A. Pasayat, J.
1. Expressing concern for the scurrilous manner in which certain news items have been published in two news-papers, one of them being the oldest and most reputed news-piper of the State, these applications have been filed As the applications involve almost identical prayers they are taken up together for disposal. It is alleged that in the name of freedom of press, and fair reporting of news borders of decency have been overstepped, and a distorted version has been presented which has lowered the image of judiciary, and therefore, clearly attracts stringent action.
2. 'The Press plays a vital role in the administration of justice. It is the watchdog to see that every trial is conducted fairly, openly and above board. But the watchdog may sometimes break loose and have to be punished for misbehaviour.' These words in the Learned Judge Lord Denning, M. R's book Road to Justice. (1955) Page 78 have become locus classicus. Press occupies a vital place in the modern society Press in this country has risen to grant heights in the past, in the past when we were under foreign domination, press on the one hand awakened human consciousness towards their rights to freedom and liberty, and on the other hand posed a threat to the foreign rulers of being exposed wherever they did any act of highhandedness. Yet, any institution when misused is bound to do more harm than good. Press too in the zeal of either helping the victim of oppression, or in exposing the oppressor entered into the field of investigations or trial of a pending case. It was here that the conflict with the judiciary came and cases for contempt of Court were started. In 1954, a Press Commission was appointed, which enquired into ail matters connected with the working of Press and all aspects of Journalism. One of the matters considered was contempt of Court, and contempt of Legislature.
3. The freedom of the press is basically the freedom of the individuals to express themselves through the medium of press. This implies that the freedom of press is not superior to that of an individual. In fact this freedom is fundamental to the life of an individual. In the words of William Blackstone. 'The liberty of the Press is indeed essential to the nature of a free State; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every free man has an undoubted right to lay what sentiment he pleaded before the public, to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal he must take the consequences of his own temerity.' (See Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. IV at pages 151, 152). In early nineteen century Lord Ellenborough observed in Max v. Cobbet: (1804) 20 How. St. Trl. 1).
'The law of England is the law of liberty, and consistently with this liberty we have not what is called an imprimatur; there is no such preliminary licence necessary, but if a man publishes a paper he is exposed to the penal consequence as he is in every other act if it be illegal.'
4. There is guarantee of the Constitution of India that there will be freedom of speech and writing, but reasonable restriction can be imposed. It will be of relevance to compare the various suggestions as prevalent in America and India. It is worthwhile to note that all utterances against a Judge or concerning a pending case do not in America amount to contempt of Court. In Article 19 the expression 'reasonable restrictions' is used which is almost as par with the American phraseology 'inherent tendency' or 'reasonable tendency'. The Apex Court of America in Bridges v. Calfornia : (1911) 86 Law Ed. 192 said :
'What finally emerges from the clear and present danger cases is a working principle that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished.'
The vehemence of the language used is not alone the measure of the power to punish for contempt of Court. The fires which it kindles must constitute an imminent, not merely a likely, threat to the administration of justice. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
5. The press does not have the right, which is its professional function, to criticise and to advocate. The whole gamut of public affairs is the domain for fearless and critical comment, and not least the administration of justice. But the public function which belongs to the press makes it an obligation of honour to exercise this function only with the fullest sense of responsibility. Without such a lively sense of responsibility a free press may readily become a powerful instrument of injustice. It should not and may not attempt to influence Judges before they have made up their minds on pending controversies. Such restriction, which merely bars the operation of extraneous influence specifically directed to a concrete case, in no way curtails the fullest discussion of public issues generally. It is not suggested that generalised discussion of a particular topic should be forbidden, or run the hazard of contempt proceedings, merely because some phrases of such a general topic may be involved in a pending litigation. It is the focussed attempt to influence a particular decision that may have a corroding effect on the process of justice, and it is such common that justifies the corrective process. To similar effect was the observation of Frankfurthar J. in Pennekamo v. Florida : (1946) 90 Law Ed. 1295.
6. There is no doubt that the Court like any other institution does not enjoy immunity from fair criticism. No Court can claim to be always right although it does not spare any effort to be right according to the best of the ability, knowledge and judgments of the Judges. They do not think themselves to be in possession of all truth or hold that whoever others differ from them are in error. No one is more conscious of his limitations and fallibility than a Judge but because' of his training and the assistance he gets from learned counsel he is apt to avoid mistakes more than others. While fair and temperate criticism of the Court even if strong, may not be actionable, attributing improper motives, or tending to bring Judges or Courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of which notice must and will be taken. Respect is expected not only from those to whom the judgment of the Court is acceptable but also from those to whom it is repugnant. Those who err in their criticism by indulging in vilification of the institution of Courts, administration of justice and the instruments through which the administration acts, should take heed for they will act at their own peril. To similar effect were the observations of Hidayatullah, C.J. as the learned Judge was then in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India : AIR 1970 SC 1318.
