(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to Direct the R4 to R22 to telecast/publish the clippings and videos showing the assault on innocent lawyers vide Annex-A and B.)
Per Ajit J. Gunjal J.,
1. An unsavory incident which took place on 2nd of March 2012 has resulted in a spate of writ petitions being filed before this Court seeking various reliefs including one for a direction to the State Government to entrust the Investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘CBI’). Various reliefs were sought for in the said writ petitions including a direction to some of the respondents, who are electronic media houses to telecast the clippings and videos showing the assault on innocent lawyers and also a direction to the Union of India to initiate action against Media for telecasting/publishing false information in the electronic and print media against the Advocates and for host of other reliefs.
2. Before considering the factual matrix of the case, it is necessary to reflect a little on these spate of writ petitions, which are filed. Suffice it to note that the present writ petition was listed before the Court raising certain office objections, which were sought to be rectified during the course of the day. This Court directed notice to the respondents. The matter was thereafter re-listed on 14.03.2012 and fresh notices were directed to unserved respondents, returnable by 21.03.2012. Eventually when the matter was listed before the Court on 21.03.2012, Mr. Harsha, Senior Managers (Operations), Legal Department appearing for respondent No.7 was directed to make available the entire footage, unedited taken on 02.03.2012. All the respondents were similarly directed to make available for the perusal and viewing of Court, the entire footage, unedited, taken on 02.03.2012. It is noticed that all the respondents have filed the footage taken on 2nd March 2012.
3. During this interregnum, the respondent-State Government had appointed Mr. R.K. Dutta, DGP (CID) as the Enquiry officer to investigate into the unsavory incident, which took place on 2nd March 2012. A report was submitted on 19.03.2012 and in the said report a reference is made to the video recorded copy of the CD given by the Advocate’s Association as referred to in the said report. The said CD is also filed in the Court. Eventually, when the matter was listed on 10.04.2012, this Court was of the view that it is needlessly time consuming for the Court to refer to the several PILs that have been filed in appending and therefore, it would be advantageous to consolidate all the allegations as well as the parties in one single petition. That would obviate the need for the other PILs to remain on the Board. It would also not require attention to be diverted from one pleading to another.
4. Several writ petitions, which were filed, were disposed of by separate orders and all the averments made in those writ petitions were amalgamated and by way of amendment, an application was filed. This Court granted the said application and accordingly amended petition was filed. This Court, having regard to the amalgamation of the reliefs, reserved liberty to the petitioners, whose writ petitions were disposed of, to approach this Court, to revive the writ petitions if technicality or necessity so arises. That is how we are seized with a single writ petition, which is filed by the Advocates Association, Bangalore for various reliefs.
5. Holmes J., in Northern Security Co. V/s. United States, (1903) 193 US 197 said:
“Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediate interests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear seem doubtful, and before which even well settled principles of law will bend.”
With these prefatory words we may now proceed to state the facts of these writ petitions.
6. The factual matrix of the incident can be succinctly stated as under:
On 2nd March 2012, one of the former Ministers Janardhana Reddy was sought to be produced by the CBI, Bangalore Branch in the Court of 46th Additional City Civil and Special Judge, CBI at Bangalore City Civil Court Complex. The Electronic as well as the Print Media were in the precincts of the Court so as to film and video coverage and publish the news regarding the production of the former Minister Janardhana Reddy. It appears there was a scuffle, as a result of which, violence erupted and the police present in the premises resorted to lathi charge due to which several Advocates were injured. A number of vehicles were damaged and destroyed due to stone pelting and arson. The Advocates would allege that the Police resorted to indiscriminate lathi charge on them in the City Civil Court Complex as well as at K.R. Circle and Mysore Bank Circle. It is also alleged that the police themselves damaged and set fire to vehicles. They would further allege that the police manning the wireless sets used filthy-language against Senior Police Officers, which was audible to the public.
7. The petitioners would aver that at around 10.45 a.m. as the Media persons had thronged the entrance of the City Civil Court Complex in great numbers, it had become virtually impossible for the Advocates to enter the Court complex in order to attend to their cases in time. It appears, a request was made by the Advocates to the respondent-media to withdraw from the entrance, which was not heeded to and police were mute spectators to the incident. The petitioners would contend that some people in the garb of Advocates and impersonating as Advocates tried to prevent the media from filming/taking photographs of the former Minister G. Janardhana Reddy. In the said circumstances, the unprecedented crowding of the media in large numbers and the confrontation between the persons, who were in the garb of Advocates created altercations between the media and the genuine advocates, who are regularly practicing in the Civil Court. It is their case that at around 11.30 a.m. all of a sudden, a large group of police personnel entered the Court premises and started lathi charging the Advocates causing hurt/grievous hurt. According to the petitioners the said act of the police was wholly unwarranted and in gross violation of the statutory provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as the Karnataka Police Act and the Manual. In the said uncalled-for lathi charge, many members of the petitioner-Association including Senior and lady Advocates were severely injured. The policemen also fired tear gas shells inside the Court premises. The Advocates, who were in the court halls suffered the effect of the tear gas shells and were restricted in their movement. The policemen taking advantage of the situation barged into the parking lot and caused damage to number of vehicles causing huge loss to the Advocates and they were beaten up black and blue without any mercy, until they fell unconscious. It appears there was a lull for some time, may be before the storm.
8. But however, at some later point of time after 12.00 noon several electronic media displayed in their respective channels that a police personnel was killed by the Advocates and the eyes of another police constable were gouged. This prompted another attack and confrontation with renewed vigour between the policemen and the Advocates, which resulted in injuries to both the Advocates as well as the Policemen. It is the specific allegation of the petitioners that both the electronic and the print medias have played a vital role in the confrontation. It is their specific case that the provocative statements and captions by the media continued through out the day. Such provocative statements by way of insults were only with the malafide intention to persuade, time and again lathi charging and assaulting the advocates. This was between 12.00 noon and 3.00 pm. The petition averments would contain that between 1.30 pm and 3.00 p.m. four Hon’ble Judges of this Court went to the City Civil Court premises to diffuse the situation and bring it under control. It is also the petition averments that they were also eyewitnesses to the police brutality which took place on 2nd of March 2012. It is further case of the petitioners that between 3.30 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. several two and four wheelers were smashed and lit on fire by the police. According to them, none of the owners of these vehicles were involved whatsoever with regard to the maintaining of public peace and tranquility. The petition averments would disclose that they have identified the police personnel, who were involved and present at the time of the incident. The petitioners have also made serious allegations as against the DG and IGP so also the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore indicating that the Commissioner of Police was present at the spot and the lathi charge commenced at his instigation without following any rules.
9. On 7th March 2012, the General Secretary of the Advocates Association requested one of the news channel viz., Samaya News to broadcast the assault on innocent lawyers as recorded in the CDs given to the electronic media. But however, the said video clippings were not shown by the Electronic Media. They would further aver that the action of the police entering the City Civil Court premises in such large numbers without seeking permission of the Registrar of the Civil Court in the guise of maintaining law and order is also not in conformity with the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Police Manual. The Advocates’ Association thereafter lodged a complaint on 7th of March, 2012 with the jurisdictional police with reference to the incident which had taken place on 2nd March 2012. It is their case that the said complaint was registered belatedly and no tangible investigation is being taken up by the police. On this spacious plea, the petitioners have sought for a direction to the State to entrust the investigation to the CBI more so, having regard to the fact that the police personnel themselves were also involved in the incident and they cannot be a Judge of their own cause inasmuch as the investigation would be done by them.
10. In response to these spacious averments made in the writ petition, the States has filed its Statement of objections indicating that the petitioners are not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for. The main contention of the respondents is that the writ petition itself is not maintainable inasmuch as it is not in public interest. They would contend that the petition does not espouse any public cause but is confined to protect a Section of Advocates who are involved in unlawful assembly, rioting and vandalizing public property. It is their case that they have not approached the Court with clean hands. It is their case that the Advocates’ Association is sought to be represented by the Secretary, who himself is accused in one of the cases and he cannot seek a direction to the State and choose the Investigating Agency. They would contend that several FIRs have been registered against the Advocates, which are of very serious nature and that the prayer made by the petitioner is totally one-sided and would amount to protecting the accused. The prayer seeking entrusting of the investigation to CBI, exposes the malafide intention of the petitioner-Association in not taking a neutral stand in the entire incident. According to the respondents, the important trait of public-spirited persons is to bring to the notice of the Courts the misdeeds, unauthorised action or inaction on the part of the authorities and seek redressal of the same in the interest of justice. Such public spirited persons would never take a partisan stand and leave it to the Court to do as it thinks fit. The sum and substance of the statement of objections is that the petitioners are not espousing any public cause but themselves are in the dock and their interest certainly cannot be termed as a public interest, which is more in the nature of a private interest.
11. Insofar as the other petition averments are concerned, they would traverse indicating that immediately after the incident took place an In-house Committee was formed by appointing Mr. R.K. Dutta, Director General, CID to go into the unsavory incident of 2nd March 2012 and a report has also been filed indicating that there was certain amount of dereliction of duty attributable to some of the Police Officers, who were incharge of the bandobust as on that day. They would also state that no specific allegations or malafides are attributed to either respondent No.35 i.e., the Chief Minister, State of Karnataka or to any other Minister.
12. Insofar as entrusting the Investigation to the CBI is concerned, they would contend that the State is competent enough to investigate into the incident, which has taken place on 2nd of March, 2012 and there are no compelling reasons for a direction to be issued to the CBI to take up the investigation on the basis of the complaint lodged both by the Advocates as well as by the Police. They would contend that the State Police is a competent force and unbiased in their investigation.
13. The CBI, respondent No.34 have filed Statement of Objections indicating that the Central Bureau of Investigation is already heavily burdened with several serious cases. It is also their case that due to paucity of time, men and material, they are not in a position to take up that further investigation unless, directed. They would also contend that the case on hand cannot be classified as an extraordinary case, which is required to be handled or investigated by the CBI. Nevertheless, the CBI would contend that they would take up the investigation, if directed by the Court.
