 'latter ltholugﬁ; Overlapping spaces abo1.1t'2.rlf"

:31. THE FoU,r<fiH'-..{_ Ft_;Nej'-:t:{wi1;..CANON "which channels discretoiol1lorytl1> conternpt power is ¥{~ll.CLl the"*Fourl:S1_"»e,esldte'Llrhteh is an fndispe>rlsd.'E:;Tlle'1'r1I'errrieciiary bem.a.;.«,=n the State and lghe _ 1oeoj3'l3«.._ "cLI1ci'«,}"1'ece*ssar3.; instrumentality in strengtl2.eru[r1g'._:t.he>"joreres of democracy. should be giveI1free_play u.2itlaz'.r'i responsible limits even when _foc1.ls" its Critical at.tent1'on is the Court, irifE:lt:eela'¢1g the highest Court.

f1;¥§{I5""rPIp*1"r1 NORMATIVE GUH)ELINE for the 'jL1(flg'esj'..*tc) observe in this _jurisdiet:'1'cm is not to be h.yp_erser1.siltve even. where d1'stort'1'.ons and ' CI'lllLTl$fTl$ overstep the limits. but to deflate vulgar denurar:tcm'or1. by (ligrﬁfiecl bear1'.n_q, con.desc:rendin.g 1'.nd.fj]'erenc?e and repudialtcm l3_1;_,iud teial reet.ir1..tc1.e.

33. 'I'HE SIXTITI CONSIDERA'I'IOi\;' is ihczi, qfier eualuming the toialiiy of fcicgrmrs, if {he c:oi.t-Ki cori.si.ders ihe attack on. the judge or scurrilous, Q[f(;'T?Sfl,'(}, i'nI.imi'daiory or i7fgi1i'iei()z:s » A' beyond condonabie limits. the strong clrnii Q}'fiIi.e 'M law must. in the name Of pi.Lb1ie~in_ierest. Ciilaéit-;I3I{bEi7C:".

justice, strike a blow on him. iLii1A0xehdllenges "i'..Fic2__ supremacy of ihe rule Q!" law by_jb.r.iIir1g_ii;s. siotireej and sI'ream..

34. Speaking .ge{ieI'ai'li}, " iffierjei'-._cu'e oeeeisions when the right id 'cornr'nei::'1if may_ 'be' of supreme value (for ir?.sic1i1ee.iii;hr_2iiiaiidorriieie bxavbies cases in Qj" contempt must: acijiisi cempeiing be inodified, in its app£i<i::ii'ioi1Vby AiE1e".reqiiiren1eni's of a free society __§. cir1d t.sI'i.eV"s!'u'f1'.i:1gV emphasis on paramount. public iniiierevsiiii a given siiuaiiion.

1'I1:'_1 'C;:(.)ii..C11.td€d by sayirlgt

565." v'f'fi.e Court. is not an inert. abs1ract.i0n.; ii is jJeQble in judicial. power. And. u.'-hen drawing up V "»,sI.andarcIs for Press _freed.0m and resiraini. as an.

" 'ini.eIj'a.(:e' with an i.mqf'rai'd <>oi.z.rl., Mic' must not"

/1 __ Uﬁ;i"i1"11at,eI3,r '1 he ]ea1"ned J LICT1j._~.§C C<i)nc.]uded w'i1.h '1 tlese words:

forget that in our constitutional scheme the most fundamentat of all freedoms is the free qt.teS.£.V_]7C.U">'~.,_ _jI.£SifC(;' by the small man. 'When beggars dIIe;----tjhere , A' are comets seen' and 'when the butt ete )ha_nt's, ft, ht 'M 3 ._ --. .

the grass is trampled.' The con.t.eI_npt' sjanc;?tj'ion. frozen by the high and Ittfghfltg press f;:an>1;1)a'1fg.r1;*thr§ Ah stgfferer. in the long run, is the small Inotari' who ' seeks social trartsfbrrnatﬁon thr"o1.tgh _;'udt'c1'aZ process. Social _,r'1:_,s'tiCe is at 1_'jf'?_4/'c)ut press unt1'mt't'ed ."ét3€r'(.'VAh As AAo'Aust'tce Frankfurter stated: hrnagjhh f}ttd_c:jes'_' ~(1;S'~4D€I'SOI'LS, or Courts as Atn.st.tt1tt2Eor'1s',shareA,e.r_1ttttted: no greater t'rr1rnuru'tﬁt) crtt'iti_1'sn1 _th.ar't uother persons or attestiorz I d«est'st.' from deciding here), h' Lwtien eoinrne--.nt darkens into coercive irrzpittation dork:ca!c:t;ta.t'ed falsehood, threats t.o it 'imparttat-.adjttdfcatton subtly creeps. Not, because tacIcHjirt'7'1ness nor that the dignity of the bevnicrii~_demands enhanced respect' by enforced Jttstiee Black observed in the Los A AtIg(c'Ze?:SsA%Ff?T1€S case. ((1941) 314 US 263 et. at) but E;JexC(ftL.tS(3 the Course Qj'just"tCe may be distorted by ' hostile at',tn'but'I'on. "

it/' /.» *%W 63 Freea'on't is what Freedom does and Justice fails arhert Judges quafi. For SlI.!'(3 may plea is jbr _judiC1'al. pachydermy, bu! jar aIei.aCh.ment. whz'ch ignores illdri/brnied crrii.iz:isiii*. 'V'. its toleram: smde. but strikes z.uI1._e:>~.=i~..aj]"eI*is:i1>e excesses are esia.bI1'shed.. all hypothetical and have no spleeg/'ifgiifefefer"r_ee--. Lo, present case. These O"l'):I.fé'._I: dicata. are mdieaie the pros and c0r1s";'.._iio§ io parziiffcaie an the precise l1'mi2':sforv e.xjercis'e"Qj'e{):iiie'r?ipt poiim and to emphasize what: _ ._Wa_rren Burger merilianediri {[1976} 96 SC a£"2_8'(33] §sa~fne'i1ii'nfj --vir1___i}1e nature Of a ',3VidLLciar;}~¢;iLL1;}f o_,'74t.'fav.sa_' press to act. responsibly. and f 'rriay a'a'd.V V fall'_ij.

~."i"his 'i's'im'iVtshe law laid down by the Apex Court in L the saiEi--v.gi21:ae..__it'is in the nature of obiier dicta. A guidance to the _j'udges*i"ifoh1 a distinguished Jiicige wiih experieiice and wiscioiia. A piece 01' educaiiori to Judge ~« Victimis, as Wei} as the who have io decide the vase of Jiidge ~-- Vici'ims. Ii: is in isz 33%"

64

this back gr0u1'1d we 3112111 See the law laid down "G' '1€:..VA;)ex C011 r1: .

31. Mr. RANKIN C.J. krfs.

ALFRED HENRY WATSON (p;_1_f'1e-....1 931- cA;,,257"~1.AT .1523. 261} held as under: . V " the _j1zri$d--ie£jion'«_ingC*oii'E'ej?1ij'i; is not to be invoked unless ti1efev'is_V;'e-{J91 ;:)reit1dfc*e:vL13}1icI1 can be regarded <19; c_a.31¢£2stqnf;}a£ ~:'.rii.eﬁfereri§";e with the due cours_e--V:jf:j1.1%:;i1'ee ar1'd_« {hair fjheffpurpose of the Counfs c1'c'fiE):z_.1f:.-%j;.a }i1<:aCti.t'aﬁ"-p1u'ﬁt§s'e'end it; is reasonably (Hear 'ori "that: the Court will I101 exerdse upon a mere question Qf pr0pr1:e't'y_.T"' A V' s 'Ihi':3._ft1d_g111€xe3i,"was approved by the Supreme Court in the case '.0fAV'i<IZI»vvI./'A;'*$Ié:!'J§'£A2:vIV£VASAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE or UTTAR

-V PRAb1§:s;1 (A13 1953 so 185), E55

32. A C01'1stit':1.3'tio1a Bertch of Apex' Court in E1115"-17215:? of BRAHMA PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. PRADESH reported in AIR 1954 SC 10, obseﬁfeci para 8:

"It admits of no ciispttte tI'2e'_--st.t;nn1ct:*tj'-. jttrisdictton exerCisee?__"'by stzpertor in punishing contempt oj'Rt'heir' _a1.tt:hon'ttJ for the P11713036' Qfﬁ Ptreue:*t'ttt1Q\t_:ji\ro1t4té1,;~'53?"en.ceV"wVit'h the course q1;;usr_az:e."and,/hr,ihgtritainzftg the authority of law as is adrninhtfsittefedj ttnhthe It: would be o:1ty}'eoeat.tf?.g Ltﬁtétt 'been...satd so often by o-2Qjec'rt" of contempt proc:eed?i:tg:§'«:'s 'n,_5:.,::o (word protection to Judges E'personattgjiffont'«.tn1put'ati.orIs to which they may be'oe,}€posed__cte_v trzdtvtdttals: it is intended to be Ct ' V protect'tonVto the public whose interests would be nlttch if by the act or Conduct. Qfany _ the authority of the court is lowered and of corgfidence which people have in the "t, t ..__(idrf-qfrtis[ration Q]:]'1l.SI'I'.C€ by it is weakened. "

'Fhe;y have approvt-rd the obsew3.t'1'ons of the E£11g1is}i"Cou1'1s. Lord Morris in deIivc'~>ri11g the _;'u(ig1nenE. of_...I.h€. Jé;;c§i'Cje1l Co11111'1i.t1ee in McLeod St. Aubin (1899) AC that "Comm i.r'I"a.is for Coniernp "Pg; '~sea:1dei£_{irzg '~r.ii¢z". "

Court: itself' l1ave' _I_;)'eQQn1e 'obsole{e ihfs:

