Jharkhand High Court
38(A)/1996-Pat. The Words Used ... vs M. P. High Court Bar Association And ... on 21 August, 2018
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Ratnaker Bhengra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Crl.) No. 04 of 2018
---
Court on its Own Motion Versus Bhola Yadav
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
----
For the State: Mr. Vikash Kr. Sinha, J.C to A.G For the Opp. Party: M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Debarsi Mondal, Advocates.
---
05/21/8/2018 The instant criminal contempt case was instituted on the reference made by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi through letter dated 19th May, 2018. It encloses the record of R.C. No. 38(A)/96 and C.D. As per the order dated 2nd April, 2018 passed by learned Spl. Judge-VII, C.B.I. (AHD Scam), Ranchi, certain derogatory remarks were reported about the learned Court in Print Media (Dainik Bhaskar) Ranchi edition dated 29th March, 2018 soon after the pronouncement of judgment and sentence on 19th March, 2018/24th March, 2018 in R.C No. 38(A)/1996-Pat. The words used "Durbhawnagrast hoker faishla diya gaya hai" were attributed to the petitioner, who is an active member of political party i.e., Rashtriya Janta Dal. Learned Court issued notice upon the petitioner asking him to physically appear on 19th April, 2018 and furnish his explanation as to why further proceeding be not initiated against him in accordance with law.
2. However, opposite party had approached this Court in Cr. M. P. No. 1322 of 2018 against the said order in the meantime. This Court refused to interfere in the order passed by learned Court. It directed the petitioner to appear and submit to the jurisdiction of the learned Court and offer his explanation. It was further observed that if the petitioner appears before learned Court on or before 27th April, 2018, the learned Court would not take any coercive steps for ensuring his appearance. The opposite party appeared before learned Court on 26th April, 2018 and submitted his show cause duly supported with affidavit along with annexures with a prayer to recall the order dated 2nd April, 2018 and notice dated 3rd April, 2018 and to exonerate him in the interest of justice. He again appeared on 5th May, 2018 on the adjourned date. He was directed to appear again on 18th May, 2018.
23. Learned Court on consideration of his show cause and copy of Newspaper and Compact Disk submitted before the court, came to the opinion that such comments had tendency to scandalize the image of the Court. The learned Court proceeded to enlarge the opposite party on bail on submission of bail bond of Rs. 1 Lakh and referred the matter to this Court in the light of the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Copy of relevant enclosures were served on the office of learned Advocate General. Opposite party entered appearance through Vakalatnama and has filed show cause.
4. Learned counsel representing the opposite party has, at the outset, conveyed the unconditional and unqualified apology submitted by the opposite party for any such act or conduct which tends to lower down the authority of the Court, Presiding Officer and Judicial System. He further tried to explain that the opposite party is a member of Bihar Legislative Assembly and a social activist. After delivery of the judgment of conviction, there was widespread debate and discussion in print and electronic media. Certain statements were also attributed to him which came as a shock and surprise as being a responsible political person, he could not even think of making such comment either on judgment, Judicial Officer or judicial system, which would amount to Criminal Contempt of Court. He has stated that on 29th March, 2018 he was surrounded by many media houses of print / electronic media, but except Dainik Bhaskar, no other print / electronic media had referred the words attributed to him. On coming to know that he was misquoted by the print media, immediately he sent notice on 3rd April, 2018 to Dainik Bhaskar and requested to publish the corrigendum (Annexure-3). Learned counsel submits that the opposite party duly intimated the Newspaper that his statements were published in a distorted manner. He had only named the C.B.I and not learned Court for the circumstances leading to such conviction.