14. Respondents 13 and 17 have filed their Statement of Objections inter alia contending that they have reported in the print media the factual scenario that has happened on that day. They would also contend that the reporting is truthful. They would contend that Article 19 of the Constitution of India gives Freedom of Speech and Expression, which includes freedom of press. Hence, in the circumstances, unless there is a legislation, which curtails their freedom, the reporting per se cannot be monitored.
15. Insofar as the other respondents i.e., the Print and the Electronic Media are concerned, the Electronic Media have filed the compact footage by way of compact disc but however, they have not filed Statement of Objections countering the allegations or the averments made in the writ petitions. This is how we are seized of the subject now.
16. We have heard Mr. Ravi Varma Kumar, Mr. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel, so also Mr. Shashikiran Shetty as well as Mr. Shyam Prasad and Mr. G.R. Mohan for the petitioners and Mr. R. Vijaya Shankar, learned Advocate General and Mr. Jadhav, for CBI, Ms. Suman Naganand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 13 and 17.
17. The petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel in tandem would contend that the incident, which had taken place on 2nd of March 2012 was serious in nature, which would warrant investigation by an independent body in the nature of CBI. In support of their contention they would press into service, various decisions of the Apex Court, wherein an identical direction was issued by the Supreme Court entrusting the investigation to the CBI. The main thrust of the argument of petitioners is that this petition is in Public Interest. Both the learned Senior Counsel would contend that initially, several writ petitions were filed. This Court was of the view that the averments made in all the writ petitions are required to be consolidated and amalgamated in one writ petition so as to factually deal with the subject matter and without diverting the attention of the Court to various averments made in other writ petitions. Thus, having regard to the directions issued by this Court, an amended writ petition is filed incorporating all the averments and the relief sought for in various other writ petitions. Hence, according to them, the association albeit is a body espousing a particular cause, but having regard to the directions issued by this Court, the petition can be treated as a PIL. In support of their contention that it would amount to a PIL, the petitioners have relied on various decisions of the Apex Court.
18. Insofar as entrusting the matter to the CBI is concerned, elaborating their contentions, both the learned Senior Counsel would contend that having regard to the incident, which had taken place on 2nd of March, 2012 and the brutalities, which occurred on that day, are attributable to the police, who were present at the scene of occurrence and they also being the investigative agency to investigate into the said incident, it is all the more desirable that an outside agency should investigate into the said incident and also the allegations made by both the petitioners as well as the respondents. They would also contend that the investigating agency itself cannot be a Judge of its own cause moreso having regard to the fact that the allegations made by the petitioners are as against the brethren of Police Officials, who are likely to investigate into the complaint lodged by the Advocates. It is also their contention that the Panchanama was conducted on 2nd March, 2012, which commenced at 8.00 p.m. had concluded at 2.00 a.m. According to the petitioners a perusal of the said panchanama would disclose that it is more opinionated than reflecting the actual scenario and it has obliterate the evidence. Even though a complaint was lodged by the Advocates for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the complaint has been registered for a lesser offence, whereas the complaints, which are lodged by the police, even though are of a lesser offence, are registered for a higher offence like offences punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code as against the advocates.
19. The learned Advocate General in the first instance would contend that the petition cannot be classified or termed as a Public Interest Petition inasmuch as no public interest is involved. He would also further contend that the petitioner-Association is represented by the President. The incident, which has occurred on 2nd of March 2012, is relatable to the Advocates or the Members of the Association. Hence, the association is espousing the cause of a particular section of the society i.e., moreso, the members of the association. Hence, it cannot be termed as Public Interest Litigation. He also further submits that this is not a case, which requires intervention of the Court and a direction be issued to the CBI to investigate into the complaint lodged by the petitioners as well as by the Police. He further submits that as an alternate, the State would form a Special Investigating Team headed by an Officer of impeachable record who would choose his team to investigate into the incident and also the complaints and the counter complaints lodged by the petitioners as well as by the police. In support of his contention, he would also rely on various decisions.
20. The learned counsel appearing for the CBI would contend and reiterate what has been stated in the Statement of Objections indicating that the CBI is over burdened and may not be in a position to bestow its attention on the incident and file a report. But nevertheless would submit that if, a direction is issued, they will take up the investigation.
21. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 13 and 17 would support the Statement of Objections and contends that what was reflected in the Print Media was the actual occurrence and neither they have diminished nor enlarged the actual occurrence.
22. Having regard to the contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents the following points would arise for consideration:
(a) Whether the present petition could be termed as a Public Interest Litigation having regard to the contentions urged?
(b) Whether there are justifiable grounds for this Court to direct investigation by the CBI?
(c) Whether the directions are to be issued to the media both print as well as electronic with reference to the reporting of news?
Re: Public Interest Litigation
23. As to what is public interest litigation has fallen for consideration before the Apex Court in various decisions and they were cited at the bar before us. We do not want to burden our judgment by referring to all the decisions. We propose to refer to only a few of the judgments. In one of the judgments, the Apex Court in case of Ashok Kumar Pandey V/s. State of West Bengal reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349 has observed thus:
“When there is a material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be “publicity interest litigation” or “private interest litigation” or “politics interest litigation” or the latest trend “paise interest litigation”. If not properly regulated and abuse averted it also becomes a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight errant or poke one’s noise into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Janata Dal case and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation. A writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective.”
24. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Vol.4, 4th Edn., “Public Interest Litigation” is defined as a matter of public or general interest, does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
25. In Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, “public interest” is defined as something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or National Government.
26. The traditional rule in regard to locus standi is that judicial redress is available only to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or legally protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or any other person or who is likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of threatened violation of his legal right or legally protected interest by any such action. The basis of entitlement to judicial redress is personal injury to property, body, mind or reputation arising from violation, actual or threatened, of the legal right or legally protected interest of the person seeking such redress. This is a rule of ancient vintage and it arose during an era when private law dominated the legal scene and public law had not yet been born. Under this rule, the Court was concerned with the question whether the applicant was a “person aggrieved”. According to this rule, it was only a person who suffered a specific legal injury by reason of actual or threatened violation of his legal right or legally protected interest who could bring an action for a regular writ petition to be filed by the public an action for a regular writ petition to be filed by the public spirited individual espousing their cause and seeking relief for them. The individual who moves the Court for judicial redress must be acting bonafide with a view of vindicating the cause of justice personally gain or private profit political motive or consideration, the Court should not allow it to be activated at the instance of such applications. The question of delay and lapse would also come into play when a public interest is sought to be espoused.
27. Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reasons of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the Court deserves rejection at the threshold. Indeed it is to be noticed that provisions in the Constitution in the form of Articles 226 ensures that whenever there is a right, it provides effective and speedy remedies.
28. The same principles are reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Kushum Lata V/s. Union of India and others reported in 2006 (6) SCC 180. Keeping the observations made in the decisions referred to above, we have to examine whether indeed the present petition could be classified, considered and treated as a public interest litigation. In the case on hand, it is to be noticed that in the first instance several writ petitions were filed seeking various reliefs at the hands of this Court. Some of them were in the nature of seeking a direction to the print media to restrain themselves while reporting and further to lay down certain guidelines while reporting. Various directions were also sought seeking compensation for the damage done to the property and also for the injuries suffered by the members of the association; seeking a direction to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry and Press Council of India to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings against Print and Electronic TV Medias who have defamed the Legal Professionals in general and to curtail forthwith on unethical reportings and broadcasting by the Karnataka based Electronic TV and Print Medias on Advocates any further; a direction to the Union of India and the State Government to initiate action against the Media and also to formulate proper/effective guidelines to the broadcasters of Television channels for the benefit of the public at large as stipulated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Indeed the reliefs sought for by the petitioner can be categorized and can be brought under the three points, which arise for determination in the present proceedings.
29. As observed, pursuant to a direction issued by this Court the various other writ petitions were disposed of with an observation that the prayer sought for by the petitioner shall be consolidated and amalgamated in one writ petition, which has accordingly been done. We do not propose to embark upon the contentious issue whether the present proceedings could be termed as a PIL or not. Suffice it to note, we propose to consider it as suo moto proceedings. Even though the first prayer, which is sought for by the petitioner seeking a direction that the CBI should take up the investigation of the complaint on the incident, which occurred on 2nd of March 2012 may not fall within the realm of public interest, but other reliefs, which are sought for by the petitioners can partake the character of being in Public Interest inasmuch as all those reliefs are relatable to the incident, which has taken place on 2nd of March and do not confine themselves to the interest of the petitioner-Association per se. Hence, in the circumstances, we are of the view that even though insofar as the first relief, which is sought for could not be termed as being in public interest and the incident having been brought to our notice by way of writ petition and the grounds urged therein we propose to take note of the said proceedings suo moto having regard to the public interest involved, more so, having regard to the directions issued by this Court directing hearing of one writ petition after consolidating all reliefs. Hence, we are of the view that the averments made in the writ petition could be classified as being in the nature of public interest litigation.
30. A similar, if not identical question fell for consideration before the Apex Court in case of Sachidanand Pandey and another V/s. State of West Bengal and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1109 wherein the Apex Court consolidated all the writ petitions and treated them as public interest litigation. The situation in the case on hand is not different. Hence, we are of the considered view that this writ petition can be treated as a Public Interest Litigation. Even if it is not considered to be a petition in public interest there can be no cap to the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having regard to the nature of reliefs sought for in this petition. It was also submitted at the bar that the writ petition was not filed as a PIL but the registry has treated it as a PIL.
Point No.2
31. The law was set in motion on a complaint lodged by one Mr. Gachinakatti, who was incharge of the bandobast for certain offence, which was registered as Crime No.86/2012. First Information Report is registered on 02.03.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) of PDEP Act and Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 435, 437, 307, 332, 333, 353, 506-B IPC. Incidentally it is to be noticed that innumerable complaints were filed by the members of the petitioner-Association as against the police and as many as five cases are filed by the police against the Advocates and three cases are filed by the Media as against the Advocates. All the complaints are lodged with the jurisdictional police at Halasurgate Police Station for various offences.