Country. Courts are to "(.0 fftzblic opinion atic;éi£3_ dero§re1I:(5}9y or scandalous t"o ther'n"".e._.37 V' """ *§;.:»':;-uje-.:;f- s1L:«7ﬁﬁai;ViIy to Commit. for ' <r.0VriV:f.<>}'ra;5t; .ebiss'.e()'r--1si.deI'ed necessary jbr the 4' prbpef i3:.Ac'ir1_ﬁ'i'2.i,sn'1.'reuior1 Qfjustice. It. is not. to 'be used v1'ndz'cai1'0n of a Judge as a pers'on..._.He must resort. to acrionfor libel or .4 zcaffminal inI.imida(:ion"

I4'uA1."1'.'E".~.-'er t'e1ne,'_'\,"-. E"i;i~1x?'e obsewecl at, pa-1ragr.:«1p11 12 as under:

"The posirion Iherefme is that" a d.e_f'anu:at,ory attack on a Judge may be a. libel so _fi:1r as the Jucige is croncerned cmd ii would be open to him 67 to proceed against the Eibellor in a proper action.-if he so chooses. If. however, the publication of disparaging statement is calculated to with the due course of justice or__' proper * ' administration of law by such coartr, punished summarily as con=,t_:en1pt, One» is._a'*-iorong A done to the Judge personallyiohtle theb'.otf:1'er"is L1 wrong done to the pli}:)li;"C";~,"If wiil._be- to the public if it tends to apprehension in the minds of people:_ the integrity, ability orfaimess todeter actual and prospective'Wlttigar:_tsujroni 3 complete reliance :§:L}'9.«'on_ 'V Co_rJrt"s' vhadintnistration of _justice}5'Vor lit is likely to cause embarrassment in himself in the discharge of jtldtciatdiii'tes:":-It is well--established that it is not ne-nessarytto prove affirmatively that there A. bee'n"'"a'n actual interference with the

-vV_ai:1miriis.t_ration of justice by reason of such it V"vdefar:ia't:ory statement: it is enough if it is likely, or _tends in any way, to interfere with the proper .. administration of law. "

68

33. The Supreme Court in the Case of PUBLICATIONS Vs. STATE OF' mm:ARAsH1_.jR--A 1 in AIR 1971 SC 221, after I'Cf€1'Fi'{1g i§>..xra_ri0L15.j'i1"dgij:ef1'i$_' AQ11'r-iiiie' _ point. has held as under:

There can be no marmer. of doiibz. =:i'iea.r_1'..r2i this country the prinCili'jvi'e§'V'Lz>hichishgiufd. geguem cases Qf the preseril. we .ﬁIre\"r-1(_)LLv fu.lIy' Settled by the previous 'd<3Ci'SfGI]S§':'»Q;~n tficQi.i~rZ.7 We T71_C1,_1:a':"I'(;-?,_Sl'I(3[(I::E'3' Ihe_V'V..res_Lil*zti"Qf the discussion of ihe_ czboueigjiiecpsesj =r)n'- _t_hisgi':ec1.d. qf coniempi: which is by ni) rneari.<J eX'nfr;t:z:S'Ii'Ue. V .1} Ii 'u:ilZV'1ie"':-.aI'3eb r1g_}iE---('o'say iihaf comniiifrals for Co_ni7empf'=.sCrir;deiE.i_;;irig the court. have become _ V obsbizeie. V _ . A.3_1z.rIir71a'r#1} jurisdiction by way Q)" coniempi _ '"~n_1'u.s:"i' .}_)e~"exercised with. great, care and Cauiiorl a:1?;i---or1ly when its exercise is necessary for the ..p'rop--e:- adn"1in.isIrafion Qf law cmdjixsiiee. it is open (":0 anyone (":0 express fair. reasonable ("U161 le_qi.iimaze criticism. Q1" any aci or ccmduci_ Q1" a judge in hisjudicial crapcicity or even to make a '-»2'1?%3xv

4) 69 proper and _/'air Cornmeni on any de(.'lsion gii.>en by him because '_'jiisl.iee is no: a (.'l()iSlI€I'€Cl l..'l'I'£',l_l€;">, and she must. be allowecl to siiﬂer (The S(?f'l:{l'llE§ '' and resperriful, even l'lIOl,lgll c)i_sii;poAl:c'e*n:';' com.n'zenis Qf Ordiriary men."

A dis!'.ir1c(.i0n mus!" be I71c1d.e~.:bel:i.1:ez:'r1 a._n'iere lilsel, 7 A or defamation Qf a_jualge Cll'l(iV"iAL_lllC?.l'. ariiaiinrs to a; contempt of the COLUT.

The test: in ecieiycase _wau.ia'_ lee whether the impugned pliblieaﬁonl fa _'I'r~aerte" 'de)"amai.ory aiiaclc or:\.i,'l1e_ju:aIge (if r.uhe'i.l1erV1'i .,isVCale1ilai'ed to ir1ierj]'€{rel";;uiI'l1 iL':1e§dl.le c°0i_i.rsé'"o§,*"_jlislice or the proper'adnlir:is'i:ral'ia;'1Q)'law by his Court. It" is only in that it will be punishable as cariteivip-i".

:_Ali.ernativelgj'"l.'he test will be whether ljhe wrong

-,_is'~a'0.ne to ihejudge personally or ii: is done to the "'piiIll:?lic;.:'~"l'o borrow from the language Q)"

llfiilélteriee J. {as he then was} {Brahma Pralcash ~. Sharrnafs case) the pulgliealion Qf a disparaging si.alemem" will be an injury to (he public if it. ('ends (:0 (.'rea.i:e an apprehension in the minds Qf the people re_c;ara'ing the integrity' ability or ">'?§'3%3.:m~ 70 ..l'§C2irriess of Ihe jucige or to defer acii.ia.l cznci pI'OSpC(,'I.i1,?€3 ii('.igc"m.is from picidrig Cor71};£eie_ relianrre upon the coiirfs adminisiraiior'i o_j°_'j'ii:§i?ii , or if it is likely to cause eri1barrassrne'i~:._I; l'r'1::'f~.1"li3 mi rid of the _jiici.ge hirnseif in "the is.¥;*I1arg'e* of his. judicial duties.

34. The Supreijne Coii.1ii:"viii1'the .cfzise._M0{..:§S. ABDUL KARIM Vs. M.K. 1976 SC 859 at paragraph 23 hasheid e.rsun:(1er:* h K h V i '_':';."§-'_?fie ;§'ro:1d i.es}'::. to be iizppliedhiri such cases 'A. acruweornplairied Qf was or had an intrinsic ienrienoy with the course ofjusiiice _ and diie odrniriisii'raiior'1 of law. The ...o.:siaAr1dairo'""oj"Vpi'oQf' required to establish a "eIi:c1_rgve_Qj"crimirial. comernpi' is the same as in X ioiiier criminal proceeding. It is all the V. .rriojz.*ei necessary to insist' upon strict proof of a*:_.$"LI(,'."l charge when the act" or omission complained of is committed by the respondent under Colour of his office (1'jI.ldI'(Tl'(1l Q[fiCer. Wrong order or everi. an act of usurpation of a ._ 'F' L.) _j1u'i5d1'(?I'1'.cm (romrniried by a 'judicial €131"/ic.'e'r'".=,j c.')wz'r1g ('0 an error Qf 'judgrnent or r'n£sappreher'1sion Qf (he correct legal 5' does :'1.ot"'/all uwhin the ITI1'S(3hiCjf'_QfTﬂ:(f-riI'fﬂifid£'_ con.I.empf". Human _j1.1CIgm_ei'i.I. _fa.liib_le avr'1_¢:' a = udiciai O "fcer is no excér t":'.c3'.z"1'.a~Cori:;et*ILere?a£'Z1ﬂ "«-.

- .. A _ 1 _ 'J _ .

so long as a jud icial e'O;[ficefin_ the d.iscf¢arge Qﬂ; his Qfficial duties. in good'1fa'£tI1'*.:ariei w1't.hou1f any ;not.i:>ea.«---Ia"'defeat, ab'sv£;r11.ei.E or interfere LviI.f'1*--.. c;;'_1.ze;ej_s:;§.)1"z*r$'¢2 A.'of_j1.LsIice, {he courts will not ."_pL.ir:f5fi1'.7f1frn for a "crirm'r.z--a.'l éaald be urged £ha.f'=.. ~ fe_a;- a5 such. is not an iiltifspensézébleé "2ngredir2r2I' of the Qffence Qf CO?1f'ern,b€f"e«!lhe.._.cfC-afgs are loath to punish a C0,'I1f€vTv?'l?7Lé£_I'.V'§f' 'f:Z1e_§ac£ or omission complained 1 of, LUO'.SVFV1'(v)'I. wi.!U'u£."

-- case: 0fP.N. DUDA Vs. P. SHIV SHANKAR 82.

0Tf£ERS.i'c?;3f)1't:ed in AIR 1988 SC 1208, the Supreme Couri . 4' ' -. V 31213 }he1d'~as under:

\)V/,.

