Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The controversy between the parties hereto has its origin centering around a cartoon published on the outer wrapper rather the front cover page of the Tamil weekly 'Ananda Vikadan' bearing the date of issue 29-3-1987. It is an accepted fact that the particular issue in question was available at the news stand for sale to the members of the public on 27-3-1987 itself. The cartoon picturised the dais of a public meeting with audience in front thereof in addition portraying some persons also seated on the dais. In the fore-front, two persons are shown to be prominently sitting in two chairs in front of the mike. Behind those two persons, two other persons were shown to be sitting less prominently with a Police Constable standing in between those seated behind. Below the ,, said picture, a conversation in the form of a query and a reply among two of the audience has been printed in Tamil which if translated in English reads as hereunder:-

4. Consequent upon the above, the third respondent appears to have addressed a communication dated 31-3-1987 to the petitioner inviting his notice and attention to the issue of 'Ananda Vikatan' dated 29-3-1987 in the front cover page particularly the cartoon published in a mannner derogatory of Honourable Ministers and Assembly Members and the order of the Speaker dated 28-3-1987 said to have been made in the Assembly having felt that the said cartoon offended the name and prestige of the Assembly members particularly the Honourable Minsters and that, therefore, the petitioner must publish an apology expressingr regret in the front page of the next issue. The petitioner, by his undated reply, addressed to the third respon-

dent, stated that the explanation to the publication of the cartoon in the issue of 'Ananda Vikatan'dated 29-3-1987 is being published in the issue dated 5-4-1987 and a copy of the same is being sent to him for his perusal.

5. The enclosed Article was published in the weekly issue of the magazine dated 5-4-1987. The sum and substance of the publication explaining the earlier cartoon while expressing surprise over the events in the Assembly and the ruling of the Speaker states that the caricature was a mere and an ordinary of fenceless joke with no one in mind or to offend any one, that the same has to be taken jovially and the Minister or M.L.A. referred to need not be taken as belonging particularly to the State of Tamil Nadu or any other State and that like any other joke pertaining to an Advocate, a Doctor, a Cinema actress, the one in question is a joke pertaining to the politician in general all over the world referable to only a politician who has come to power by using democracy and betrays the confidence of the citizen. It is also stated therein that merely because the conversation is found printed in Tamil, it need not necessarily be considered to be attributable to Tamil Nadu since Ananda Vikatan being a Tamil magazine, be it Rajiv or Reagan, in cartoons or titbits, they would be shown to converse only in Tamil. While adverting to then concluded General Elections in the States of Kerala, West Bengal and Kashmir, it was said to have been found to be topically relevant in the context of the out-coming results of those elections by means of an ordinary joke and there is no need or justification to consider or construe the same to have any particular reference to the M.L.As. or Ministers of the State of Tamil Nadu as the target. It is further stated therein that the conversation was said to reflect the manner of criticism normally made by audience in a public meeting of politicians, in general and the same has to be appreciated in that context and not by getting angry considering it to mean an accusation of the M.L.As. or the Ministers. It is also stated that no one else but within a guilty conscience could take it to be an offensive one and others would only think that the same does not pertaining to them and enjoy and laugh it away. In addition, the said Article proceed to state that there are number of journals and magazines publishing news hems and cartoons with individual reference to M.L.As. and Ministes by adopting ways and means so as to offend the feelings of such persons and while ignoring such things, the threatened action to severely punish the petitioner alone for an ordinary joke constrain him to think whether the real offence is the popularity of the petitioner's magazines and the love and support of several lakhs of readers or to merely use the petitioner as a scape goat for deterring the other publishers, generally. Even at the forefront of the said Article, the petitioner-Editor expressed his surprise at the action of the Speaker in instantly delivering a judgment finding the petitioner guilty of an offence against the House and threatening him to impose the punishment also without even giving an opportunity to explain the charge proposed to be levelled against the petitioner, or considering the explanation of the petitioner, by adopting a deterrent method of threatening the petitioner with ony of two alternatives viz., apologise by accepting the offence or be punished without an enquiry or an adjudication in a judicious manner. While expressing surprise at the piquant situation in which the petitioner was placed by using a threat normally heard to be administered at Police Stations threatening to accept the guilt to enable a release with a lighter punishment on a threat of imprisonment, the petitioner was feeling sorry whether a similar treatment could be meted out in Courts or Legislative Assembly and is that the present day democracy. It is also stated that in cases of breach of privilege it is the Assembly which should decide by means of a resolution and not for the Speaker to unilateraliy decide to impose punishments. While pointing out the same, that even in the absence of such a resolution by the Assembly, if the Speaker could impose, decide and indicate about the punishment also openly in the Assembly, it only shows that whatever be the explanation, it may not be independently considered and that already the decision has been taken to punish him seem to be the obvious though not openly spoken out in such terms and in such circumstances, the need for submitting any explanation does not at all in his view, arise. At the same time, the Article purports to be an explanation to the lakhs and lakhs of its readers and that the petitioner would be satisfied if the readers are convinced that he has not committed any offence. While concluding the Article, it has been stated that if the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu thinks that he has his office and authority to do anything he likes, let him please himself to give the punishment and if he does so, it only will go to show that the publicity about the democracy in existence is only a mere matter of speech and it will only confirm the view that the Tamil Nadu Government is acting with a dictatorial mentality keeping in view personal likes and dislikes. The Article wound up by a declaration long live this democracy'.

25. In the view we have taken as to the validity of the action taken by the Speaker and the Legislature, we do not think it necessary to consider the question whether the cartoon published by the petitioner is in breach of the privilege of the House or in contempt of the House. However, we wish to point out that the question whether a particular cartoon would amount to breach of privilege or contempt depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be a general rule either way regarding cartoons.