32. The first of the complaint which was lodged by Mr. Gachinkatti would indicate that on 02.03.2012, the CBI was to produce Mr. Janardhana Reddy before the Court. Anticipating and to avoid any untoward incident, the police personnel consisting of 7 Assistant Commissioners of Police, 18 Police Inspectors and 33 Police Sub-Inspectors, 32 Assistant Sub-Inspectors, 72 Head Constables, 155 Police Constables and 6 Lady Head Constables, 13 Lady Police Constables and 25 in plain clothes were deputed. At the relevant point of time, Mr. Gachinakatti was working as ACP in Devanahalli and he was deputed for the bandubast work as per the direction of the DCP North-East. He along with others was stationed at City Civil Court. At about 9.00 a.m. on the said day various electronic and print media personnel numbering up to 100, entered the Court Compound and around about the same time, a few Advocates in their black robes started coming to the Court compound. About 50 to 60 Advocates rushed towards the Print and Electronic Media and pointed fingers to them and attributed that they were responsible for letting them down in the eyes of the public and threw the camera stand and the camera was damaged. The police tried to pacify the media men as well as the Advocate, but were not successful. In the mean time, one Mr. K.N. Kiran of Udaya TV was assaulted and he suffered injuries on his head. At about 10.45 a.m., the Officers of CBI brought the former Minister Janardana Reddy and took him to the Court and thereafter left at about 11.45 a.m. But however, immediately thereafter altercation took place between Media, Police as well as the Advocates and few of the Advocates started pelting stones, chairs, Benches and bricks from City Civil Court Complex. At that point of time, large contingent of Advocates numbering 500 to 600 came rushing towards Government Arts College and they were followed by the complainant and other police personnel. After some time, DCP Dr. Ramesh and the ACP Jitendranath of Halasurgate Police Station came down and the complaint would disclose that the DCP Ramesh had suffered injuries and bleeding from nose. The complaint would indicate that, the Advocates torched the vehicles and also assaulted the police. At this point of time, the complaint would disclose that he announced on the megaphone that if the Advocates do not restrain themselves, lathi charge would be resorted. The sum and substance of the complaint is that on that fateful day i.e., 02.03.2012 at about 9.45 am 1000 Advocates came and assaulted the police personnel and he has also given a list of the police personnel, who were injured. The complaint would also disclose that about 10 cars were torched and 20 cars were damaged, so also 50 two-wheelers. In these circumstances, the complaint is lodged.
33. Incidentally, it is to be noticed that the said complaint was lodged at 5.00 pm on 02.03.2012 for various offences including Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Similarly, several other complaints were lodged by the Advocates as well as the Media for offences punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Incidentally, it is also to be noticed that the complaints, which were lodged by the Advocates were on the next day i.e., 3rd of March 2012. It is the case of the petitioners that even though they proceeded to the police station much earlier, the complaint was not acknowledged and cases were not registered, but they were registered only on the next day. It is also to be noticed that the Advocates’ Association lodged a complaint on 07.03.2012. A perusal of the said complaint would disclose that it is referable to and as against the police for brutal and barbarous act committed against the Advocates on the said day. The complaint would reiterate that the former Minister Mr. Janardana Reddy was scheduled to appear before the CBI Court in City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore on 02.03.2012 and a large number of police personnel were deployed as security arrangement and it was headed by DCP Mr. G. Ramesh. The complaint would state that there was huge entourage of media, both local and national, that had gathered with their equipments, several reporters, cameramen and other crew were present at the Court Complex to cover the event. The complaint would state that Mr. Janardhana Reddy was produced before the Court and many of his supporters were there, but however, were seen in Advocate’s robes. There began a tussle between his supporters and the media persons. The Advocates requested the media persons to leave the place instead of resorting to violence. But however, the Media persons were adamant and began hurling stones on Mr. Reddy’s supporters. There was a confrontation between a small group of 20 to 30 Advocates and the media persons. The media persons pelted huge stones at the Advocates and also started to assault them. The Advocates acted in self-defence. But however, the media persons 20 to 30 in number at that stage began pelting stones at the Advocates. They even provoked the police to join them to beat the Advocates by inciting them. At about 11.45 pm there were hordes of instigating captions, references and insulting words and sentences as against the police, in the Electronic media, taunting and provocating them. These provocative statements were with the sole malafide intention to instigate the Police to act against the Advocates. The Advocates could hear the similar provocative statements that were being made at the spot, by the media persons present there. The complaint would further disclose that the police after instigation acted in a manner supporting the media persons and both came inside the civil court compound chasing, pelting stones and assaulting the Advocates. Later, the Police without any provocation by the Advocates, started lathi charge on the Advocates and while doing this, they barged into the Court corridors and did not even spare the Court halls. All though these times, the police and the media persons have joined hands in assaulting the Advocates. The provocating statements and captions by the media continued throughout the day. Indeed according to the complaint, the actual trauma commenced after 3.30 pm when there was a flash news in the media that one of the Police Constable by name Lingappa/Mahadevaiah died due to assault by the Advocates. This was continuously flashed by the media in almost all the channels, which incited the police and thereafter according to the complaint, lathi charge continued unabatedly till 7.00 pm. It is also the complaint of the Association that several police constables behaved in an indecent manner. The complaints lodged by the Advocates independent of the complaint lodged by the Association would also reiterate the substantial part of the complaint lodged by the Association.
34. As the incident took place in the precincts of the City Civil Court Compound as well as the City Civil Court Complex, the Registrar of the City Civil Court lodged a complaint on 10th of March 2012 as against the miscreants for causing damage to the property of the City Civil Court, Bangalore. The Complaint would also disclose that on 02.03.2012 at about 11.15 am the complaint (Registrar) heard a loud noise and immediately came out of his chambers to verify as to what was going on. There was stones pelting by the police on some of the Advocates as well as by some of the Advocates on police. Immediately, he informed the same to the Principal City Civil Judge at Bangalore and also informed the Registrar General of the High Court. On the advice of the Registrar General, he contacted Sri. Sunil Kumar, Additional Commissioner of Police over phone and informed him about the situation in the premises of the City Civil Court Complex and asked him to control the situation. At about 12.00 noon some of the Advocates complained about lathi charge by police and he immediately informed the same to the Principal City Civil Judge. After retiring from the Court hall, the Principal City Civil Judge and also the Registrar came outside and noticed that the police were indulging in lathi charge, by chasing the Advocates in the corridor of the ground floor. Many Advocates came and complained about the lathi charge and stone pelting. During the Lathi charge and stone pelting the glass on the door in front of the Chambers of the Principal City Civil Judge and windowpanes were broken. The complainant went outside to pacify the Advocates and also to advise the police to stop lathi charge. The stone, which was pelted, hit one Sri. Shashidhar, an Advocate and he sustained injury on his forehead. In the indiscriminate lathi charge by the police, the little finger of Principal City Civil Judge was hurt. On coming to know about the incident three of the Judges of this Court viz., Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sreenivasa Gowda and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Govindarajulu arrived and after some time Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nagamohan Das also arrived. The Hon’ble Judges tried to pacify the Advocates and also tried to advise the police to defuse the situation, but the efforts were in vain. The Advocates started complaining about the lathi charge in the parking slot of the City Civil Court and also in their Association. The Hon’ble Judges went out to see the situation but however, again stone pelting commenced outside and the police were indulged in lathi charge. At about 3.30 pm Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Sreedhar Rao, Administrative Judge of the City Civil Court arrived at the premises, addressed the advocates and conveyed the message of the Hon’ble Chief Justice that necessary action will be taken against the culprits and also compensate the damage. Once again, the Advocates complained of the lathi charge by the police and the Police Commissioner was advised to stop lathi charge and move away the police force. As per the advice of the Administrative Judge, the police force were moved towards the entry gate of the City Civil Court situated by the side of Cauvery Bhavan. The Administrative Judge went around the premises observing the damage caused to the vehicles in the premises of the City Civil Court. The complaint would further disclose that as per the telephonic instructions of the Administrative Judge, the complainant was to take photographs and videographs of scene of occurrence in the City Civil Court premises in the morning hours of 03.03.2012 before any changes like cleaning of the premises etc., is made and necessary arrangements were made to secure the photographer and take photographs and videographs of the scene of occurrence. Hence, on this basis, a complaint is lodged. It would also disclose that a report was submitted to the High Court on 08.03.2012. Further, case is registered for various offences.
35. This is a broad spectrum of the incident, which occurred on 02.03.2012 and the complaints lodged and the summary of the complaints.
36. Having regard to the situation in which the respondents were placed, an In-house Committee enquired into the allegations regarding the excess use of force, use of obscene language, alleged setting of fire to the vehicles parked in the Court Complex and excess against the members of the legal profession by the police force, was conducted and a report is filed. The said enquiry was conducted by Mr. R.K. Datta, Director General of Police, CBI, Special Units and Economic Offences, Bangalore. The said report was filed on 19.03.2012, which is a part of the record. During this interregnum, the Court directed the respondents to file the status report of the Investigation taken up by the Investigating Agency. Incidentally, it is also to be noticed that having regard to the report filed by Mr. R.K. Dutta, a new team of Officers, i.e., a dedicated Special team of Senior Officers comprising of Mr. Pronab Mohanty, IGP and Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime (West); Mr. V.S. D’Souza, DCP, Intelligence; Mr. A.N. Swamy, DCP, VVIP Security together with Mr. Anand Kumar, ACP City Crime Record Bureau (CCRB) is supervising the team of Investigating Officers on day to day basis. The first of the affidavit is filed by Mr. K.A. Jitendranath, who was working as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Halasurgate Sub-Division, Bangalore City. The affidavit would disclose that s on 14th of March, 2012, 154 cases were registered pertaining to the incident, which occurred on 02.03.2012 in and around City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore City. The details of Head wise break-up of cases are produced at Annexure ‘R1’ to the said affidavit. The Crime numbers and the provisions of law under which the cases are registered are also detailed in Annexure ‘A2’ of the affidavit. The affidavit would further disclose that on 07.03.2012 around 6.30 am one Mr. Gopal Balalmane, an Advocate along with few other Advocates appeared before the Halasurgate Police Station and handed over to the Station House officer, a bundle containing 110 petitions with covering letters. Since the 110 petitioners did not appear personally, the petitions pertaining to the incident which occurred on 02.03.2012 at City Civil Court Complex and surrounded area, the petitions required to be verified and several cases were already registered relating to the same incident. The affidavit would further disclose that on 02.03.2012 Police were on bandobasth duty in and around City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore City for security. In view of the anticipated production of Sri. Gali Janardhan Reddy, by C.B.I. under Police Escort, both electronic and print media personnel were present in large numbers on that day to cover that event. The affidavit would further disclose that the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City is verifying into the serous allegations made in the complaint lodged by the Advocate and also looking into the matter and analyzing the evidence by way of Compact Disks provided by the Advocates and has assured the Advocates that if any Police personnel is found to have committed excesses over Advocates community, proper action would be taken. Indeed Annexure ‘R2’ produced along with this affidavit would disclose that as many as 120 complaints were lodged at various Police Stations.