72

"It. has been well said that ifjudges contempt" power will not save them a;m'--

other side of the coin is ii'iatju.dges. c¢;¢s§::}*s wife must be above si_is;pi,<:§i'on.

admitted. frankly and fc1i=rl_i,r t,uli<;fre'..llicis"'.l§eer'i::;_'l erosion offaitli in the digriliigllof t.l1e_co,i.irt.' andiilriq the rriajesty of law '=t_l1at" lias__ beer1"v_cauvsVecl. riot. so much by the scar_1_olal.isi:'2g reiﬁarlcs rr_1iade* by politicians or':ii'ciir1i's.f.;ers .t;l'1.e_ inability of the courts of law lt,c.c_ld.el-i:;ler'V abnid substantial justice"?.o__ tl1cg.""rieeiiy,."Mariyv? siiffer from 'emails u1JLJl"lf:(V'l1~. lcloiiriis of justice are ir3con.:p<3t7efil'. to"Lcl€'val' :!.2tr£h.V_Ji1stice cries in silence _/ori"lai1g. iiooalong. -The procedural wrangle is erociingl _'fI:1ific:._i'rJi our justice system. It is a i:::jit'icisrri .I.L4Jl:"T.iC'h'lg"c;'l(;' Judges and lawyers must _ make. about.' themselves We must. turn the search light. ir1ioar'a"'.'VAt the same time. we cannot: be oblioic1i_is of the aitemptzs made lo decry or .l'Cls:r'ii;fj'r'a:te the judicial process. if it. is seriously Tliis question was exarriined in Rama vll}Da_i;al Maricarha v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 3 sore 497, li,?l1€I'(3 it was held that fair and reasonable criticism of'a,r'udgment which is a public a'oci..iment. or wl'1.icl'i is a public act of a 's 73 judge concerned. with adrninistrat.1'.on of_just'ice would not constitute contempt. In fact' si.lc't1.;-fair and reasonable criticism must: be er'1co_:.t~rag.ed.

because after all no one, much less Jzu:ig'esV;~--.({an:.. claim. in/allibi.lity. Such. a cn'tj.icisn1 "rnaij:V';fair'tg4i' assert that thejudgment incorriect bafs--a:1 terrier has been con"mn't.t:ed both with xr?e_cjard-..iVo lall>e.._or'sA::Vs* established facts. But. when 'it. is s[ai.tLl,.tt1at:

Judge had a pfe;d:t'spQsittbr1._ 'ta 'tor deliberately took a t1iVtfnuiinV__discu.ssion eﬁiderlce because he al1.fear;lyl ngadealp his mind to convict the accused, :ljaL1;'_ward bend of mind . is ' attrfbittitig io.t'ives..V_ tact: Qf' dis passionate ar'idVI;'Qbjc'c1t:ive.' apbroaclt and analysis and pre _f'u_dgingl ':'.'l€?;'.' l"i't_:l€3t--.V_"i§3S1i(3S which would bring adtiu'r1isl.raiiort Q}fjiLst:'ice into n'd.i.cule. Criticism of _ ttieudnclges would attract. greater attention than gotvhers CllIVI"Cf""$1lCh criticism sornettrne interferes 'w'it:h"tl_1_e administration of_jt.i.siice and that: must' A by the yardstick whether it brings the » aclmir1ist.rattor1 of justiice into a ridicule or 'jhampers administration Qfjusiice. After all it. cannot be denied that pre~di.sposition or subtle prej1.1.dice or unconscrious prejudice or i.uh.at in Indian lCU'lQl.lC{g€:' is called "Sanst<"ar" are 75$» inariicuidie mdjor premises in decision rivaicingh' process. That element. in the dec:isi_o--rii.. indidngi process canrioi be denied, itshouldbe,ia!§en_i10ie Q11 After referrirlg to various judg1neI'1is«,i_i}i.e CoL1§*i;.iconc1i,L.:iedV'by saying:

"Bearing in. mind gAi!--2--eﬁ"gi'refi.riA. in ihe»--.,i.ad,v of contempt, as rivoirieedg bef'Qr~e. as some of the decisions iioiieed J, in S. Miilgao.§:ar*..s ozf" Vihe Minister reads proper__gnerspeeiive. noi bring the adinijiiifisiraigion gjiisiice inio disrepuie or impair V".adniinisireii.'ion'va['i;fLi$.ii.ee. In some portions of iir'ie.._4shpeeeh_ iirie"idn:g'iiage used could have been avoided the Mi.n.isi"er having the background being Judge of the High Court. The perhaps could have achieved his "'ij:§i:;.xp()se'V..bi; making his language mild. bui his __v_~;'i,:z;i;%_~; deadly. Wiih these observations, ii. must: held ilhai. there was no imminent. danger of inier]'eren.ce with the adm.inisi'rai:'i.on ofjusiice. nor Qfbringing C1C1I'I'liI1iSi'I"€ITi()n into disrepuie. In '( EV/,,...

75 that viezu 1'! must be held I'h.ar the Mim'sI'er u.vc_;:-: not guiliy Qf ('0n.fempI Q1" Court "

36. 'F'}1e Apex Court in the case of THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE' 4oE5,INDiA T1-¢po;--{eecni"'.i1--1 7 1996(5) SCC 216 cieaiing with 1,}1e ct1_fibi';~1_1f1A.1z1l e.r)_;»_1.1,r;%r21}otVVv§h«éfé3i.n a direct attack was made a1gai.r"1s,{'ihe Chzcafd L!S'{v'..1'_;(?€ '{)fVlhdia, has observed as under:

"37. SCandqliSia'.1g.v __VIi::e or courts tends to__Z3rzf_ng_ff1é: at.;1'f_ic)r'itg;«"aﬁ'rj:ciVvétefﬁministration of law z'n_I'.--:) "d.g'.s iiespec1_'cI;1.d..df3'reQar'ci» and tantarnountes lit) (,'cj:rlFiI{,i%:7'ij3ll'{"-~u§h.'iCh bring Ihe Court? into diSrs;b"L.::e or er' which Qfjend its digmty of £t'sL'f'r1qj'eSZ,U'--ofvciiéaﬂerlge its authority, c7onstii.utie *3,cQfLiferV11pt.'e0m{:r}{U.a:>d in respect. Qf sfnglejudge or si}'iﬁie_:i7La1:zrI. or in ceriain circumstances committied the whole Qf illejtrdiciary or_jud1'cial 7f'fter'eir1 the criticism by the Chief Mirlister

1.ufiQ des(?r'ibed Ifhe_ju¢"l.iciary as an inst.rumereIt. of O[}pl:€SSiOT1 and N16.' judges as guided and ef1on1i.:'t.aI,eci by class hatred. class in.r'eresz and class prejL..1ci'.ic:*e$ etc. wczs held (0 be an rwactk upon

4. 76 jiidges ccilcrillaled. to give rise to a disrespect and d.ismi.st Qf all 'juciicia.l -1- was held that: such criticism. qj"authority..Q,f_i"i2e _ and law courI:s constituted. e()h»tefnpi.«_ Qf tl1e:AlV'eal.trt"-AV' and the Chi.efMir1isie1' LlJaS~fbl.ll'?d ~7 A In the aforesaid judgment.._ the_TG.Qi11'tAhzipprofvécl l::he"VVi791'lowingV' passage from Ha1sbL1ry_'s i.a1wt....ol:fVﬁrigland topic of 'Scar1da1isi11£-E the C0ur1.',"* j - l

3.«U/\'*-.cilei§$er1:b 'to bring to the notice__ .of~ piibliC__ at lafgé V t'l1emihjirmil'ies from Irhejucliciary siiffers ']"fVc':n1." ._ : fig.l1t to Qjfer healthy and constriietiuex'critieisihﬁtvhieh isfair in spirit must be 'leJ"tj.Lir1inipai'red in the interest Qf the iristii:iit:'ion .{'it.~:;e_ljICrilieehafel instruments of reform but not l"i1Q.V'§E':vVti€?'iI.lCll€d by malice but those who are public seal. f3onafid.e criticism Qf' any sigsic'_iﬁ--' er inst1't'ii.t:'ion including the _jL.ldiCiClTy is a,ivni:ed at including the administration of the system A Qf;tI1Sl.l'l1Ll.'iOI'l to rook inward, and improve its public image. Cou.ri;;, the instrtmientaliiies of the State are Subject. to the C?()nsi:it'i.zr:i.0r1. and the laws and are Xi?/"' 77 no! C1bOI.?(-;? criticism. Irieaiihy and consi'riicii_v_e criiicrism are izools to augmerii. iis forensic 1'ooi?.___j'or'V. im_proi,>ing its _fimc7iio:'is. A i'I€"U'I'I'I()Ilf()I1S }Jl(3.!%€3i C£I'I#(1 , A' balanced. existence of free speech and'A.,/"eo.rie,é';~; _jusl.ice counsel iiiai. law Ol.ig,h,l._ to beW'cisAi!'ii.f.'e.V'i criticism. Consmicime publiL¢ cri.i'i.ci$;m.~i_even. iii"-i_i. slightly oversieps its iim.iis iI1iis__h:asﬁiiiijiil in A' preserving democratic h.ecil'ih_ of ;5'ul:__wiic .iiISIii.i:.{i'iO"I'IS:

Section 5 of the Act. accords'-joroieciioii 'ﬂair criiicism and S(1i)':e§=" frorii CVfC:;ATf)l£'i'£;'Vi'Tl:v'v[")'f;..Qf court." The best way to siisiaiiriiéighe respect for the office ofjiza'ge is the public of large" bi}~jeciriesé{iiess _4v<SI,II'C1'.'VV(J}_-'j'(3CiiUii'Lj of the gipproiacfi» io i.sSi:ies arising for decision, quality o_f7_r.fie jiidgirie:1i..'i'réSA!rCii_r1i'. dignity and decorum a judge observes';in~jii.;fiiciai conduct off and on the . be-éiicli and reciiiude.