7. The freedom of press under our Constitution is not higher than that of citizen, and that there is no privilege attaching to the profession of the press as distinguished from the members of the public. To whatever height the subject in general may go, so also may the journalist, and if an ordinary citizen may not transgress the law so must not the press. That the exercise of explosion is subject to the reasonable restriction of the law of contempt is borne out by Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution. It should be well to remember that the Judge by reason of their office are precluded from entering into any controversy in the columns of the public press, nor can enter the arena and do battle upon equal terms in newspapers, as can be done by ordinary citizens
8. This preface is necessary because the petitioners in these three cases are either advocates or forum of advocates, who have taken exception to certain publications in two local dailies, i.e., 'The Samaj', and 'The Anupama Bharat'. According to them the articles published relating to certain pending cases have caused slur on the image of the judicial dignity, and integrity of the Judges have been doubted. Such acts, according to them, are clearly contemptuous, and call for stringent action. The printer, publisher and the concerned journalists have tendered apologies. The journalists of the two concerned papers have indicated that a signed statement was given by the informant of a case involving dowry death, and the publications were made in good faith solely relying on the signed statement handed over by the informant who claimed to be father of the alleged victim girl. The articles published referred to certain orders of bail passed by two learned Judges of this Court. Allegations were made about propriety of those orders, and in the proceedings the informant made certain comments or filed affidavits which were considered objectionable by the Bench hearing those matters. The concerned person was asked as to whether he stood by the allegations and in a sworn statement recorded before the Registrar of this Court, he reiterated his statements. As the allegations and statements were found to be contemptuous, action has been separately taken against him. While the matter stood thus, articles making reference to certain orders passed as indicated above were published stating that the concerned party doubted the integrity of the two learned Judges who passed the orders in question. Protection is sought for by the printers, publishers and the concerned journalists on the ground that they acted in good faith, and the articles were published on the basis of signed statement handed over to them by the informant in the case. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short, 'the Act') in Section 4 makes it clear that it permits fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings to be published.
9. The right to criticise an opinion of a Court, to take issue with it upon its conclusions as to a legal proposition, or question its conception of the facts, so long as such criticisms are made in good faith, and are in ordinarily decent and respectful language, and are not designed to wilfully or maliciously misrepresent the position of the Court, or tend to bring it into disrepute, or lessen the respect due to the authority to which a Court of last resort is entitled, cannot he questioned. The right of free speech is one of the greatest guarantee to liberty is a free country like this, even though that right is frequently and in many instances outrageously abused. If any considerable portion of a community is led to believe that either because of gross ignorance of the law, or because of a worse reason, it cannot rely upon the Courts to administer justice to a person charged with crime, that port on of the community, upon some occasion, is very likely to come to the conclusion that it is better not to take any chances on the Courts failing to do their duty. Judiciary is the bed rock and handmaid of democracy. If people would lose faith in justice imparted by a Court of Law, the entire democratic set up would crumble down.
10. A bare reading of the article in question as a whole would leave on the mind of an ordinary reader the clear impression that injustice had been deliberately done. To say the least, it attributes judicial dishonesty to the Judges. The natural and probable effect of the article, and the avowed intention of the printer, publisher or the journalists as indicated in their affidavits have to be taken note of. It contains serious and scandalous allegations of improper and even corrupt motives against Judges of this Court. The inevitable conclusion is that it has resulted in contempt of the administration of justice, and in lowering the image of this Court.
11. The learned counsel for petitioners have submitted that the scenario as has been presented in the articles in question gives a distorted picture and is far from reality. If the actual scenario would have been printed the situation would have been different. It is not sufficient for the printer, publisher or the journalists to say that they have acted on the signed statement or news given by any person without verifying whether it has a ring of truth or it is aimed at bringing any person to disrepute or is aimed at bringing his image to ignominy. They are required to be more careful if it relates to a proceeding of a Court or concerns a Judge of any Court. Before printing any news-item or article, it has to be ensured that it contains no libellous or contemptuous element.
News reports have much in common with the person in the generic shooting accident who 'didn't know the gun was loaded.' News and commentary on the printed page, on the television, and over radio take unexpected turns that every reader or viewer find surprising, shocking, or distressing. The loaded-gun analogy springs from three key points. They are - (1) News content is not the same as news influence; (2) The way news is collected helps to determine what is reported; and (3) Potential consequences of coverage are weak criteria for news decision making.
12. The law of contempt gives one kind of support by providing a sanction against scurrilous abuse of judges of allegations that a Judge or Court is biased. Both scandalising the Court and bringing it to disrespect is contemptuous. No society can exist without the laws, and laws exist for the welfare of the people. Laws, however, have no meaning if they cannot be enforced. Any disobedience shown to the law is punishable. Similarly any disrespect shown to the authority administering justice is punishable. Any interference with the course of justice, any obstruction caused in the path of those seeking justice, any disobedience to the orders of the Court, are punishable as contempt of Court. Any affront to the majesty of law is contempt of Court. The rules embodied in the law of contempt of Courts are intended to uphold and ensure the effective administration of justice, both civil and criminal. In India, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 holds the field.
'To speak generally, contempt of Court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect and disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during the litigation'.
(See Oswald's Classic Book 'On Contempt of Court').