37. At this stage, it is submitted by Mr. S. Vijay Shankar, learned Advocate General that since the cases were lodged with reference to the jurisdiction, all the complaints are consolidated and are being investigated by a team of dedicated officers and the statements of the complainants and the witnesses are being recorded. This Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City to file a compliance report and a compliance report is filed to the following effect:
“It is respectfully submitted that as per the orders dated 07.03.2012 the Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to ensure the preservation and protection of evidence in their possession. Accordingly, the video footage of traffic surveillance camera of Mysore Bank Circle from 6.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. of 2.3.2012 has been preserved in the server as well as in D.V.D. It will be made available to the Hon’ble Court whenever called for.
It is respectfully submitted that, the traffic surveillance camera at K.R. Circle was not functioning on 2.3.2012 between 6.45 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. due to faulty UPS system. The detailed technical report submitted by M/s. CMS Info System, the Faculty Manager of Traffic Management Centre and BSNL the service provident is submitted herewith for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.”
38. As directed by this Court another status report is filed on 9th April 2012. The affidavit is sworn to by one Mr. H.D. Anand Kumar who is working as Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Crime Record Bureau, Bangalore City. The said affidavit is filed in response to the observations made by this Court. The affidavit would disclose that the State Government has accepted the report submitted by Mr. R.K. Datta, DGP (CID) on 19.03.2012 subject to the condition that he has to further conduct additional enquiry on the incomplete portion pointed out in the concluding paragraph of his report. He has been directed to conduct enquiry on specific points relating to (a) identification of the persons involved; (b) the time; (c) the place; and (d) the context in each of the three points of his findings. Mr. R.K. Datta would continue to do the remaining portion of the enquiry and the State Government would implement the findings of his enquiry already recommended by him and also the subsequent factual report on the points mentioned above. The status report further discloses that 173 cases have been registered under different categories relating to the incidents of violence in the City Civil Court Complex on 2nd of March 2012. These categories include such cases as those booked against media persons, cases booked against members of the public, cases filed against Advocates etc. The exact details of the number of cases booked under the aforesaid categories are reflected in the said affidavit. The affidavit would reiterate that the cases will be investigated by the police without fear or favour. The best and the most efficient Officers have been entrusted with the Investigation of these cases. Investigation has progressed speedily and details furnished by the complainants such as photographs, video clippings are being thoroughly analyzed by the Investigating Officers as well as by the experts.
39. The affidavit discloses that the statements of complainants have been recovered and witnesses have been examined and several arrests have been made and several Mahazars have been drawn with reference to the damage caused. The affidavit further discloses as to the several wrong doings, which has been stated in the complaint lodged by the petitioner as well as by the Advocates.
40. Another counter affidavit by way of a status report is filed on 2.4.2012. The counter affidavit would read as under:
“It is respectfully submitted that a mahazar (Panchanama) is drawn after the registration of the cognizable offences to secure the incriminating facts and material found at the scene of offence. A panchanama is a memorandum of what has been observed by the witnesses and the investigation officers at the scene of the crime. In the normal course it is the practice that a investigating officer resorts to as a mode of procuring independent evidence to corroborate the results of his own inquiry and observation of the scene of crime. The panchanama should be drawn immediately at the place where the proceeding is held. The proximate principal for drawing up a mahazar is that it should be done immediately after the offence, circumstances permitting. This is necessary since waiting for any length of time in seizing incriminating material after the offence will risk the evidence being damaged or destroyed.”
41. The status report by way of a counter affidavit further discloses that the process of drawing up of the mahazar began at 8.00 p.m. on 2.3.2012 and concluded at 2.00 a.m. on 3.3.2012. The translated copy of the mahazar drawn up on the same day is enclosed as Annexure-R1 along with the status report. The affidavit further discloses that a detailed videography of the entire process of mahazar is recorded and a copy of which is separately filed along with the memo before this Court. Insofar as the allegation regarding the mahazar in question was drawn up in undue haste and during the late evening hours without seeking permission of the Registrar City Civil Court, it is submitted that it was no legal requirement to seek permission of the Registrar for conducting the mahazar proceedings.
42. Insofar as the enquiry conducted by Mr. R.K. Datta and also the recent judicial enquiry set up by the Government of Karnataka, that part of the complaint with reference to the lathi charge ordered by the senior officers is not being looked into by the investigating officer at the present stage. The affidavit further discloses that a dedicated special team of senior officers comprising of the IGP, Additional Commissioner of Police, Crime West and other three is formed so as to investigate into the offence and the incident, which occurred on 2.3.2012. The affidavit would further disclose that to ensure that the investigation proceeds in a fair objective and impartial manner investigation of all cases have been transferred to the officers of the Traffic Police of Bangalore City and few Law and Order Officers were not present at the Bandobust on 2.3.2012. The status report further discloses that Mr. R.K. Dutta is requested to complete the process of identification of the police officials who had allegedly indulged in illegal activities on 2.3.2002. This is the status report, which is filed on 2.4.2012. The status report by way of counter affidavit is sworn to by Mr. H.D. Anand Kumar, the Assistant Commissioner of Police City Crime Record Bureau. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that to some extent the police are mainly responsible for the atrocities, which occurred on 2.3.2012 and so also the media.
43. It is their case that since some of the senior top police officials have been involved in the incident that occurred on that day, for a fair, just and independent investigation an outside body is required to be formed so as to go into the complaints of the Advocates, the print and the electronic media as well as the police.
44. The panchanama of the scene of occurrence was conducted and it commenced at 8.00 p.m. and was concluded at 2.00 a.m. on 3.3.201. Indeed, the petitioners have taken a strong exception as to the presence of P.S. Gachinakatti ACO when the panchanama was conducted. Indeed, a perusal of the panchanama would clearly indicate that an opiniated panchanama is conducted and drawn inasmuch as it is not within the domain of the persons who conduct panchanama as to summarize and make a conclusion as to the presence and possible use of a particular article or object at the scene of occurrence. What is required of the panchanama is to report truthfully, faithfully the existing scenario at the time when they conduct the panchanama. Indeed, there is considerable difference between seizure, panchanama and mahazar. Seizure would relate to seizing of an article. But that is not the case while conducting a panchanama of the scene of crime. It is as observed required to faithfully record the scene of crime as depicted when they (officials) conduct the panchanama. Indeed, the panchanama would commence with reference to the complaint of P.S. Gachinakatti, ACP, which would read as under:
“The complainant Sri. P.S. Gachinakatti, ACP is present in the scene of crime and informs us that at 8.00 a.m. today he came for bandobust duty in connection with the production of accused Janardan Reddy before CBI Special Court situated at the City Civil Court complex. During the production the scuffle between the Advocates and media persons took place, in pursuant of that Advocates attacked the media persons. Later, around 500-1000 Advocates, using filthy language assaulted the media and police personnel, pelted stones, hollow bricks, glass piece and pieces of wooden bench and chairs, and attacked with an intent to kill. As a result of this, media and police personnel sustained serious injuries. Advocates also damaged public property like wooden chairs and window panes and also set ablaze vehicles that belonged to the Police and the Public.”
45. We are of the view that the mahazar per se does not reflect the true state of affairs. There are various references in the said panchanama where the panchas have already drawn a conclusion as to the presence of a particular article and have also made imputations against the advocates as is clear from the above extract. For example we note the panchanama discloses as follows;
“Around 50ft away from this place, at the entrance road of the City Civil Court, we notice bricks are kept and scattered on the road. Around 10 feet away from the main door, we notice one ash coloured Honda Activa Scooter, registration No.KA 04 EW641, lying without any damage. Beside this scooter, we notice one cricket bat handle. It looks like Advocates have used this cricket bat for assaulting police personnel.
The panchanama would further read as under:
“When we proceed to 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th floor we do not find any clues left of the crime. When we returned to the basement, we find one iron treasure where cement tiles are kept. We deduce that the Advocates who were inside the Court complex have hurled property belonging to the government, with the intention of causing severe injury to police and media personnel.
“During this mahazar of the scene of crime, the following burnt, damaged vehicles, furniture, stones, brick pieces, hollow brick pieces, broken cricket bat and broken glass pieces, which were said to have been used for commission of crime have been seized.”
(Underlining by me)
46. We are of the view that the complaints lodged by the Advocates and the complaints lodged by the police would clearly disclose that there are several blood stained articles, which were found in the Court halls and in the corridors of the Court. But surprisingly enough the panchanama does not disclose the presence of any of this. Indeed, the un-edited footage of the occurrence, which is made available to us by the media and also by the police as well as the Association with reference to the CD, which was made available to Mr. R.K. Datta during the course of enquiry would conclusively go to show that there is something more than meets the eye with reference to the scene of occurrence and panchanama. It is trite that the panchanama does not disclose as to the presence of the articles or the scene as it is depicted in the association in the canteen and elsewhere in the court campus. On the other hand the Enquiry Report, which is filed, clearly discloses with reference to the incident, which occurred on 2.3.2012. This Report has been accepted by the respondent No.2-State Government in its entirety without any reservations. Hence, for the limited purpose as to ascertain whether the investigation is required to be conducted by the CBI, this report certainly could be looked into.