.... ..Scurriious abuse of a judge or h=.i'ctoiirf';"~..or;:Vciiiacics on (he personal cf'1araci"er of a are pimishcible coniempis. The punishmeni is if;/Zic1:'e(i. nor. for (he purpose of proi.ec(:i.ng either V gihe court, as a. whole or the indii.2i.diialjudges of the °c:oi.iri from a repetition of the aiiacrk. but of 78 _pr()iecI.ii1g the public. and espe(:'ia.lly those who either i,1()i1u'Iiar1'ly or by (.'()T?'lpI4ilSI'.()II are s1.ifgjec:if"io I.he_jurisdicrz.io1'i of the Court', from the rr1isci1ie,~"i'rz;:{iJ'r.Vj l.L)fU incur if the auI'hori'.iy of the (rihi_iria.i~rV.';i23._T 'V' undermined or impaired. In (.'OI1S(3qlL€I1C'.€f,_il'?(3VCQVtiITI. has re arded. wiih )a;r'1i.ci.i'iar ser*z'oii:;i:essVh«' aliegaiions Qf pariiciiily or f3:'ftZ'1S'Vv{I]1:L§'.p'Cl?f'l.' judge or a court. On the oiI1er'i'1a_rid. crie£.iCis&m_'Vgf' judges conduct. or QI'f,aF1(3"(,'Q:iﬁ1§dl£CI o]1"cr__c.ou..zFiI, ekgen if strongly word.ed,is i1oi.xia*re.or'iien1pi prove; that the criticism is teri1pe2ravie"r--c[ir2gi'made in good. faith, and is not direeied character of ajudge 'E0 (hie iI":1I)'TCI:r{i'€1Al'i.E¥'L1.I:'{2V/'a'&%uéige or Couri." _ "}"herefo&i;"e,i ii" is of necessity to regulate i'liejiLdibiai proeeshs;)[}:ee_/rorn_)'ouling ihejoiiniain of jus.iice to iizord (13/_i."Ih€:' peoplefrom undermining the V.ci:ii';,f'i«iier1ce of public in the pim'i.y Q/"four1i.az'n of V '*jiis_i:ice"ci_f1ifi. its due admfnisi.rai.ion. Justice ihereby .'----.i'reVmciir1s'i::pure, imi:air1i,ed and unimpeded. The }'3l,"1'I1.l'E~?.f'i::TTI(;'I'1IJCT iroiiierript. there ore. is noi for the _j;.i.;r3;)osc= of protecting or vfndicaiing eit'h.er the '~._digrI1'.(.y Qf the court as a whole or an iridividuai "ji.i(1ge of the court. from ai.iaCk on his personal 79 repiii.ai'i'on bur ii' is ini'en(.iea7. io protect ihe piibl:i'c lvlio are snlgieci io ("he_jlu'isdi'cii'on Q/" the colir_ina_nd_ to prei..=eni' undue im.eiferer'ic:e l,l!l'_l;i3"I."'w.>,Vl"l7!(% " :_. adrniriisiration. ol'_ji.isi1'Ce_ if the (1izi'l1oriiyV (.g_,lfi.,l'1l'(»,* court remains undernuned or_z'i'npr:?ded.' iI'1.efo;i'ni'ai;.if_ o/"_]'us(ice gets si.illi.ecl. creaiir'1g'.,disims--i. and 'disl3e'lie}': ' in the mind. of the ii'ii{iani' pi.ibi'ic orT.tli;eA ri_(:;'i1I}} ihinking public at" large'/'ore"Li7*:e benefii of7_i'l_"ie Independence of the _]'llCl'l'§.'l'V'Ci':%'v'_;lj'_'f_V'_C)1" (ill.€'.CQlif,'_f€ of adminifsi'rai.ion o'f._'_j'i'i.si'ic.e n1i.is{.._ vbe"«g3roieci'ed and remain unimpaired.-T. S'cand.a.lisi:n'g.V 'the court, lnerefore. is a conoenielni 'ex_ir3--res3io;2i of scurrilous aiiack on ﬁle .rnajes(.y _Qf"jjiisi.iceV' calcuiaied iio i:li1cler*i72irVi»e iis%_aiiihQi"il'y and public confidence in the ladiTI!'i_1f$;~i:f'ai'.i()I1_V"Cjif"j1.1Si'iC€. The malicious of slarideroiisVpi_i.lol!'caIion inculcaies in the mind. qfihe 5 'peopleéla gen'ei*al c':'.isa[/'eciion and dissaiisfaclion on V4'u'~ioiie.:'jiicliciai"Vdeiier*niinaii.on anal. indisposes in iheir mi._vrlci 'i:'oﬂob_ey them. U' the peopiels allegiance to the sa__'f'ijir1dar'iierIially shaken ii is the mos!" vital A CU'l(;'. dangerous obstruction Q/"~_fi,.isl.ice calling _].bf'i_iI'g€r'il action. Aciionfor coniernpi is nolfor the " proiecriiori of i:he_ju.dge as pri'vai.e ina.i.i:idual but i V' ..*beca.use they are me channels by i.L.'hi(,?li_ji.1Sli(?(£ is a(lmi'n.isIered to the people I4I.'l'.Ui.()lI.I_/'e'ClI' or_fai..aoi.n'. 80

As per the '1'hirc:t Sehedizle to the Constit.ution.oVa't.ti~. or affirmation is taken by the Judge t.t1ctt:..~«t~:--e:_fL{_:itii , A' dirty and jait't'1futl_i,r perjform the duties of""tt:ie to the best of his abi.lity. kitohtizledge ¢;hd"j:icI1gn&en'_tr.V u:ithou.t'fear orfauour. qzyzm-o:»2 or ifit-wilht .and' 'eirvtll f so uphold the Constiimion. 1and_ the '_i)1§I.AL'L';'-9." In ' accordance tztterewitzti. ;i.L.d"es rrzustatzeuai-as uifeinariri impartial and should be knowryby all people to be im artzfal. Sf10lLldf rhea be in': .)i.tI.eC1. with im ro er _ ../_ t.__ _ :9 19 motives. bias corritpﬁorio-.or" ;part.iiaIit.y".wpeople will lose faith 1",: ttletn," '"Fhe'jLi.dge__reqluires' a degree of detacIm§ientj;:;.t.- oi'jjeCtii_5itg__; itjirhiiéti cannot be obtainedisfit"jiieiqes'"eonVstat.;tli3 are re uired to look of harassment and eletiiarlds for prosecution or res_ignat'ion.'°Ti1eVjitghose admim'st.rat"ion Qfjustjice , L:)oLtld'4.suJ]er tine' t'ott.s rippling effect. It is for t.hi.s ""~reaso.r_1 thaft"' **** 'sear1dal.isit1g the 'judges was i " » _V coi'isider'e,r;_l by Parliament. to be a contempt of Court with imprisonment orfine.

40. S<:ana'.alising the court'. therefore.

A ' ..._would mean hostile criticism Q]"jt.idges asjudges or '' °_judz'ciary. Any personal attack upon a judge in \ LL. --

eonr1ec.'tI'0n l1.7fUI. (he Qffice he holds is dea.I(..'ut:t1'itfi1_*- under law Q/" libel or slander. Yet c1cgf:jfi.iit1o:!.for§a__;_" r.~ pub1.1'eaII'()n cironeerning thejudge as c1__,iz.1cl'gs,-,7 brfﬁlgs the court or judges into .:,'<)7'1{--empt_. cl '"s-err'(JVI.tsf, impediment. tojuslice and c1r1'»:fhI'0_'c1:1'..:3r1 'ti»heA.r7i'c;je:~;,:z'*g-;.& 7? ' Qj'ju.s{ic:e. Any Cc1r'ic?c1li11re_ o.j'c1&jzt(t_c-,=e;2 CczeV!'.:;"t2£ca_V(":(;?c.t tee lower the dz'gru'Iy Qf ..c()ru't :.,.:,.gbz:aI.d_"'_: de_sth5;;. undermine or tend to l1I'E(_7Z.(;'VVIViI-iIfI1ti?.._vpI.Lbl'iC'ti'OIU'IdQI1C8 in the adI7Iir'1i$t.fd.{tQr1 niqjestzy Qf _justz'ce. It would, D-G_:Kv.SAtiCx2ftdalI'SiI1g th.e judge as_:Va._ h V'LL.:'c;»rxcVis, 1'.n1pm."ir1g part'iaZ{tfQ_. et}i*r_:1p.tt;oI1::._l:)ia,<f..V motives to a _judge:' ts ';Qfi,.:J1é"»€cEjz.1rt' and would be crjdtztt. vtmputation Qf lack Qf t.r:i1;3cirt:'iaIz'tgjV to hajudge in the discharge (J Ft.~f.sj tQ{f7'i'ef.rtl.'a 4an'10ur'1t.s to contempt- The :. 'grquarti.e:.1"(y''"l:f1e' Qffer1.ce that Qf lowering his w':~d;'g;1ii:§_.} or a't1'Ei*u')'r'it.y or an q[fr()nI to the rncy'est"y Qf _V _juVst':'..ce..._When the Contemnor Challenges the ec1'u=t»}'z'.<?,r_'itgj_'Q1' (he court. he fnfezjeres with the }3e=;tj?)r*ﬁ'.&ci.r1ce? Qf duties Q]'_judge's q['f1'.cre orju.d1'c1'al ,::>r0c;ess or c1dnu'n1's1.'ratior1 Qf_jus1.icre or gerteratton or pr'(3d1,1c:tt()r1 Qf tena'.eI1.(rg,r brI'n1'ng the judge or hh ..jz.:diCfar'_z_j into c:onl:emp(. Section 2&5) Qf the Act. 1herej'()r(.=, defines c7rz'.nu'nal <'c)nt.empt in u.:id.er L ig/ 82 arl'iculau'on that any publ1'.cal'ior1. 11,=}1ell1e'a5 words. spoken or writII.er'z., or by sign.S. or by --'-' representations, or otherwise of any r11al.le-.t{o:_:?:he doing of any other ac: '"iv'i*:aIs(;-.e1,sgr _x"i,'.-,,y».'I1'c'l1f scandalfses or (ends to sCa}~1da€fSe;ll olrﬂlowersl tends to lower the aV:eI.:Ifxorii:yl".or4" any,~'e(1yiA.3.r}(:v,'. prejudices, or interferes lovst:le.r1ds lo' the due Course ,Of an_L;y.--j1l.dVécfa»l.yA proceed.ingl3: or interjeres or Ler1.ds._lo _inlerjferel'I11ll;h:l"0f obstjructs or lends to obstruct, t.he__l:j'_jaslz'ce in any orL'l.1£.-Tl' v.._r_r1.ari:neIfl .._af"':..¢y:m:m:.1 contempt. 1I'her£;f_f7c:>rl'--e: t'o.__«'s(;iar1dalllHse the court or ler1den_cyi:__llo loli:)'erjll'l'll:':'e.: lauiliarily of the court' or ' T0 -'fill tendency to obstruct Elie l'c1ldrlf1i.l1li$lli'dli10?ll'l'€?l;lj.11$lice in any manner or tenldencyv :a~cii.1'z:e;§g;a 'the aL.:r;l'1or'it_y or majesty of ,jusI:z'ce,l ._would 'be a cnminal contempt. The '4'll':~o,ﬂer1ding aeif 'pan. any (Tendency if it, may lead to or levnd5'«._lov lower Ihe autghorfly of the Cour! is a ydcrrirmnalv.l:cont.empI. Any conduct, of the croniremnor whf(?}1"f--1.as the tendency or produces a l:'en.denCy to brlng I"hejud.ge or court: into contempt or {ends to ' loifyer {he auIhon'i:'y of the Court would also be fcor1I.empt Q/"the court.

