Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) Subhash Chand, petitioner, along with his brother Lakshman and mother Shakuntala were found guilty of having killed Sudha, wife of accused Lakshman by burning her. Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge tried the case and on 27th of May 1983 sentenced all the three accused to death. After handing down the death sentences, he submitted the record to this Court.for confirmation of the death sentences. While the said murder reference No. I of 1983 was subjudice and immediately. after the pronouncement of death sentences, respondent No. 1 is alleged to have given press interviews and an interview to Doordarshan where he is stated to have discussed the merits of this case. This he is stated to have done despite his awareness that the case was still subjudice and the sentences passed by him were not executable unless the same is confirmed by this Court. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 who had tried the case had no business to go to press and Doordarshan and extensively discuss the merits of the case and to make remarks about the petitioner and his co-accused having pre-planned the murder of Sudha for a motive. It is said that the respondent No. I even went to the extent of providing his photograph for publication and it is also alleged that he received a procession of about 200 women in his chamber where sweets were distributed and he allowed himself to be garlanded and photographed. It is said that all this was done by respondent No. 1 in a case which was sub judice and with a view to create an atmosphere of prejudice against the accused. It is Further said that after giving out his views in the judgment respondent No. 1 in utter disregard of his office and judicial proprieties went out of his way to build up public opinion in favor of his judgment with a view to interfere in the course of justice.

(3) It would thus appear that these proceedings are an outcome of a very unfortunate event in which one of our own Additional Sessions Judge, respondent No. 1, has involved himself. It is difficult for us to believe that he is so innocent and ignorant as not to know the consequences of the conduct in which he has indulged. His conduct has definitely created a unique situation and we believe this is a unique case of its kind. In fact it is because of the importance of the question raised by the facts of this case that we decided to embark upon an exercise of finding out as to how a judge should conduct himself if he has to enjoy the confidence of general public, so fundamental and important for the administration of justice. The areas covered by the Contempt of Courts Act and the judicial proprieties are so overlapping that it is very difficult to draw a line and to distinguish between the two. The old dictum that justice should not only be done but it must appear to have been done despite its age has flourished and has not decayed. What exactly has happened is that immediately after sentencing the petitioner, his brother and his mother to death in a murder case, respondent No.1 made himself available to press and Doordarshan and extensively commented on the merits of the case. This he did despite the fact that he had made a reference to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence and he surely was aware that the matter was ex-facie subjudice. Despite his awareness that confirmation proceedings were a continuation of the trial he has made a sustained effort to publicise the accused as criminals of the worst kind who had pre-planned the murder of Sudha, wife of Lakshman accused, after they failed to persuade her to bring further dowry from her parents. Thus, in this way soon after handing down his judgment he gives interviews to media and goes to Doordarshan to build up what may be called a public opinion in support of his judgment immediately after sending the accused to death cell. What is most significant in these interviews is the fact that he highlights it as a case of dowry burning which, indeed is a hotly debated topic of public importance and unfortunately press media also choose to publish it under scare headlines. reading of these interviews would show that these are not literary based on the long experience of a Judge and do not pertain to a topic. These are palpably the interviews in the form of his comments in respect of a case which on the date was subjudice. Since respondent No. 1 has admitted the truth of the allegations, it is not necessary for us to make a reference to the entire published material as in substance almost all interviews are similar.

(11) The interviews in fact would show that he has given these in respect of a pending case and these do not pertain to any particular topic. Under these circumstances, we fail to understand as to how Article 19 can be invoked. Article 19, in so far as the contempt of court is concerned, has placed a restriction upon the exercise of the right. To our mind, any violation of that restriction would by itself amount to a violation of Article 19 of the Constitution. In the case of a judge, the situation is a little different. Respondent No. 1 has accepted the post of judicial character by choice and by accepting to be a part of judiciary he has also undertaken to impose upon himself certain restrictions and these self-imposed restrictions have since long been recognized as a necessary adjunct of the office. It is, therefore, a recognized principle that in deference to the judicial propriety a judge must conduct himself in such a manner so as to avoid becoming a target of public controversy. We are, therefore, of the view that in a case like this no protection is available to a contemner under Article 19 of the Constitution. This would show that no citizen has a right to make use of Article 19 in a manner so as to bring the Contempt of Courts Act into action and if this right is restricted in respect of an average citizen, we fail to understand how it is available to a judge in an unrestricted form. An officer of the Government, whatsoever his position, is required to implement the policies of the Government but the position of a judge is different. A judge is an officer of the State and has certain limitations and has no policy of his own.

(22) On behalf of Doordarshan it was argued by Mr. Sabharwal, that. in fact, this interview was recorded by a representative of Doordarshan at the house of respondent No. 1 and that she was not aware of the niceties of law. That, however, does not mitigate the conduct of respondent No. 2. On the basis of all that goes on before us nobody can say that the conduct of respondents has not the capacity or tendency to cause prejudice and 174 damage. The while episode took shape in a manner that it undoubtedly create an atmosphere of prejudice which is amply borne out by the demonstrations that were held after the decision of the case by this Court, and we can neither ignore nor overlook such development. We, are, therefore, of opinion that the conduct of respondents is neither permitted by law nor by justice and in the case if respondent No. 1 apart from the fact that such a conduct on his part is disapproved by law we are of the opinion that his conduct is also violative of judicial propriety which for long has become a necessary adjunct of the office which the judges are holding. The least that can be said is that the conduct of the respondents verges on contempt. Having said so, we leave it there without recording any finding against the respondents. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Aggarwal J. "I have perused the judgment prepared by my brother Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. and I entirely agree in his reasoning and conclusion. I feel the need to express myself."