47. The genesis of the conflict according to the Datta Report is the CBI case registered as against Mr. Janardhan Reddy who was to be produced in Court of 46th Additional City Civil and Special Court CBI in the City Civil Court Complex on 2.3.2012 at 10.30 a.m. The Report further discloses the presence of both the print and electronic media in large numbers. A few of the persons of the print media entered the Court hall of the 46th Additional City Civil Judge, CBI. However, they were asked by the attender of the Court to leave the Court hall. While they left some of the Advocates followed them and they were shouting at the media persons present outside in the premises of the City Civil Court Complex asking them to leave the Court complex. The electronic media persons had gathered in the front side as well as in the north side of the Court complex. The police present on bandobust duty in the Court complex were pursuing the media persons at the north side to go to the front side of the building which the police said was the place ear marked for the media. Since, the media persons continued to say on, some of the advocates started abusing the media persons. It appears there was considerable jostling between the media persons and the Advocates and some of the camera tripods fell down. Two plastic chairs were also thrown on the media persons. This is with reference to the action of the Advocates. The enquiry report further refers to the statement made by Mr. Ravikumar, Crime Reporter of Suvarna news indicating that about 30-40 Advocates wearing black coats started using obscene language against the camera man while they were about to take video shot of Mr. Janardan Reddy. Several other media persons also corroborated that the Advocates were using vulgar language, beating them and damaging their equipment. In this regard, the statements of some media persons have been recorded. The incident that followed is the one, which we are really concerned and seized. After Mr. Janardan Reddy was produced in the Court he was taken away to the hospital and the DCP Central Mr. G. Ramesh came back to the City Civil Court complex. In the meanwhile, Mr. Ravikante Gowda, DCP North East also came. The Commissioner of Police and Additional Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) also came to the Court complex and continued to be there. The Report states that Mr. Ramesh received a stone hit on his head near the left eye and he had to be carried away from the spot. Keeping the worsening situation in view, lathi charge was ordered by commissioner of Police, Bangalore on the advocates. DCP Mr. Ravikanthe Gowda in a statement said that the police opened lathi charge as Advocates continued throwing chairs, stones and other objects from various floors of the Court building at the police. Mr. Ravikanthe Gowda, DCP North East Division deputed for the bandobust in a statement has stated that while he was outside the Court complex premises near Mysore Bank Circle at about 3.30 p.m. he heard some people from Cauvery Bhavan complex shouting that the policemen are being killed at the vehicle parking in the Court complex by the side of the Cauvery Bhavan. He along with his men rushed there. He saw two constables being beaten up by 60-70 Advocates. One of the constables was already lying down, he was identified as Narayana Swamy, PC 4201 Kodigehalli Police Station. The statement of the Advocates also is with reference to their presence also indicates that one of the Advocates by name Mr. Mohan received bleeding injuries and he was rushed towards the Gandhinagar side and he called his friend and he was shifted to the hospital with the assistance of a woman police official. Another Advocate one Mr. Prashant also has made a statement that when he was returning from Anekal Court to Bangalore at Mysore Bank Circle at around 4.00 p.m. he received severe beating from the police. He came to the Court Complex Hospital and took first aid. In this regard he has given a complaint to the President of the Bar Association. The report also refers to the presence of the Hon’ble Judges of this Court during this period. The concluding part of the enquiry findings would read as under:
“The enquiry reveals that it was well known to the Bangalore City Police that there is a deep animosity between the media and advocates, which got further escalated after the incident of 17.1.2012 when the media against the Advocates for blocking the road at Mysore Bank Circle. The fact that the Bangalore City Police was aware of the animosity between the media and the Advocates can be seen in the number of memos that have been issued from the office of Commissioner of Police by DCP, Intelligence. It was also mentioned in the Daily Situation Reports almost on daily basis from 7.2.2012.
In the DSR of 1.3.2012, it is mentioned (KANNADAM). The memos and DSRs are at Annexures-“E” to “K”.
48. The findings further disclose that although adequate man power was drawn for the bandobust, it is found that the information of the Intelligence regarding likely attack on media by the Advocates on 2.3.2012 was not realized by DCP Central, Mr. G. Ramesh, ACP Mr. Jithendranath and other jurisdictional police officers. The DCP Central Mr. G. Ramesh who was overall incharge of bandobust instead of being present in the City Civil Court complex to supervise the bandobust kept himself engaged in escorting Mr. Janardhana Reddy from Halsurgate Police Station to the Court premises on 2.3.2012 and thereafter, he left along with him when he was taken away from the Court at 11.45 a.m. The findings are a little startling inasmuch as both the jurisdictional DCP and ACP were not present after Mr. Janardhan Reddy left the Court. The bandobust arrangement at the City Civil Court Complex was in the hands of ACPs, viz., ACP Devanahalli Sri. Gachinakatti, ACP Vijayanagar Sri Shekhar and ACP Banashankari Sri. Veeabhadre Gowda. The Report further discloses that there was some jostling of the media persons by the advocates. In the process, a tripod fell. The conclusive findings are as follows:
“There was thus a lack of proper bandobust arrangement to ensure that the Advocates are not able to attack the media. Since there was no prompt and effective action in handling the situation in the beginning of the conflict and the situation was allowed to drift from the beginning, the situation kept deteriorating further. Rest of the report certainly would attribute some unruly behaviour to the Advocates regarding throwing chairs and other objects from various floors of the court building on the police. Nevertheless the report would disclose that the lathi charge was opened and the Advocates were chased. But however, according to the report, it was necessary to bring the situation under control.
49. The findings as to the behaviourial aspect of the police is reflected in the Report as follows:
“The advocates when they were chased many of them ran into the Advocates Association Building. From the Advocates Association Building some of the Advocates have seen throwing flowerpots and making provocative gestures. They were also seen in the visuals of the CD given to the police coming out of the Advocates Association and some of them throwing stones. The police had to chase the advocates. The policemen have been seen in the above said visuals going inside the building. The Advocates have complained that the police have damaged the TV sets, window glasses, chairs etc., while hitting the Advocates. The police have denied it. The important point here is that although the policemen had entered the Association Building DCP, North East Mr. Ravikantegowda in consultation with Additional Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) ordered the lathi charge is unaware of the policemen entering the Association building. The necessity of entering the Association Building is debatable. However, it is evident that the policemen caused damage to the property and assaulted the Advocates after entering the Association Building. The DCP, North East says that the Police Inspector Byatrayanapura Sri Kodandaram and Police Inspector, Yelahanka Sri Kenchegowda were also with him during the lathi charge. These officers were also examined. However, it could not be ascertained as to who ordered the entry by the policemen into the Association Building. But however, it is clear that some of the policemen were seen using indiscriminate force as per evidence as video recorded by the Police and statements of advocates collected during enquiry.”
(Underlining by me)
The further finding is in the following words:
“The act of policemen in damaging property is unpardonable. It indicates that the policemen were not under the control of the officers who led the lathi charge. The enhanced enquiry concluded that the conclusion is by the enhanced enquiry are that there is excess use of force by policemen. The conclusion is as follows:
The in-house enquiry had been asked to report on:
(i) Whether there is excess use of force by the policemen during lathi charge and beating of advocates in the Bangalore City Civil Court Complex, Mysore Bank Circle and K.R. Circle?
(ii) Whether the vehicles parked in the City Civil Court complex were damaged and set fire by the police?
(iii) Whether the filthy language was used by police manning wireless sets against Senior Police Officers openly on 2nd March, 2012 during the bandobust in Bangalore City Civil Court Complex?
“To the first question my finding is that the police resorted to lathi charge when it was necessary. The police resorted to lathi charge could be justified in the prevailing Law and Order situation at that time. However, it may also be pointed out that the force used by some policemen was unrestrained, indiscriminate and excessive.
The incidents of stone pelting damaging vehicles and beating up the advocates inside the Association Building and D.C. Canteen”.
50. The further statement and observation is the police officers on bandobust duty state that the media telecast of two police constables having died could have sparked this kind of reaction by police persons. However, this behaviour is unpardonable. The finding further discloses that there are lapses on the part of the jurisdictional DCP and other supervisory officers in not properly assessing the situation and making a full proof bandobust in the light of Intelligence input that the media persons are likely to be attacked by the advocates when Mr. Janardhan Reddy was produced before the Court on 2.3.2012. The lapses are made attributable to the DCP Mr. G. Ramesh who was the overall incharge of the bandobust. It was his duty to assess the check the situation and if the situation was tense and turning violent he should have made himself available on the spot and leg the bandobust from the front. The last but not the least is that the police persons who were responsible for the excess during the lathi charge, damage of the vehicles and use of filthy language over wireless could not be easily identified. It would be necessary that such policemen are identified and action taken against them. This is the sum and substance of the report of the in house enquiry conducted by Mr. R.K. Datta.
51. On a cumulative reading of the pleadings, the counter affidavits, the complaints, it is required to be ascertained as to who was at fault and who triggered the incident, whether it is the Advocate or whether it is the media or the police. Indeed, the complaints lodged by the police, the media as well as the Advocates require a fair investigation.
52. Mr. Vijay Shankar, learned Advocate General submitted that a special team is formed so as to investigate into the said incident. The officers who have impeccable credentials would certainly rise to the occasion. In the circumstances, it is not necessary that an outside agency like CBI is to be called in.
53. Indeed, the law was fluid at some point as to whether the State’s concurrence was required to initiate CBI enquiry. But however, the Apex Court has ruled that the concurrence of the State is not essential to hand over the investigation to the CBI in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But nevertheless, investigation by CBI can be directed only in certain exceptional circumstances.
54. It is to be noticed that when the investigation would commence and the investigating officer has to go step by step. The following steps are to be carried out during such investigation.