83 42 The question. there jbre, to .. ' _ considered is iuheth.er the i'mpi.ita.(i'oi'1.s t'(;f[E;'HI.'.t"'e?«;*.lV'EI'{,)_''' ;. hereinbefore have :1ecessa.iy tendency l.(')"'i2I"f'lp:1A'_'I"t~_L'j€ or tendency to impede the piti)'l'it:»-Cor}/Efdeijice'-in they aciministration Qf_jiisi"iee or i.t.2Qi.1t:=;t'er::'eate disbelief.' in the efficacy (,_zf_]'ltd.t'(fl,'Gt C£dITtfi1.it§f?'aI'iOE:1"'f)t'.tOtU(3;; the a1it'h.ority or 1'.?1I'c'?:]'(.'F£'E',«,:I:i3-ith t'he'«.rhajes't"yhq/':Vt.V?ie Court"? The Court. there/b_r_e.h _ reqiiirehd' to . _eonsi'der whether the in1pitt;eti:for1s{V *59_j.,"..i'Ct'~f30r1{€3fI1I10r are Calculated to bring or-1h_ai$'e'ihve Qﬂbfirtiﬂg the Court into.:éo.t1te:jij§t:tjr*}ccis'tihg_aspefsions on the (Idﬁ'tiI'ttf.StI'C1f§tjtI.'~' ojﬂ,-'z,tstice ks'-erjétds Vi:'e"VV'i'mpede justice eta, 'tfOII'Sl'Ci'fi'I;V' the nature Qf the l':.FVV?v1LV£$ttt_".tf'I'i'.-.".:f§r.'"'tv.9. of making the the Contemnor foresees the "3")4()S'St'.bt;itl'.].)'."VQf' ' act: and whether he was . ir-ecyktess as'to"'ei.t.'her.i:he result or hadforesight like V "':~at_1yf c3t}1er_feiCt"*in' 'issue to be irtferred from the facts __a.i1d«, L*i_I'Cat_tr1st.aI1c'es emerging in the case. The .reasi3.?1 vqbvious that the court does not sit' to try A the.z'0i1f.--:iitet Qfajudge to whom the i.mpittati0ns are made. It woittct not be open to the contemnor to ' brihgfonuard evidence or drtritmstances IO_fl,tStI'{.f':I_J for to show whether and how fai'rlg_; impu.iat'ions were_jitsz:g'/'ied because the Judge is not before the 84 Court. The defence jiist'ifi.eatior1 to an lﬁ"£pl.l§.ﬁ1uIfO_l'i.V would not', therefore. be available to the coii__t:elrnIio'i2. 9 V The imputation of improper motives or canriciét be_jiist.i/'ied on the principle ofj"air'c£>mrlrzent. b.

44. Law is not"'in"*:iny doiiloi ihati:iAri.:.'a<~freel democracy everybody to his honest opinion about, or legaiitg of a judgment or sentence Ci court. but he should not, oversAt'ep:._t'he' he is entitled E:'riiicism..objectively and with €'dE5i0;Cl}['r?'i£.gni' language and respect;,t7ut* tone niopieration, the liberty of expression .§llOLLlL2l._sT1QIf he a licence to violently niC:.ice«.personal~at't:ack,on a judge. Subject to that. an honesvt; crii_'icis_n1vof the administsraiion of justice 4;: is s:.ueicor"ne__gsince justice is not a cloistered virtue is eniitledmtol respectful scrutiny. Any citizen is 'vieiititfledrutorgexpress his honest opinion about the ' =.,'corre"(_;tn.esVs of the judgment, order or sentence with dignified and moderate language pointing out the or defect or illegality in thejiidgment. order or it I sentence. That is after the event as postmortem. 85

37. Recenily the S1.1pI'€H1€ Court in the caVsjee».g)'i'.HA.RI SINGH NAGRA 8.», OTHERS Vs. KAPIL reported in (2010) 7 SCC 502, crx1JIe1ini1'},g...ﬁ4f§e_Vr:i:ea1.1"1i:a'1g" of 'sC,ar1daii:»:ir1.g the court'. held as un1:Ie1': [« j. u "Scandalfzing ir1.V»:ﬁ zIE;-§;Viar2cfe' is ar1TVbqtlE:1ek"Vari:

i.nd1'vL'dual Judges or the as (1 fL;}..1e_le Lufflh or wit:h.out' reierrirzg {Jo cases AcVe1sting unwarranfzed and upon the character nor . jc1bVtl*ity,__ ' Judges.

"'Scar1dc:f.Zii§i.*;g,%.'the! 'cm'-'i" 'c*<m:v::enienr way of describiriga"ptéb1iCa.:fiofi--1.p?;.ich. cuiihough it does not z'eic%{f'e"tea.:evt1_z1y .'ei'ff1er post or pending or (my Scurrilous auack on the _jLzdiCiqryv »wﬁ0le which is calculated to , ':Lr1§ierr;1in,e 'the cit.4tl1ze:i1y Qf the courts and public '""*cQ11f:.dence in 'administ.rar:ion Q/'_jusf"ice. "

33. V. . e'1},:{ihe case of INDIRECT TAX PRACTITIONERS VV..ASSOCI,A TION Vs. R.K. JAIN s'ep0rf4cd in 2010 (5) KLJ 249 "r (SC}'.ﬂ}?iee11.i1'1g with the direct' attack on judges and their _}L.z§:1g§Ine1ai.s published in the edi1,0'1'ia1. it was held as under: 3 86 ".21. Although, the petit'i0ner has {fried prq;'eci: the edit"on'al as a piece Qf writing to demean CE.S'I'A'I' as an ir1sz"ititi.'ijai'I scandalize its funciioriing we .~;i(i anything in it'. which can atter7"1I3i to lower the ai.ith0rii"y' 'chit: 7'~i'C7l.l'(?L.[lC?."'. ii in the eyes Qf ihe pliKaliCL"~I{al.}'t(§I' the editorial was to higl1light:vl'l't<h'e irregii£a:ji.t'ies if; the appointment. postmg - Qf the tﬁeiribers Qf CESTAT and irisiaiicess.iiiheilalmse Qf the quasi judicial powers. Wh.ai'= was»__iiicQrp'0r'at.ed in the editorial " i'»"j(?.VS:.'r?Ot}'1frl:.':j "enxcept 'tl'ie--;.jacis relating to maniptitatiije-"'3'..t'raris;fef*-- i':;nd, posting of some Qf and.llsiil3si"ance of the orders passed *t:ay"ilife Bench Qf CEST AT, which 'LU€r€;'g'Sé'1.'v High Courts of Karrtaiaka ,-and KeraldxEueh_. this Court was constrained to eogr1z'z'ar'ice«'Qf' the uniisual order passed by 2 CEi3'3}Q:l"'»Qf which Shri T K Jayaraman was a ernerrtlge:'.l.l'a,*iier'eby the appeal of the assessee was d.eVci.clei:i'lar1 merits even though. the Tribunal was rei_"{i.iir'ed in examine the question Qf limitation orily. ' B_iji.iJrit'ir1g the editorial which must have caused. .fembarrassmerit to functionaries Qf the Central G0verii.meni and CESTAT and even some members it eeeeee 87 Qf ('he pen!icmer»Ass0Ci(2{ion bur that (.'ClIU1.0I be dubbed. as an czfrempt to S(.'CU1dC£liZ6' CES'I'A."1"a.si body or interfere with the a.drnmist.ran'on Qf , A' What the responderzr. prqjecrted LLr(1$ I1oz'!1ii1g=b.1VVi'i'h (me state Q1" the ﬂLr1c:ti()r1iz'1g__Qf R311' administrative side and to segnic' :ext<}?»:ni--, O'11__Jji',i-d.!l'(?fCiE' side. By d.0i.ng so, he had 7ne}='_el1y-V_disCI1i1'Ifged "l'f1€;'. (?0I1SfJ'[lt£I'iOI'1C1l duty Qf ahc[:tV.fi'z:.eMr1 eh5shg'ir'ar;:§i "i.:7i1VV}4:1Vf'{'iCie:

5IA{h). It is not the pet.it:'ic)he-r:'_s .ﬁlC1V{:,:vk,'"leJf'C1C(.S narraled in t:i1.evetiiit.'ori«_ihl I.ransfef and posting of the rrienihefs 'CiESTi4'T2fA'_afe*incorrect, or that the resperider-1'i' Fiigflﬂfgiiied.:i:he same with an obliqize 'j;;m¢::»,»¢ «oij utfhaiéh the bnziers passed by Karridziaka aiid _Ke.r_'aIa High Courts to which ref_"erence gﬁitide in the editorial were reversed vbyxlhisﬁ Coilfi, There bre, if is not possible 51.0 _recora'cIi..q'_]iiidiz'i'g that by writing the editorial in '"'qu--esa',ir)n. tI'1e"'r'espoI1deruf' has tried to scandalize the'fLir:z_;ffiQ_r1ir1g Qf CESTAT or made an atieznpi to .iriE:'cé}j;.;g;re.h';'.z,:ii.i'1 the admiriisi.raIion. Qf'jus£'iCe.

