Karnataka High Court
Ramakrishna Gowda vs Chairman, Zee Television, New ... on 24 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: AIR2000KANT276, ILR2000KAR2337, 2001(1)KARLJ265, AIR 2000 KARNATAKA 276, 2000 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 66, (2000) ILR (KANT) 2337, (2001) 1 KANT LJ 265
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan, A.M. Farooq
ORDER Ashok Bhan, J.
1. This petition has been filed as a public interest litigation alleging therein that on 4th of December, 1999 at 12 noon in Court hall No. 4 of the High Court, a dummy Court proceedings engaging the Court staff came to be held and the same was video recorded by the Zee Telefilms Limited, respondents 1 and 2 for telecasting the same on its channels. It is also stated that the Court halls of the High Court cannot be used for any purpose other than conducting the Court proceedings during the Court hours for the dispensation of justice. There is no provision for telecasting dummy proceedings or holding such proceedings. It is further alleged that on 4th of December, 1999 being a Saturday and non-sitting day for High Court no case had been listed for hearing and no cause list had been issued notifying sitting on that day, Holding of dummy proceedings or videotaping of the proceedings in the Court halls is illegal and an act of impropriety. A declaration has been sought that the dummy Court proceedings held in the Court hall on 4th of December, 1999 be declared illegal. Further direction sought is that respondents 1 and 2 be directed not to telecast on any of its channels video recording of dummy Court proceedings conducted in Court hall No. 4 on 4th of December, 1999. The petitioner also seeks that proceedings under the contempt of Courts Act be initiated against respondents 1 and 2 and those who have abetted in conducting the dummy proceedings.
2. Respondents 1 and 2 in their statement of objections have denied the averments made in the writ petition. It has been stated that no dummy proceedings as contended by the petitioner was recorded by the persons belonging to the Zee Telefilms Limited. It is stated that respondents 1 and 2 are totally unaware of the fact that 4th of December, 1999 being Saturday was a non-sitting day for the High Court or that no cause list had been issued and that no cases had been listed for hearing on that day. Respondents 1 and 2 did not enter the premises of the High Court on 4th of December, 1999 and therefore the question of conducting dummy proceedings without prior permission of the Registrar General of the High Court did not arise. That the respondents had the highest regard for this Court and therefore the question of casting any aspiration or stigma did not arise. That false allegations were made against respondents to tarnish their image.
3. Respondent 3 in the statement of objection has stated that on 6th of December, 1999, respondent 3 came to know that on 4th of December, 1999 in the afternoon, in Court hall No. 4 some proceedings were held while the Hon'ble Judge was on the dias. The proceedings were videographed and recorded. It further stated that no case had been listed before any Court on 4th of December, 1999 being a non-working day for the Hon'ble Judges and no permission for video recording were granted for that date.
4. Before we proceed to record our findings it is obligatory on us to refer to another fact, Hon'ble Judge in whose Court allegedly dummy proceedings were held or videographed wrote a letter to the Registrar General, High Court on 13th of December, 1999 with a request to bring the contents of the letter to the notice of the Bench when the petition is next taken up. The letter is self explanatory and we reproduce the same:
"On Saturday 11th December 1999, I came across a news report relating to a writ petition in which the Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice has issued notice on a complaint that the T.V. crew had taken pictures of some proceedings in Court hall No. 4. I had suggested to the parties in one of the matters that I was hearing singly that since the Division Bench work gets disrupted each time because of these small cases that the same should be concluded and it was agreed that they would point out whatever they wanted to on 4-12-1999. After a very short hearing the parties desired to explore the possibility of a settlement. At that time, I noticed that the T.V. crew appeared to have taken some footage of the Court proceedings from the rear corridor. I sent for them and informed them that this is not permissible and that even if they had done it erroneously, that the same should be deleted forthwith. They immediately apologised for the mistake and whatever footage was taken which was very minimal, was immediately erased and I verified the same.
2. I read from the news reports that some person has given an entirely wrong complexion to the incident and has unnecessarily implicated the High Court staff who have nothing to do with the same. Please be kind enough to bring these facts to the notice of the Bench when the petition is next taken up.
MFSJ."
5. It is apparent from the reading of the letter that, Court proceedings were held in Court hall No. 4 on 4th of December, 1999. Hon'ble Judge sat on a non-working day to take up Single Bench part-heard matters as he did not find time to take up these matters on other days because he was sitting in a Division Bench on those days. It was noticed that a T.V. crew appeared to have recorded the Court proceedings from the rear corridor. T.V. crew was sent for and told that the recording of Court proceedings was not permissible and whatever footage was taken was immediately erased. Hon'ble Judge himself verified the erasion of the videotaped footage.
6. From the reading of the averments in the writ petition and the reply filed by respondent 3 and the letter written by Hon'ble Judge, it is clear that Court proceedings did take place on 4th of December, 1999 in Court hall No. 4. Hon'ble Judge had taken up a part heard matter and T.V. crew (name not known) appeared to have videotaped the Court proceedings. As soon as it came to the notice of the Judge that Court proceedings were being taken, he took exception to it and admonished the T.V. crew for videotaping the Court proceedings without taking permission. He ordered that footage of the Court proceedings be deleted forthwith. T.V. crew apologised and deleted the videotaped footage of the Court proceedings. As the footage of the videotape recording the Court proceedings were deleted, the question of its being telecast on a T.V. channel does not arise. Respondents 1 and 2 have denied that Zee T.V. videotaped the Court proceedings. In the absence of any definite proof that respondents 1 and 2 videotaped the Court proceedings, the question of initiating contempt proceedings against them does not arise. T.V. crew which recorded the Court proceedings on a tape has already apologised before the Hon'ble Judge for having committed the mistake of recording the Court proceedings without taking permission from the Court. The apology tendered by the T.V. crew which has been accepted by the Judge is enough to meet the majesty of law.
7. For the reasons aforementioned no declaration or direction sought for in the petition can be granted. We close the proceedings and dispose of the writ petition with the following binding directions.
8. That the Court halls have a sanctity and symbolise the divinity of justice it seeks to represent. The Court halls cannot be used for any purpose other than the holding of Court proceedings for dispensation of justice. The proceedings in the Court are held in open and the public in general can attend the proceedings unless otherwise directed. But nobody can be permitted to defile the same. The Court proceedings in the High Court or any Court subordinate thereto cannot be videotaped, photographed or telecast without taking prior written permission from the High Court.