(i) Proceeding to the spot.
(ii) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender.
(iv) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of offence, which may consist of-
(a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit.
(b) The search of places of seizure of things considering necessary for the investigation and be produced at the Trial and
(v) Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and, if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of charge-sheet under Section 173.
55. All the above duties are conferred by the statue on the police and they shall be carried out as straight as statutory duties. The implying idea behind formulating such steps for conducting investigation is to enable the statutory authority to independently carry out the investigation without being influenced by any of the interested parties. Investigation must not only be fair but impartial and the conclusion reached by them should be unbiased.
56. Indeed, the investigating police are primarily the guardians of the liberty of innocent persons. Heavy responsibility devolves on them by saving innocent persons are not charged on irresponsible and false implications. There is a duty cast on the investigating police to scrutinize the first complaint in which a number of persons are implicated with rigorous care and to refrain from building up a case on the basis of assumptions and presumptions by disregarding the truth.
57. Indeed, a vitiated investigation is precursor for miscarriage of justice. The circumstances of directing an investigation by the CBI fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narmada Bai vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 79. The Apex Court was dealing with the case of a fake encounter and killing of Tulsiram Prajapati, the directions of the Apex Court were sought. She approached the Apex Court for a direction to register an First Information Report into the fake encounter killing of her son Tulsiram Prajapati and investigation by independent agency, like CBI and for submission of its report to the Court for further action. Hence, in these circumstances, the Apex Court was seized of the matter with reference to whether the investigation is required to be handed over to the CBI. Indeed, the Apex Court has observed thus:
“It is clear that in an appropriate case, particularly, when the Court feels that the investigation by the State police authorities is not in the proper direction as the high police officials are involved, in order to do complete justice, it is always open to the Court to hand over the investigation to an independent and specialized agency like CBI.”
58. In the case on hand, undoubtedly the incident is of extraordinary nature but the question would be whether it calls for extraordinary remedial measure so as to direct the CBI to investigate into the said incident.
59. Indeed, the common ground urged by the petitioners in the petitions is that they would require a fair, just and impartial investigation into the incident, which has taken place and the complaints, which have been lodged by the parties concerned.
60. Indeed, a statement was made at the bar that if the findings and ultimate final report disclose that if the Advocates or the members of Association are at fault they are required to be in the dock. On the contrary, if it is found that the police are instrumental in causing excess in the unsavory incident, which occurred on 2.3.2012, they are required to be into the dock. So also if the media was responsible for the incident that has taken place when they circulated an inaccurate information about the death of one of the policemen. Undoubtedly, the power of the Court to entrust the investigation to a specialized agency like CBI cannot be questioned. But nevertheless the moot question would be whether the circumstances would warrant such entrustment of investigation to an outside agency.
61. Indeed, the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Sodhi, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143 has observed thus:
“We have perused the events that have taken place since the incidents but we are refraining from entering upon the details thereof lest it may prejudice any party but we think that since the accusations are directed against the local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the investigation to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an independent agency is looking into the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility.”
62. Indeed, the Apex Court while considering the scope of natural justice with reference to the rule of bias in the case of P.D. Dinakaran vs. Judges Inquiry Committee and others reported in (2011) 8 SCC 380 has observed thus:
“Natural justice is a branch of public law. it is a formidable weapon, which can be wielded to secure justice to citizens. Rules of natural justice are “basic values” which a man has cherished throughout the ages. Principles of natural justice control all actions of public authorities by applying rules relating to reasonableness, good faith and justice, equity and good conscience. Natural justice is a pat of law, which relates to administration of justice. Rules of natural justice are indeed great assurances of justice and fairness. The underlying object of the rules of natural justice is to ensure fundamental liberties and rights of subjects. They thus serve public interest. The golden rule, which stands firmly, established, is that the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice.
The traditional English Law recognized the following two principles of natural justice
(a) Nemo debt esse judix in propria cause: No man shall be a judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time-a party or a suitor and also as a Judge, or the deciding authority must be impartial and without bias; and
(b) Audi alteram partem: Hear the other side, or both the sides must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of the deciding authority.
The Apex Court has further observed thus:
“The principles which emerge from the aforesaid decisions are that no man can be a judge in his own cause and justice should not only be done but manifestly be seen to be done. Scales should not only be held even but they must not be seem to be inclined. A person having interest in the subject-matter of cause is precluded from acting as a Judge. To disqualify a person from adjudicating on the ground of interest in the subject-matter of his, the test of real likelihood of the bias is to be applied. In other words, one has to inquire as to whether there is real danger of bias on the part of the person against whom such apprehension is expressed in the sense that he might favour of disfavour a party. In each case, the Court has to consider whether a fair-minded and informed person, having considered all the facts would reasonably apprehend that the Judge would not act impartially.”
(Underlying by me)
63. In the case on hand as observed, undoubtedly the investigation is presently in the hands of the police of the State. We are of the view that in the given set of circumstances, we do not propose to entrust the investigation to the CBI. But nevertheless, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that it is the State police itself, which once again will be investigating into the complaints of the petitioners, the members of the Association as well as the police and the media. In these circumstances, we are of the view that an outside agency is required to investigate into the matter. But however, the investigation cannot be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Indeed, the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 while dealing with the entrustment of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation or an outside agency has observed thus:
“However, despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing an order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to VBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications of where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose it credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.
An order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency.”
(Underlining be me)
64. As observed, we are of the view that the situation is not an exceptional one having either national or international ramification, which calls for entrustment of the investigation to CBI. But nevertheless, we hasten to add that an independent agency other than CBI is required to investigate into the incident of 2.3.2012 having regard to the complaints lodged by the police, media and the Advocates against one another.
65. Undoubtedly extraordinary situations demand extraordinary remedies. Even though as observed it is an extraordinary situation, in our view, it certainly does not demand an investigation by the CBI. But if an independent agency other than the State police is directed to investigate into the complaint that would suffice.
66. Indeed, we observe that however faithfully the local police may carry out the investigation the same is likely to lack credibility since allegations are against them. It is only hearing that in mind, we have prompted ourselves that it is advisable and desirable and in the interest of the justice to entrust the investigation to an outside agency. The Apex Court in the case of Narmada Bai vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 79 has observed thus:
In Mohd. Anis vs. Union of India it has been observed by this Court that:
“5… Fair and impartial investigation by an independent agency, not involved in the controversy, is the demand of public interest. If the investigation is by an agency which is allegedly privy to the dispute, the credibility of the investigation will be doubted and that will be contrary to the public interest as well as the interest of justice.
“2….. Doubts were expressed regarding the fairness of the investigation as it was feared that as the local police was alleged to be involved in the encounters, the investigation by an officer of the U.P. cadre may not be impartial.”
67. In so ordering we mean no reflection on the credibility of either the local police or the State Government but we have been guided by the larger requirements of justice. We are conscious of the fact that we are not required to look into the material on record so as satisfy ourselves as to the quality of investigation, which is done so far. We are required only to see whether it is desirable to hand over the investigation to an outside agency having regard to the fact that some of the police personnel are involved in the incident, which has taken place on 2.3.2012. Indeed the police personnel are the complainants as well as complained against.
68. It is no doubt true that a communication is made available before us by the State indicating that all the police officers have been directed not to have any contact with the investigating team and are required to be insulted. Nevertheless, the apprehension is that the investigation is done by their own brethren. Having regard to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Sodhi, Advocate vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143 we once again reiterate that it is no reflection on the credibility of either the local police or the State Government.
69. Indeed, similar if not identical question fell for consideration before the Apex Court inasmuch as whether in the given set of circumstances an outside agency other than the State Police and the CBI can be directed to investigate into the complaints. The Apex Court in the case of National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 342 had an occasion to deal with the sensitive nature of the cases, involved and appointed an Special Investigation Team (SIT), which was warranted with reference to the circumstances therein.
70. We are of the view that though this present incident is not of the same magnitude, nevertheless appointment of an outside agency in the circumstances is warranted. In the circumstances, we direct that an appropriate notification shall be issued by the State Government regarding the creation of a SIT, the constitution, of which shall be as follows:
(i) Dr. R.K. Raghavan, Retired Director of CBI.
(ii) Mr. Roopak Kumar Dutta, Director General of Police of CID, Bangalore.
The team of the two officers who are appointed shall pick a team of their own which will consist of additional three more officers. The said officers may be drawn from the branches of the State Police who will operate and conduct investigation under the guidance and leadership of Dr. R.K. Raghavan. The notification by the State will be issued as early as practically within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Mr. R.K. Raghavan shall be the Chairman of the Committee and Mr. R.K. Datta would be the convenor. The committee so formed shall in its first meeting work out the modalities to be adopted for the purpose of enquiry for investigation. If any person wants to make a statement before the SIT by giving his/her version of the alleged incident, the SIT shall record it. Those who want to give a version shall in writing intimate the convenor of the committee so that SIT can call in him/her for the purpose of recording his/her statement. It is needless to say that the SIT shall not confine the investigation by recording statement of those who come forward to give his/her version but shall have power to make such inquiries, investigation as felt by it. The committee shall investigate into the incident, which has taken place on 2.3.2012 and also with reference to the complaints lodged by all concerned, the Advocates, police as well as the media.
71. The State Government shall provide necessary infrastructure and provide resources for the effective working of the SIT constituted by this order. The SIT shall be trapped with all the powers of the investigating agency as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Police Manual and are entitled to file a Final Report before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
72. The incident, which occurred on 2.3.2012 is indeed an unfortunate incident, which certainly should not have occurred and could have been avoided, but for the laxity on the part of all concerned. Before parting, we reflect on the words of Hon’ble Justice M.N. Venkatachalaiah Former Chief Justice of India who has this to say:
“The subject of traditions of the Bar has quite unfortunately came to be associated with certain indelicate assumption that the best traditions of the bar are myth and illusions of by gone times and nostalgia of 19th century prudery. I have ventured more hopefully to think that the great traditions of the bar have sustained the profession of law, which every civilized society cherishes as a part of the valuable inheritance. The high traditions of the bar is to sustain and sustenance in its days trial. The profession of lawyer is perhaps the single most powerful instrument for the protection of the dignity of man, and the decencies of civilized movements.”