'RZW 88 I'-'uriher it was held as L.11'1c1e1':

" In our 1,>1'eu'-. if a speech or artfcle, 'ét_(:.'i'i.t():ir<:T(.:zVViL"

etc. contains some!.hing 1.taI_';tt7..h,__'appears contemptuous and this Court.:=__or t.l1.e.:}--Iuigtti' ,( ,'oLtrt.= .' called upon to 1'm'tia1.e proc%eerii11tj;:._ ur1de'r"_;{he h' and Articles 129 and the V'C(__)ns.t1A'i,11tit5n,""the:

truth should Ordir1aI'iIy I;§eh:V"t?:slVl_o;g.ged defence unless the Court ftrids t.."iatV_1'ft a carnotgflage to escape the Catiset]t1~en(ées__:Qf_'V..der{iberate or malicious a'E;ternp(;'tb"'sea:1t:tc;tLtze f.Vt'VE€., ¢tv9!!Ll?'£" or is an int.erf'ere?_n(ref ~t'11'_.}»:'.t.I_1::'-- «t he 'V V. acl:_rnitrat:'i'on Qf ju.st'tce. Since? t:h_¢3" .pe"(:51't=io:1erff-has._ shots-.bet:er1 suggested that 1atJt1afVIhAt'lC:I,3 in the editorial is inr:Qrrect' or 'thaVt>h'the-.re;3p0r'1der1t. has presented. a di.sl.br4ted_vei:sL'hO'n (3/"i_"g'r;"1efacts. there is no warrant ;'_for_. discara.iriQ the respohctienis assertion that 14c2haz'e1ger heh"ashwrit.ten is based. on truejagis and V' '~ /Ir1'T_(:,'V'::7(') L"£7f:'.£'7?C-y'f3(71'. Qf writing the edﬁorial was to enable '~eort(:c=rr'1ec1 au.thorit.ies to take c:(v_>,r:=z-=_cvf't}1.=Ae/ rem.ed.iat measures. "

E'V1fo'm the a1f()resaic.1 jt.1(ig111ents, it is (ticar that" the lmv of V"_{:r};1i..éI1'1;>I fairly wefi semetl in this c:()ur:1.1'y. As in the 89 Cotmiry of its origin na.11'1ely E1'1g1a11d. (70111mii,ta1s for ('.Ol'1T,€'.l11pt seanci.=:t1i7.iI1g the C()t.11ft has not become <)b$d1ete. Scandalizirig in substancte is an attzick 011 iI1('1i\'iC§'i;':3,'l"' J__t1'c1IgeAs.' or the Court as a whoie. with or without refei=-1fir1g_t."tQ a.t1'1'y_ paI't.ictu1a1* case or cases, cas:=;ting 4't:11i2va'1'r~2t1_V1tedVV'"é11'1d« dei.'amati;0ry aspersions upon the eh2i.'me'ie1- sibilg./t_i_\,'r~.o'f"~.e the Judge. It is a scurrilousattack 0r1"*ej.i1di'eiaVrVjr as a whole which is ca1cu1e1t'.ed_t:0 1.:i'i'dezi:f§;irie.the etiitiiofity of the Courts and public: c011E'ide11:;_§e iirthe a_t;i.ﬁ::iiniSt:jati0n of justice. Any caric:at'ui'e,0i':ucigejhthe dignity of the C0u1.'t:'wouEd vCi'€*S';i1"(§'wf c;oﬁ{'i.de--r1t:e in the administration of justice or the niajestjz'vr)f'j1:14S'tiee. The gravarnen of the offence is thatvoi' Itjiiwr-:r'ingVi-'.he':dighit.y or authority of the Judge and gm to ma1j.esty of justice. When the eontemnoz"

.g1_t1th01'ity of the Court. he interferes with the "'p.ei"-f(_:zi11i:vti"i'c.:xc: ()f"€?L1i.i€S oftkiclges' office or judiciai process, 01' adn--t.i:1isi;1'z2ti(jm of justice bringing the Judge 01' Judiciary into 'n_(:()r1teIT1ptI1. If the aut:h01'1'ty of the Coulft remairls t.inde1*mined ~:i_*:a1fimpeded the fc)u11t'ain of jL1st':i(:e sulliecl (:1'eat.i11g 90 c.iisi.rLis1 and dissbeliei" in the mind of the litigant". rigiit thinking public at 1a.rge for the benefii ()i'-{he is for this I'€E1S(3I] that sc:e111d;?iE'i?:iir3g C0.'ﬂSid€1'€d by ihe I7'arlia1'11eni to "

pun.i.shable with iniprisonineh i,_di*..i'i11e.

39. The jurisdiction to touches "upon two important E'1.1ti;_d4_.éti11er.ixEa1:_fighis_ei".ihe citizen namely, the right to personal iijhefiy to freedom of expressioii. Wheteejjjjihlreedoiéi 'v'E>i"'ex.1)ifessio:r1. fairly exercised. subseriges _ })1,ib}§'C..__ifi_17€I'€§S'f-.._i11« freasoiiabie measure, public justice cahriéoi gagii---.0'i* Iiiiariaeile it. Constii,ui.ioi1a}iy speaking, free peopie '<3.I:€..I1'1t:"'e11liiT1€.}.i{3 guarantors of fearless justice. To "'..hE1F'1I1i:JI]iIAiE,E3 'ihe coi1"S'L'iifutionai values of free criticism. the 'i1s'i1i"i;vh_ CSi[£1E€'*~AVii'i"£3}L1d€d, and the need for a fearless eurial pif()"c:essV"a:71'd_'i'i.$"p.residi1ig fuiaeiionary, the Judge, a happy

i)al2ihee to be s't:ruck. the beiieiii. of the doubi being given "ge:1e1*oL1.'::.ij/ against 'i.1'i€3_§3..1C§gC. All iaws i*e1aii1'1g to c01ii:empt. of ieei:..ri_.5l1a.ci. aceo1'dii'1g to the pE'()'J'iE-3i()11S 0E'A1'i. 19 (2). to be h/ ....... In 9} "reasonable 1'esi,i'ic:iions" on the exercise of the righ1'_.___of free speech. The eourlts were given the power » mid.

responsibility » to ha:<'moi1ize eoiiiiietiiig values. The Foiirih esiat.e whieh ;.:1i'i"""' in1e1'media1'y between the Slate zinci i.}ie"p_e;'opie arid 11er§e.ss'£'Viy ir1si:i*umen1.a11'iy in si.i'ei'1gii1ef1i-13g £:h'e._forces:"oi:dep:10_c3:i'3(:yLV"

should be given free play within i'i'espoVI1sibIe liiziiis even when the focus of its c1'iiieeﬂ._4_ai'i:.i;:ei1iio13.iis'4..ghe"'eo'ui1., including the highest Coiirt. C1'ii.iCis1i_1 'of_ ah jJ;_1.dgev'sV"~Co1'idu.e1. or of the Conduct of a can:1,-eve:é._ if€s§1'ong1yVwoi*ded, is not 3. Contempt provided t'}1_21i"5ii_'Oe._ v(:?1.'I"E'Ii't",.vi_S'V1"}1_" is ffaii', teiiipeitate and made in good faiiiii, arid isf1oi"d_ii*e_eiied to ihe personal eha1*aei.er of a jL1dge--ori.o i'}'V1(;!, i:mp'é1i'iiVa1ii'y of .21 judge or Court. In fact such "-léiii"*----;.ii1df"'reéisonable criticism im.1st. be encouraged because ,_af*LerVal1:"::ic)" o1:=.e,i.~111ue11 less Judges. can ciaim infallibility. Critics 1'nI":i.I1SA1:1'LIII1(T1'}i.S of i'efo1'm, but 1101. those actuated by *.,11'12;2.1iee;' bilii, those who are iiispired by public: zeal. B01121 fide x'~V'(,?I'vil'1'(I"i';*_'i1'"i'1 0f&i1'1y system or ii1st.ituEion ii'ie1L.1cii11g {lie jiidieiary is} aimed at i:i1p1'oving the admini.st..raiio1'1 of' {he system of 92 inst'i1ul.ion. 1.0 Look inward anti improve its pL1bIi(€i.._if;1.age. Heaiihy and c'onsi.1':.iclive c'ri'{icism 2111* Loois 1'Oj"21'[1§:i"i1€;'ri:i;__ii'f:§ forensic tools for ii'npi'oVin§.g iis Iiinciioils. A I_1ari_i1'io.r1Viof{:s_biefid u i and baianced exisl.ence 01' free Counsel, that Eaw ought: to be a:_sl11t,o'1o o;:iti(:is'ii1';. pLib1:'C c:ri{.1'c.ism even if it. thus has friiitful play in of public institutiolis.