Oswald has further said :
'Contempt , in the legal acceptance of the term, primarily signifies disrespect to that which is entitled to legal regard, but as a wrong purely moral, or affecting an object not possessing a legal status, it has in the eye of the law no existence. In its origin, all legal contempt will be found to consist in an offence more or less direct against the sovereign himself as the fountain-head of law and justice, or against his palace where justice was administeted. This clearly appears from old cases'.
The purpose of contempt jurisdiction was aptly described by Lord Morris in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers : 1974 AC 273 at page 302, thus :
'In an ordered community Courts are established for the specific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of the Courts should not be imperilled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for their own dignity; it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognised Courts of the land are so flouted and their authority wanes and is supplanted.'
13. It was pointed by the learned counsel for petitioners that actual scenario is as follows :
Pratima Sahoo (mother-in-law of the deceased Kalyani), Pranami Sahoo and Kautuki Sahoo (sisters-in-law of the deceased) filed an application (vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 1898 of 1995) on 1.8.1995 for grant of anticipatory bail. On 26.9.1995 (Hon'ble R.K. Patra, J.) rejected the said application.
On 23.8.1995, Chittaranjan Sahu (father-in-law of the deceased) and Atmaram Sahu (husband of the deceased) filed an application (vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 2135 of 1995) under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. On 28.8.1995, the said application came up for consideration before Hon'ble R.K. Patra, J. and on the request of the State Counsel, it was adjourned to 4.9.1995 on the ground that he had no received the case diary On 4.9.1995 the matter was listed before Hon'ble R.K. Patra, J. The informant had appeared in person and filed objection to the grant of bail. The matter was adjourned to 6.9.1995 on which day the matter was adjourned as the State Counsel had not got the case diary. Ultimately, the matter came up on 26.9.1995 before Hon'ble R.K. Patra, J. who after hearing the parties, rejected the prayer for bail.
Thereafter, Chittaranjan Sahu and Atmaram Sahu filed another application for grant of bail (vide Criminal Misc. Case. No. 3520 of 1995) on 13.12.1995. On 14.12.1995, the said application came up before Hon'ble D.M. Patnaik, J. who granted interim bail to Chittaranjan Sahu to enable him to attend the obsequies of his mother. Interim bail for Atmaram Sahu was rejected. Thereafter, the said application came up for orders on 22.1.1996 before Hon'ble R.K. Dash, J. which was adjourned to 6.2.1996 at the request of the State Counsel. On 6.2.1996, the matter was adjourned to 7.2.1996 at the request of the State Counsel. After some adjournment, the application for bail was rejected on 28.2.1996 by Hon'ble R.K. Dash, J.
On 19.1.1996, Pratima Sahu and two others (mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased) filed application (vide Criminal Misc. Case. No. 200 of 1996) for anticipatory bail. On 27.3.1996, the matter came up for consideration before Hon'ble P.K. Misra, J. who directed the matter to be listed before Hon'ble R.K. Patra, J. as the earlier bail application was considered by him. On 17.5.1996 after consideration, bail was granted to them by Hon'ble R.K. Patra, J. on the grounds, inter alia, that by then, charge sheet had already been filed in the case against the accused persons.
Meanwhile, on 21.5.1996, Chittaranjan Sahu and Atmaram Sahu had filed their bail application (vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 1732 of 1996). The said application was listed before Hon'ble P.K. Mishra, J. On 22.5.1996 who after hearing, adjourned the case to 21.6.1996 for further consideration. On 21.6.1996, Hon'ble P.K. Mishra, J. granted them bail.
On 5.8.1996, the father of the deceased, informant filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 2669 of 1996 praying for cancellation of bail of Chittaranjan Sahu and Atmaram Sahu only. On 9.10.1996, Hon'ble A. Deb, J. issued notice in the matter.
The above position is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. There is no manner of doubt that if the actual position had been printed, there would have been no scope for a grievance as stated by the petitioners.
14. The news-reporters, printers and publishers appear to have acted without care and caution. The printers, publishers and news-reporters have tendered unqualified apology and the learned counsel appearing for them in this Court submitted that the actual scenario as presented in paragraph 13 above shall be printed by the concerned news-papers along with their apologies for having printed, published or reported the impugned news-items. Same shall he published within a week from the date of our order, with due prominence so that any wrong that has been committed would be set right. It has to be noted that an apology cannot be accepted unless it is really intended to be an apology not merely a pretext to get out of a contempt proceeding or the consequences flowing therefrom. The apology must be genuine without any qualification and intention. We find the apology tendered in the case at hand before us to be so. Therefore, we accept it.
15. In the conclusion, we direct that as undertaken by the opposite parties the actual scenario as indicated in paragraph 13 above, and the apology shall be published within one week from the date of this order, in the daily 'Samaj', and 'Anupam Bharat', and copies thereof shall be filed in the Registry of this Court within three days of such publication. If it is not done, the matter shall be placed for further orders, and if it is done the matter shall be treated as closed.
The applications are accordingly disposed of.
S.N. Phukan, C.J.
16. I agree.