5. The Newspaper in its edition dated 4th April, 2018 also published the said statement (Annexure-4). It clearly indicates that the opposite party had explained his bonafide and regretted any such impression created by the news report. He stated that CBI had indulged in concoction of evidence to bring home the charges against Lalu Prasad Yadav. He had made his comments against CBI and not learned Court. Had CBI 3 conducted the investigation in any impartial manner, Lalu Prasad Yadav would have been held innocent. Statements were also published in PTI feed publication on 4th April, 2018, which is Annexure-5 to the show cause. Learned counsel submits that publication reported that the opposite party had blamed the distorted media report of his views on latest conviction of party chief Lalu Prasad in fodder scam case by learned Court. Learned counsel has also stated that the Newspaper report is only a hearsay evidence, presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of Evidence Act to a Newspaper cannot be treated as a proof of fact reported therein. The opposite party had only condemned the act of C.B.I in his statement and indicated that appeal would be preferred in the High Court by Lalu Prasad Yadav against his conviction. Learned counsel further submits that his reply to the show cause has not been considered by learned Court in proper perspective and he had been taken into custody. He was released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1 Lac with one surety with a condition to remain physically present before this Court. Learned counsel for the opposite party has fervently submitted that the opposite party has no intention to lower down the authority and jurisdiction of the Court. He submits that despite all explanations submitted, the opposite party seeks unconditional and unqualified apology for any act or conduct, which may have caused inconvenience to this Court and learned court below. He also undertakes to be more careful and cautious in making any statement especially with respect to any court proceedings. Learned counsel for the opposite party has also submitted on instructions that the opposite party is ready to atone for his acts in any such proper manner as the Court may deem fit.
6. Learned J.C to A.G submits that incidences of irresponsible statement on decisions rendered by the Court especially the Subordinate Court have increased many fold in the recent times. Such acts if proved, are liable for being proceeded under the Contempt of Courts Act as they lower down the majesty of the Court and erode confidence of the public in the Justice Delivery System. He submits that the statements were irresponsible, though the opposite party has tried to amend himself later on by asking the Newspaper to submit his explanation. The opposite party appears to be conscious of his reckless act and has also offered unconditional and unqualified apology for the same. In such 4 circumstances, this Court may pass appropriate orders, as may deem fit and proper, which may also have an exemplary effect on others.
7. A question whether there is a contempt of court or not is a serious one. It is only when a clear case of contemptuous conduct not explainable other- wise, arises that the contemnor must be punished. The broad test to deter- mine whether there is contempt of court or not is to see whether the act complained of was calculated to obstruct or had an intrinsic tendency to in- terfere with the course of justice and the due administration of law. [See Rajendra Sail Vs. M. P. High Court Bar Association and others (2005) 6 SCC 109].
Fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment which is a public docu- ment or which is a public act of a judge concerned with administration of justice would not constitute contempt. However, if the criticism is likely to interfere with due administration of justice or undermine the confidence which the public reposes in the courts of law as courts of justice, the criti- cism would cease to be fair and reasonable criticism but would scandalize courts and substantially interfered with administration of justice.
8. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, gone through the relevant materials on record and show cause submitted by the opposite party. The opposite party definitely appears to have crossed the threshold of propriety in making unwarranted comments upon the delivery of judgment of conviction and sentence by the learned court of A.J.C-I, Ranchi. The tendency to make unwarranted comments in respect of the court proceedings and the order passed does have a effect of lowering the majesty of the courts if allowed to go unchecked. The opposite party has through his subsequent conduct, tried to amend himself and explain his bonafide. His explanation had also been published in the same Newspaper on 4th April, 2018. He has also offered unconditional and unqualified apology and also given undertaking to be more careful and cautious in future in making any statement especially with respect to any court proceedings. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that his unconditional and unqualified apology can be accepted, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs. The cost be paid towards Kerala Relief Fund in the designated Account:
5GOVERNMENT OF KERALA CHIEF MINISTER DISTRESS RELIEF FUND "ONLINE PORTAL"
"DONATION.CMDRF.KERALA.GOV.IN"
"donation.cmdrf.kerala.gov.in"
9. The opposite party is cautioned to remain careful in future. It is also made clear that any such transgression or impropriety which scandalizes or lowers or tends to lower the authority of the court or tends to interfere with or obstructs in the administration of justice, would not be condoned.
10. With these observations, the instant proceedings are dropped. The receipt of the payment of cost be filed in the Registry within a period of 2 weeks.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J) Jk/