40. h:;'s_ ,io--f'9s\?oic1" V. C?o_11{7u'sio11 beéween personal proiec1}§,0n--_oi' a '-(ma prevention of obstruction of pubiic justice and t4Vl'3A€"C'6'i¥}]'I1UI1i'[y7S Conﬁdence in that great proqéSS.iATIT1o Ibrixiéi' is: not. contempt, the latter is. although .'o'v<3_i'1ai_r)}'jizAj1gSpaces abound. Any personal attack upon a jucige 11'C%.C)f111T:L(£i"I~()'f1'\i;§"'i"i:1'1 the office he hoids is dealt' wiﬁi under law of 1ib€f"~.C)I' skiiidizi". He. mL1st. resort. to action for Iibei or criminal "..V"int.i.mic12it;1oi'i. The position 1.hc:refore is that 21 defamatory }:1i'i,aC.1: on a Jiicige may be 21 libel so far as the Judge is 98 ('.Ol'}CC'l'l1€d and it would be (.)p("1l :0 him to pmoerad against the libclloi' in a proper acii()ii1. if he so chooses. One .i.si'-;;Rx;i'0ng done to the Judge peisonally V.-'l"ill("f the other is 21 §\i91*0'i?i;§- the public. A disiiiiciion musl be made be'1,v_uccn._ }fi~.V11i'e1}e«.lAil;;«:jll or defamaiion of a judge and what El1:£:.l()l1l]:.l'S'3A. court- The test in each (3£1S€,'V,W§')LIlClllbﬁ?yWh€1,l1VC'l"' publication is 21 mere _e1tl.dc'}§ judge or whether ii is CE1lCl1lE1l,'F3;l?l"'-£0 1sh.eHlAdiiVe course of justice or the proper by the Court'.

Alternatively t_1~1é5'€:§::l:'-s-t 1-:7C'~.7\:\7}}.C[:};iCé:I_:"'E1}§?VVV§lVr0ﬁg is done to the judge iv_persQf1é1llly E0 the public. The object of contempll._plrQceledii1'gs to afford protection to Judges persnnally fré-1":-1Aimp1.1'ta'i.i0ns to which they may be exposed as ll"-ind'i'vidLiﬁls;V"it is lIll'iH€".'I]C§€Cl to be a pI'()lC'.C1.iOl1 lo the public ~~..\?\:'V1"1'()SV€' i.1§i.t:r'csI,sV'Would be veiy much affecrled, if by the ad. or (?()l'1ClllCl_ pf _a;j:;y party. t,l'1e a1.1th01'ii,y of the oourf: is lowered and V'-.Elllf;'. s'L~.ns<-. of c0nl.'idcI1C(? which people have in the 7"admilif:.isi,ra*£ion of jusi_ice \/\-'(:'ElkC11('C.l. IE. not 1.0 be used for i'l'1§e Vll'}dlCElElOl'} of 221 l_}1.1dg,;c as a ])(:'FS()l'l.. $1 / ,,,,, 94 4E. The broad test to be applied in such cases is, whether the act: coi"1'1pIained of was calculz-ited to or had an intrinsic tendency t.o interfe.re with the and the due eidministration. oi' iaw. The laut must. in the name of public i11te1'es§:t.t;i1i:tilp-uljlic, a ' blow on him who cl1z11lenges the S1,ip.1fc;I11E1Cy rule; of by fouling its source and C.1riiieis;ni7 Judges would attract. greater a'éte_ntio'i'1'ltlhzinothers criticism sornetirne interferes with the a.di'ni:nis.t.r'atio11 of justice and that must l:»'e'*'evj.u:c.t'ged«l':'bf.' thev ya.r'dsti'ek whether it brings the &1(1llI1iI1it'~§,EI'€iT,iO1'1 "of " ~, justice" into a ridicule or hampers administ.réi1.ior1.ol._jt1stice.{' The punishment for contempt. t.here§--iore',* is intende__c_1__«t'o protect the public who are subject to »i'lh€~.j_§11'i,SdiCEitjfiv of the Court. and to prevent. undue interference 'wit'h..VtthVe'éidinii"iist.mt:iori of justice. The iiberty of expression shoLi'ld not be. a licence to violently 1na1«:e personal attack on 21 .r,:jL:deg_e. VV'SL1.bjec.i" to th.at_. an honest criticism of the éuiiiiiiiisireztiori of justice is welcome since j1.1st.ice is not 21 gym e(;%11deseendi1'1g iiidiﬁerenee and l"€I)l.IC1iE1i,i()l1 by jE.tC1iC.i211 95 eloisiered virtue 211116 is eniiiieci to respectful seriiti'-:":.y. The Couri has to eorisider the 1'121iL1re oi' the iI1'lp1,iJi.?.'ii'}O'i.1.S,'V.U38 occasion of making the impuiaiions anc'£j_ "whie'ihe1s.V_"'i.he_ conl.en'1noi' foresees the possibiiiiy:ofhis act. VE'1'I'i(;'}v.'4'.VhC~fh€i"'-.h€' j was reckless as to either the i*esuEt og~.fi1"ié1dii'bresi.ghi';"1ii'ke"any other fact, in issue to be,_'i'r;fe1'red' Vfroiniv-Vt'he""'{a:;'iis and cireumstarices emergirig in ..The:V_NjuAI,"isdiCiior1 in contempt is not to is real prejudice which can be regarded.as]2if'&sLIbs'i:giriiiai;iiiziierierenee with the due Course by way of conteniotm_niii'si'._..i,?Q wijih greeu care and caution and only vs/Ah«§;j_11" _ necessary for the proper admi,r:i.stir£1t,io11., o'i'*iaW' and justice. The Court is willing to i -ignore, 9:53" 9;"ma]es'iii.e'iibe1'a.Iism triﬂing and veriial offeriees. The i_CO_urt* 'n+oi_ be prompted to 2101;. as 21 result of an easy ir1'i1';41Vbiiiiy.."'ifiie Judges should not be hypersensiiive, even *._when "dis1~i..<)rt':ions and criticisms oversiep the limits. They '."shoL1"i'«:1 deilaie \71.11g'c1I' de1'11.u'1e1'21iion by digiaiiied bearing. 96 rectiiude. "I'h€I'<:E"()1'e, dignified C1€'14'cl('hI1'1.EE1'1'{, ig11.01'i1'1g'iﬁlixéjikamied criiictism in iis toleram snide. sh0L1}::i be ~i:Ij1"e VL:7{1t:1é'i*Isir._i_iI1g priiiciple. ~-

"The dogs may barisz, the (j%e1ra17'_3;1ii w1'Ii- pa-sis":

42. The best way t'.0Vis_L:«s§ai11ﬁns' (ﬂigIi'1ﬁ$f for the Ofﬁce of judge is to i.h§éi pubiic at large by feariessness approach to the issues arising for_c1ecisiQn.,:.q:1.1a.iiiy:.pf".{11:.s&jij»d§rI1er1i., restraint, dignity and a_judicial conduct off and oi1 i.hs It has been Wei} said that if judges will I]()'{ save them and so the Gil'-mi" side-.Qf'the Cioiii is 'i.11ai,ji,1dges. like Caesars wife ,,¢~muV's'*: bE§"ab<1ve susp1'.ci011. We rnust: turn the search light' I ~-.iiV"}.vW_'E11"C§ * "

3.43. it In this background we have to find out xvh«:*t.he1* ""si:::1_i.ei"11C11ts made in the 21I'o:'esaid pubI1'cai.i0ns consiﬂute 21 ' cériinaiiizli C01'1E"€I1'1}.)i. under the Act. V1';/' X r,,..

44. The pa1'ticu1a1's fL1rnished iherein-f_ciiscl2(j:é:éS§ .tV_'}"12z1i:' 1.421 stuciellts applied for 1*ey'ai't.:a*;iQ11 ex:-1rnin.:.11.i011 heid in NovemberI)ea(;é;12I2.§:f21"

393 suldents applied for V>I7¢ﬁ\Fs.1vI'lla1ﬁ.(')E1:_' oi:

P1'0cedL1re Code. Out ofthexh_4éA'sEg11d_§j11t.:22ifoh} MifS.Ran1aiah Law Coilege, Ba1I1g21l0r2';' -- V' 2 iieyaiuaiion. The Complainants srm 'is was studying in M.S.Ramaiqh for applying for reva1L1a1.i'<'>Hn: and the results of the reVa!11ézii01_1 xvfé.i;€:j.QVb.&A: azj.iimmC€.d on 22.5.2009. N0 Board was COr1S'{it'iLi'{Cd«.fO1' the i13ufp.Q2S*e.'0f revaluation of the 5 years LLB Course f01'u"ih€: yeéi1'_ 20.0E3~;C!9. The revaluaiion Work si.arte(:i on

2.5.2;0o<.3..a.nct oh 22.5.2009. They have not furrzished "the Wciaié of _21pp1iCa11,ic)11 for revaluation by Sn' Phaniraj Kashyap. ,_.4_'TV()__2.;1V Vwhv(é~€.her the Vice Chancellor has exercised his S'(?1'i];)?. the a11swcr was the University 2313 no point 01' time had 13dw'é?r L1I1d'efi._S§:(%1i.011 15 of the Ka1'11ai,aka State Urliversities Act for éa.1'lj,'.a 1'c{=.valuation of S1'i.I--'11z~1ni1'aj K-ashya1)'s CPC zmswm"

S:

98

meted out any special fireatinem to Sri Phaniraj Ka1si1:_\}!;1§§--.iiivv ,{.he rem'-11uat.i()1'1 of CPC. answer script for me examiriatioV1;1"~H£:.ld"siné Nove1'nber-{December 2008. I3' u I'1,h€'.~' ii: ivas if thfe ~ Chancelioi" of I32-mgalore U'niVersity I'ias7'i_1o'i: exei'c_:i's.e.ci ;1ri §%'«po'xx:e1' under Section 15 of the Act ii1_v'{iI2.e i*e\?a}nationv,ol"':.Si'"iv....I'haniraji' Kashyaps CPC answee scri;)is__.£ii'ivd_ no sLiei"i«.;o_ox\{ei~ has been exercised by any Vice five years. It is asserted that 'JKashyap's answer script has i1:s"Li;a.1 procedure. Section 16 of ﬁne with appointment, of e>:a1i1in__ers___ .A 'A[:'VI;1;'{';",{v?»?,1_:I;1'7L"1>C)§%§L'{E;1}7|il:1€1l"S of 5 years and 3 years LLB ex'an1i11ai.io%i of 'eilso produced. The covering Eetter by the' Chair1'c.3.an"of the Board of liixaminers shows it was fun 1(5H.Héi2008 whereas Annexure~R5 shows As'-.appoi"rii.,rvﬁ~e.ni off: Coordinator for revaluation was approved by t}ie--~..__Vie_e: ~Ci'i'aii1CeI}L>1* on 13.5.2009 and Dr.'1'.R.Subrainanya.

P1'i11(:if)a1_1," Urliversity Law C()11eg€. is appointed as Coordinator " _I.'o.=:_ revakuaiioii of 3 Veexrs amd 5 years LLB Cioding1/DeC()ding/'E"231'ot1}a€ion z-ind. V21h1a;i1,i.()I1 Uni: work 99 ])erlai11i:'1g to Decen'1'oe1* 2008 exams with effect", I'ro:":i if this documem is to be believed, on 5.5.2009 was revalued ihe Coordinaltor has I1E)'rbﬁ'CI1 zi£_])p<jl'1':'{eci.l" W:CthoL1'L: ' 5. the €tppOilT{,l'I1€I11 of 21 Coo1'd:'nato1' 11:50 have commenced. In the ])et,iil1'o{n-~ 153 at the request of the piljf the Vice Chancellor has exe1*(7ise()E.lltl:l1e' Sgction 15 of the Am. and got this pr:=..per Whe1*eas, the in:{'o1'mation shows the Vice Charlceiiorllasasjiiol power. In the past 5 YQtars ivlvo e.:r;erc:i.ser_i that power, The press report after of ihe first article, in a 1'eco17ci=t'i_me 3,OQO"éi11swer scripts for 1'evalu.at.:'on was revaiued "senile"1-.he»'-'be-Iieﬁt of revaluation is given to such persons. 45.55 V. . ma£'eriaIs will clearly indicate ihat all is not Ewell \:sfi*.'h_l1~i'.he University. The Ba.ng,alo1'e U111've1*sii:y has thrown _1.-:)_w1:_:1Cis the procedure prescribed for the revaluatioll. ii 5 q§1it.e 11a1[u1'z1i that". the respc31'1cient.s in cliscxharge of their duti/es

-/"M1 E00 while exposing this ir1'egu13.1"it.y in the UI1i\'C§f$i:t$'._ 1"1£?lVG published the report. What they are trying said report. is the Universit.y is letliargic. i1{}1>> satisfactt,0:'_V. Wheii there is 1.)1'0\fis;;i'()mrt1V j;!'e=zaii,A1 atjiOr1..' ' done within the time limit p1'eseribe'ti; h'i'he great' inconvenience. iiouretrefmiia s0m'e...V_i.iist:VanVee-stthey act immediately and grant; waiit tdddkfieur how the same relief is not grantedth similarly placed. It is oniy t.hr0t1g!tA:Vt'i1.e we have seen in this c:ot1nt'1iy'"things"5Vwhi'e1i..T;i1*e_ behind the scene by the aatzthoﬁitiies r;:la'r1-'éfiqetss-_t'.i;aeiy._Em: e§;p0sed and made accountable. That is haw ttthe"V--de1t1ocr"a=(;y works. In spite of inefliciency. corrtfrptiori. nep<.)tis'n1. C:ast'.eism. in all walks of life, it is only '"tE1es"e at;*K'.e:,11"p~ts by the press and sontetimes by the jL£ChCia.I'_V As---t,ha.t. t.hese..§V€;I'iQii(:vi'ot1s tleiadencies atre i'0t'1gh't. and justice is done to the p(_i:"Sf}Df~s who need them. The attack is on the authorities Vemd "E'ur1cti01'1aries in not dis<':l1argtng its duties in "?'"1(1('It)i_"t';I£31I1('.(i with Iaw. The 21tt.z1ck is at the same time to tight, u tfhie t'.e1tde1'1(*y to bend the rules. As we could see from the 101 entire report.. the i1'1t.e1'11i01'1 was not to attack any J1§ci§;;e."L:C>,fV't~¥,1is Court. 01' the i1'1si:itut.i0n as such. "I"he1*e is 1-Lib"irV1.t.ei'L{'it311"'iO'3 ulidermine the Majesty of law 01* ii.s'"i2»2si.itL§E'i011;'--V:,i'nCiideiniallv ' one of the pen'-3(ms to whom the 1.)rei"e1'ei'1Ce'iis given (:Qn1_i'"a19y'i--1,0 the rules happens to be 21 sO'n_V'C£iJudgeV017iiliis fact' which is not denied anci (t21nt1QE...ie5iev._disputee1;" because there is a reference to zi i1£ii;ﬁeA'1:3_t}1e said report, it cannot be c0:<1strL:ed of -this Court or the instit11ii.<)'_n§;.:V on that particular Judge, 1'r_'1a:.i'IVA".:::1'11«:1V(:')_:z;tV'r.a.t.viiﬁovdefaniation. The law on the poiieit is remedy to agitate before the Civil COLl.i'i1.: "C:'OY1'f(?.T1V1i?.t'§S'.i'i-Qﬂﬂlﬁ remedy.

46. __ 4C01'i'Le;1j1:g3t.A'QfV€0uris Act. is not enacted 10 protect §.Uhe.1j1 they' 'ai=e--«ai,iac:}(ed in their personal Iriatiers. Only iv<hea'iVei".'i'1.eyi Cliselimging tlieir 0fﬁc:.ia1 funeiioris. {:0 enable i.}1em't':0 (iiS(::.Ej_1ai'ge the fL111ei,io11ss feaﬂessiy, wi.th.0ut being afraid ofihe -CT()'I':«S(',C11.1CI1(,'.€S._ this Iegisizuioii eriacted. This Iaw has to he VuL~';.ed spziringly. The WiSC1()I"l1 Iies in invoking these pr0vi.s1'0r1s

1. O2 economically'. in rzmes-st. oi'ra1*e cases. .11. c>2mnoi' be the freedom of expression. The Press has a to bring to the noiice of the pub1iev.ii'ae»way authoriiiee are fiinetioniiig, how ere made to suffer whatever they _x,vn.tt'c§§__ L' They are agitating 21 pubflic c:2Lu§~;_e.. 1.1e"i«n..t;e11iiib1'1 on their parl to attack any JL:dvgee'i'.i_.h'ie' of this Court or the il1S'[i{L11.iO1'1V~.r'-IVS out. In fact the entire a Whole refers only to the 11' the situdent feeis that he is Vse'izi»_'Véx.ri_ieie. he cannot have the remedy of contempf. QfC.0L1r'i». His is elsewhere.

47. .. '4i"'h§ys urisayory episode brings into the fore how a "'~.i'.ri\fia1V' 1'3x"'1;.-1.tiif'=3r of i}v1H'iHSM'I}€11LlI'£3, if not contained. Could create 'Vih_€'"J11dg€S, over which they have 11.0 eo1.1i.r01. As pv<3iiii.'ec'1iV:()L:.i', in the jL1dg11-ierai of {he Supreme Court, the 'v..n1e111be;*S':.:)i' the iegz-1.1 i'1'ai;e.1'11ity }.1:-we in turn their eyes inwards.

""CQdﬁ}.__r not only the (t()1'1(fiuC1 ()i"1.he Jiidges but aiso the eoriduct:

lb ,,,, .. ..

303 of the members of their famiily undei" public: S(T1Tl1l,i1}}l"a_':'l.W'l1€I1 the family members. becziiuse of their proximity enjoy privileges. it is liigh time they sir1t)till"el.:. V' limitations and be p1'e;3e1red to b That is what is expected of them.

such a maxmer that their Iii) Vxtvayu and the institutiori. 'I'0cla.y \v11e:;'i._jur:lges .étrel_ltv0rl%.i11g under tremendous pressure, fI'§)II1 variotzs quarters. the family members Sh()'Ll1l'(lf: riot"lblec_dii'ie_';Vebrie more source of head ache aI1(ll1'.(:3:tivbl€. not only expected of the «ifvtldge i'1"'e,._»_rriVi_..l_"ic_-*. members of his/her family. The Judge shloeulldiir1et*be"teiaibiirrétesed by their conduct. 4&8. 5- , x 14'I'an1't}ie lliactls of this case, we are satisfied that "me" 'i21lleigl2'tt.i.dia& read whole is not calculated to interfere with

7..tl1e- aClrri'1'--nist.r'a__Eitm oi" 't.is'tiee. '.'{.'l1e wroncf clone to the Judfe pers_011alI.y._l'i'jf at ail amounts to defaniattiry attack on a Judge Hand it"_1fr_13_31y be 21 libel .€i1'1Cl it open to the Jticlge to proceecl _aVg§;1irisi. the Iihellor in an approprizue aet'.i0i'1. ii' he so chooses. it w0u}d not" c()ns11'1'u1e a wrorlg done to the pubiic or ir1j.u"1§.g* to the public 01' ii tends 1.0 m'ea'ae am appz'ehensio11 in €11?' 1'411iVf1'c§Sv?.(.)f'«the pubiic in 1.'eg2ard to i11t'c7g1"i1.y or fairness of a J'u.c§gc*(n_r 'it in. r10' way (Eater the actual and ])!'()Sp€i('.ﬁ\?€?.'1iE;igE4E11i f:;Ql'I1"{§I21C§}'1gT complrzte reliance upon the C()L11't'é:. z1d.nii11is€.i";11.'1mV1,of.ju.s{.1cc, In that View of the matter, V\2vr: 'G1g_> moi" f.i_11Ci .:»my ";1ié'ri'£: in this contempt, petition. AcQ_o1'd.ing1y.,.. we_ Cimp thé' 'procéedings and discharge the accused.

;  x[' % ;    AAAA Sd/~
           RIDGE

~   V Sd/-
 .....  

. _ sp/l§$p/ c';?I;l

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court