73. Indeed, the members of the petitioner’s Association are required to reflect on high traditions of the Bar.
74. Edward Parry has elucidated on the ‘Seven Lamps of Advocacy’, lamp of honesty, of courage, of industry, of wit, of eloquence, of judgment and fellowship.
75. Insofar as the ‘Men in Uniform’ are concerned, undoubtedly Investigation means all the steps, which a police or other authorised officer of the State takes in the unraveling of any particular transgression of law; in the nature of things the investigator has to be and is clothed with many powers by the law for the purpose of conducting an investigation e.g., the powers to summon witnesses, examine them, the power to arrest and detain suspects, the power of search, etc. It is indeed duty of the police to prevent the commission of crimes, to maintain peace and law and order to find out when a report about a crime is made, whether a crime has been committed, if so, who committed it, and to collect such evidence would be sufficient to bring home the guilt. Some of the qualities of an investigator are he must be alert and energetic, he is expected to be alert in body as well as in mind to an extraordinary degree. He must be painstaking. The character of men in uniform is important as to the role of which is on the investigator, important criteria in bringing home justice to the victims of crime. While character is important for any human avocation, for progress of the policeman, it is a basic necessity by which alone he can succeed and without which he will undoubtedly fail. He must ensure to enlist the co-operation of the public, the knowledge of the topography. He shall not draw his own conclusions and presumptions and he is required to have elementary knowledge of law.
Point No.3
76. This takes us to the role of media in a case of this nature. Indeed, some what identical question fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Destruction of Public and Private Properties and In Re vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2009 (5) SCC 212.
77. Insofar as the role of media is concerned Mr. F.S. Nariman Committee has suggested certain modalities, which are essentially as follows:
(i) The trusteeship principle-Professional Journalist operate as trustees of public and their mission should be to seek the truth and to report it with integrity and independence.
(ii) The Self-Regulation principles-A model self-regulation should be based upon the principles of impartiality and objectivity in reporting, ensuring, neutrality, responsible reporting of sensitive issues, especially crime, violence, agitations and protests; sensitivity in reporting women and children and matters relating to national security in respect of privacy.
(iii) Content relations-in principle, content regulation except under very exceptional circumstances, is not to be encouraged beyond vetting of cinema and advertising through the existing statutes. It should be incumbent on the media to classify its work through warning systems as in cinema so that children and those who are challenged adhere to time, place and manner restraints. The media must also evolve codes and complaint systems. But prior content control (while accepting the importance of codes for self-restraint) goes to the root of censorship and is unsuited to the role of media in democracy.
(iv) Complaints Principle-There should be an effective mechanism to address complaints in a fair and just manner.
(v) Balance Principle-A balance has to be maintained which is censorial on the basis of the principles of proportionality and least invasiveness, but which effectively ensures democratic governance and self-restraint from news publications that the other point of view is properly accepted and accommodated.”
78. We sincerely hope that the print and electronic media would adhere to the guidelines as suggested by F.S. Nariman Committee, which refer to the self regulation principles regarding principles of impartiality, objectivity and responsible reporting of sensitive issues. Having said so the following order is passed:
The writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions:
The constitution, of members of SIT shall be as follows:
(i) Dr. R.K. Raghavan, Retired Director of CBI-Chairman
(ii) Mr. Roopak Kumar Dutta, Director General of Police of CID, Bangalore-Convenor.
(iii) The team of the above two officers who are appointed shall pick a team of their own which will consist of additional three more officers. The said officers may be drawn from the branches of the State Police who will operate and conduct investigation under the guidance and leadership of Dr. R.K. Raghavan.
(iv) The notification by the State Government to the aforesaid effect will be issued as early as practically within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(v) The Committee so formed shall in its first meeting work out the modalities to be adopted for the purpose of enquiry for investigation.
(vi) If any person wants to make a statement before the SIT for giving his/her version of the alleged incident, the SIT shall record it. Those who want to give a version shall in writing intimate the convenor of the committee so that SIT can call in him/her for the purpose of recording his/her statement. It is needless to say that the SIT shall not confine the investigation by recording statement for those who come forward to give his/her version shall have power to make such inquiries, investigation as felt by it.
(vii) The Committee shall investigate into the incident, which has taken place on 2.3.2012 and also with reference to the complaints lodged by all concerned, the Advocates, police as well as the media.
(viii) The State Government shall provide necessary infrastructure and provide resources for the effective working of the SIT.
(ix) The SIT for the purpose of the said investigation shall be trapped with all the powers of the investigating agency as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Police Manual and are entitled to file a Final Report before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
The entire exercise shall be concluded in three months from the date of Government Notification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Per Nagarathna J.,
I have read the order proposed by His Lordship, Gunjal J., and respectfully concur with the reasoning expressed and the conclusions arrived at by His Lordship. However, I wish to add a few words of my own, having regard to the prayers made in the writ petition against the Media, particularly, Electronic Media and the anguish expressed at the Bar, with regard to the broadcasting of the unfortunate events that occurred on 02/03/2012 at the City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore and the issue being of far reaching importance.
2. The prayers sought in the writ petition as against the Media are in the nature of a direction to the Television Channels to telecast the clippings and videos showing the assault on the lawyers that occurred on 02/03/2012. A direction is sought to the Union of India, to initiate action against the Media Channels and publishers for telecasting/publishing false information against the advocates; for framing of regulations with regard to the conduct of Media personnel in Court premises and a direction is also sought to the Union of India and the National Broadcasting Authority, to initiate legal action against the broadcast of events of 02/03/2012 and also to formulate guidelines for broadcasters for the benefit of the public at large, having regard to the Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
3. Succinctly stated, According to the petitioner, various channels of the Electronic Media broadcast false information without prior verification to the effect that police personnel were killed by the Advocates and that the broadcasting of the events of 02/03/2012 has been in a partisan manner. The continuous broadcasting of events was totally against the Advocates fraternity and the usage of expressions such as, “Goondas”, “Terrorists”, “Rowdies”, “Anti social elements” etc.; was with an object to humiliate the Advocate community as a whole and to malign their reputation. This has generated ill-will and hatred against the Advocates in the eye of the public. Such telecast was contrary to ethical, social and professional responsibility; that the Media ought to have broadcast the events in a true and fair manner without resorting to innuendoes against the Advocates. That while clippings of the assault by the Advocates were repeatedly portrayed, there was no broadcast of the assault on Advocates within the Court premises by the police. Further, the use of provocative captions and expressions by the Electronic Channels taunted and provoked the police against the Advocates. That while the police were lathi charging the Advocates and barged into the corridors of the Court, the Media did not cover such police excesses. That “Flash News” in some of the Television Channels had telecast that two Police Constables had died due to assault by the Advocates, which was a blatant falsehood which instigated the assault of the Police against the Advocates; that on account of the negative role played by the Media in publishing false news, there is hostility and tension continuing between the Advocates and the Police. That on account of the projection of the Advocates as “Rowdies” repeatedly by the News Channels and also by the print Media, has tarnished the image of the Advocates in society and thereby has conveyed a wrong message to the public at large and the litigants in particular. Therefore, the petitioner has sought the aforementioned directions.
4. In the background of the pleadings and the prayers sought by the petitioner, the issue that would arise for consideration is as to whether any directions are required to be given to the concerned authorities with regard to the Media, more specifically, the Electronic Media.
5. The unfortunate events that occurred on 02/03/2012 involved the legal fraternity and the Police, which are vital segments in the Administration of Justice as also the Media, which is an important pillar of democracy and is more popularly called the ‘Fourth Estate’. While a co-ordination and smooth functioning of the aforesaid three segments is vital not only for the Administration of justice but also for a healthy democracy, I feel pained that on 02/03/2012, the Lawyers, Police and the Media, were in conflict with each other in the premises of the City Civil Court, at Bangalore.
6. There have been accusations and counter accusations between the three fraternities. Indeed, the writ petition inter alia, raises vital issues with regard to the necessity of maintaining and enhancing good relationship between them, not only for the Administration of Justice but in the interest of the society at large. In the background of the complaints and counter complaints filed by the Lawyers, the Police and the Media, against each other, I refrain from making any observation with regard to any of them being at fault or with regard to the veracity of the said complaints. The fact that such an incident happened on 02/03/2012 leading up to the filing of over a hundred complaints, has caused deep pain and anguish to all stake holders involved in the Administration of Justice.
7. While His Lordship Gunjal J., has answered the controversial issues to which I respectfully concur, I with to restrict myself by saying a few words with regard to the role of the Media in a democracy and as to whether there is a need to regulate the broadcasting media, which would also include private broadcasting.
8. The Constitution of India does not use the expression “freedom of press” in Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi [AIR 1950 SC 129] andRomesh Thappar v. State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC 124], has categorically stated that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom of press. It is needless to observe that the freedom of press is not restricted to only the print media but also encompasses the electronic and all other visual media, which can be termed as broadcasting media. Infact, in the case of Romesh Thappar, the Supreme Court firmly expressed that there could not be any kind of restriction on the freedom of speech and expression other than those expressed in Article 19(2) and thereby, made it clear that there could not be any interference with that freedom in the name of public interest. Even when Clause (2) of Article 19 was subsequently substituted under the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 by a new clause, which permitted the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency or morality in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence, Parliament did not choose to include a clause enabling the imposition of reasonable restrictions in public interest.
9. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, as well as Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights declare that every one has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. However, the said Articles also recognize the fact that these freedoms carry with them duties and responsibilities as well as restrictions or penalties as prescribed by Law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interest of National security, territorial integrity, public safety, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
10. A publication of UNESCO entitled, “Many Voices. One World”, which contains the Final Report of the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, has emphasized the importance of freedom of speech and press in the preservation of human rights in the following words:-
“Communication with its immense possibilities for influencing the minds and behaviour of people, can be a powerful means of promoting democratization of society and of widening public participation in the decision-making process. This depends on the structures and practices of the media and their management and to what extent they facilitate broader access and open to communication process to a free interchange of ideas, information and experience among equals, without dominance of discrimination.”
11. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd., and others etc. v. Union of India and others [AIR 1986 SC 515], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed that for today’s free world, freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse. The purpose of the press is to advance public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. Their views and opinions are at times critical of the actions of Government. The natural recourse is to suppress such publication by the powers that be in various ways. It is with a view to checking such malpractices that interfere with free flow of information, democratic Constitutions all over the world have made provisions guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression by laying down the limits of interference with it. Therefore, it is the duty of all Constitutional Courts to always uphold this freedom.
12. During the course of submissions, learned counsel, Sri B.M. Shyamprasad, however, expressed his anguish not only with regard to the over-presence of Media personnel on 02/03/2012 at the City Civil Court Complex, to cover the events relating to the production of a former, Minister Sri G. Janardhana Reddy, before the designated C.B.I. Court but also the subsequent scuffle which ensued having regard to the inadequate space for the movement of the Media personnel, their equipment and their outdoor broadcasting (O.B.) vans as well as the Advocates and litigant public, which may have triggered the unfortunate events as they unfolded during the course of the day. He has also drawn the Court’s attention to Annexures “C, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8”, which relate to the manner in which the print media portrayed the events that occurred on 02/03/2012 and also to Annexures “D, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4”, relating to the Electronic Media, which projected the Advocates in a defamatory manner and also telecast false news by stating that the eyes of two Policemen were gouged and that one of the Constables had died on account of the “violence committed by the Lawyers”, which telecast led the Police to commit excesses against the Lawyers. He therefore, submitted that a time has come for regulation of the Electronic Media having regard to the fact that there is no statutory regulation in India “on the lines of the Press Council of India”, which is meant for the “Print Media” only. He has also drawn attention to two judgments of the Supreme Court in (2005) 6 SCC 109 and (2009) 5 SCC 212.
13. Sri Kalyan Basavaraj, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondents No.1 and 3, brought to our notice the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 under which, according to him, action could be initiated against the erring Electronic Media.
14. Smt. Sumana Naganand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Just law, for respondents No.13 and 17, stated that it is not for the Judiciary to issue guidelines with regard to the regulation of the Media and that it is for the Parliament to regulate the Media. She has asserted that Respondent Nos.13 and 17 have made a fair reporting of the events that occurred on 02/03/2012.
15. We are also informed that News Broadcasting Standards Authority is a non-statutory self-regulatory body, set up to look into the complaints with regard to the contents of the broadcast made by various Television Channels and that National Broadcasting Association is set up by certain News Channels.
16. It is said that matters concerning the intellect and ethics undergo changes from time-to-time. The mind is never static; taste and judgments are not stagnant. They keep changing from time-to-time and from place to place and from community to community. Therefore, the question is whether circumstances have evolved calling for a re-thinking on the need to regulate broadcasting Media particularly, having regard to the unsavory events that occurred on 02/03/2012 at City Civil Court, Bangalore.
17. In Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Association and others [(2005) 6 SCC 109], the Supreme Court at Para.36 has observed as follows:-
“36. The power and reach of the media, both print as well as electronic is tremendous. It has to be exercised in the interest of the public good. A free press is one of very important pillar on which the foundation of rule of law and democracy rests. At the same time, it is also necessary that freedom must be exercised with utmost responsibility. It must not be abused. It should not be treated as a licence to denigrate other institutions. Sensationalism is not unknown. Any attempt to make news out of nothing just for the sake of sensationalism has to be deprecated. When there is temptation to sensationalise, particularly at the expense of those institutions or persons who from the nature of their office cannot reply, such temptation has to be resisted, and if not, it would be the task of the law to give clear guidance as to what is and what is not permitted.”
18. In India in the earlier 1990s, contemporaneous with economic reforms, there was a surge in broadcasting through Private Television Channels through satellites or terrestrial microwave transmitters and distributed by wired network, which brought about a paradigm expanse of the right to free speech and expression envisaged under our Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution undoubtedly extends to broadcasting as well which also implies that it is equally amenable to restrictions as stated in Article 19(2). Therefore, while the right or the freedom to broadcast is recognized under our Constitution, it is also liable to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) vide Secy., Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Assn., Bengal [(1995) 2 SCC 161].
19. It is needless to observe that the visual media is more powerful than the print media. Though there have been a plethora of television networks in the last two decades and broadcasting is no longer the monopoly of the State, it is found that the regulation of broadcasting media is virtually absent, in the face of there being inadequate self-regulation by the Electronic Media vis-à-vis, the contents of the programme being telecast as well as their accountability.
20. In this regard, learned Assistant Solicitor General drew the Court’s attention to the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995. The said Act regulates only cable operators and does not include broadcasters within its scope and ambit. The said Act has failed to bring about regulations having the necessary efficacy in the light of Article 19(1)(a) r/w Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Under the said Act, no action can be initiated against the television Channels or broadcasters but only as against the cable operators. Therefore, in my view, there is need to formulate guidelines with regard to regulation of electronic Channels or broadcasters by the Central Government so as to regulate in an orderly manner broadcasting by various entities, as till date the Broadcasting Industry is largely unregulated as held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. However, it is necessary to enter a caveat at this stage by stating that regulation must be strictly in the light of Article 19(2) and in the context of the freedom envisaged under Article 19(1)(a), which is an ever-expanding right and which is also fundamental to a democratic polity and society. Therefore, in my view there is a need for an autonomous regulation mechanism to be established having regard to the upsurge of the Broadcasting Industry and its impact on the Indian society in general and certain segments, such as children, in particular. The expression “regulation”, cannot be interpreted to mean control dehors Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Regulation has to be within the realm of Article 19(2) or otherwise, the invaluable freedom envisaged under Article 19(1)(a) would be rendered meaningless. In this context, the observations of the Constitution Bench in the case of Express Newspapers supra are apposite and apply on all fours to broadcasting as well. It is observed that while truthful dissemination of information is an essential requirement of any broadcasting channel, sensationalism in the form of “Breaking News” “Flash News” or in any other form must be curbed. Broadcasting cannot lead to an adverse impact on the integrity of India and the security of the State, public order, decency or morality, in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence, even though, Parliament did not choose to include a clause enabling the imposition of reasonable restriction in public interest.
21. In the case of Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd., v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana and others [AIR 1988 SC 1642], while recognizing the right of a citizen to exhibit films on the Doordarshan, subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the Doordarshan, as a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression guaranteed under Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which can be curtailed only under circumstances which are set out in Clause (2) of Art.19 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court held that Article 19(1)(a) would not include a fundamental right of a citizen to establish a private broadcasting centre or television centre. Therefore, the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) would not take within its fold the right to establish a Television Centre or a Television Channel, which right may be read under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable restrictions as envisaged in Article 19(6).
22. In LIC vs. Manubhari D. Shah [(1992) 3 SCC 637], the Supreme Court held that it has always placed a broad interpretation on the value and content of Article 19(1)(a), making it subject only to the restrictions permissible under Article 19(2). Efforts by intolerant authorities to curb or suffocate this freedom have always been firmly repelled, more so when public authorities have betrayed autocratic tendencies.
23. Sawant. J., writing the majority judgment in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India and others vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others [(1995) 2 SCC 161], has opined that the communication of ideas could be made through any medium which would also include television channels or electronic media but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the larger interest of the community and the Country as set out in Article 19(2). According to him, these restrictions are intended to strike a proper balance between the liberty guaranteed and the social interest specified in Article 19(2). At the same time, it is relevant to note that democratic credentials of the State are judged today by the extent of freedom the members enjoy in that State. Therefore, it has been described as “Fourth Estate”.
In Cricket Association case, the Supreme Court has referred to Broadcasting Law (1993 edition) by Eric Barendt which is a comparative study of the law in five legal systems namely, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and United States of America on the number of reasons which are generally put forward to justify broadcasting regulations and has dealt with each of them. One of the reasons putforth is that television and radio are more powerful and influential broadcasting media of public opinion than the press, particularly as they intrude into the home and are more pervasive and therefore, require regulation but that is not a reason to impose greater regulation on the said media as opposed to the press. Therefore, the distinction between the broadcasting media such as television from the print media or other media has been recognised by the Supreme Court. However, in the matter of regulation of broadcasting media, it has been observed that an independent autonomous broadcasting authority is desirable as such an authority is representative of all sections of the society and is free from control of the political and administrative powers of the State.
The aforesaid observations have been made in the said judgment though the Court was not concerned with the right of the private broadcasters as such in the said case, nevertheless a direction was issued to the Central Government to take steps to establish an independent autonomous public authority representative of all sections and interests in the society to control and regulate the use of the airwaves.
24. Jeevan Reddy. J., in the aforesaid case, in his separate but concurring opinion, has analyzed reasonable restrictions upon freedom of speech and expression envisaged in Clause (2) of Article 19 as those in National interest and those conceived in the interest of society. According to him, interconnection and the interdependence of freedom of speech and the stability of society is undeniable. They indeed contribute to and promote each other. A society which feels secure can and does permit a greater latitude than a society whose stability is in constant peril. Thus, the Founding Fathers of the Constitution while guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression provided simultaneously that the said right cannot be so exercised as to endanger the interest of the nation or the interest of the society, as the case may be.
25. Speaking on the importance and significance of television in the modern world, he has stated it is no longer possible for any Government to control or manipulate the news, views and information available to its people as “the technological revolution is forcing internationalism upon the world”.
26. In his concurring opinion Jeevan Reddy, J., has classified broadcasting freedom into four facets-(a) freedom of the broadcaster, (b) freedom of the listeners/viewers to a variety of view and plurality of opinion, (c) right of the citizens and groups of citizens to have access to the broadcasting media, and (d) the right to establish private Radio/TV stations.
27. Cautioning that airwaves being public property which are being utilised to advance public good, having plurality of opinions, views and ideas, he opined that the private broadcasters are actuated by profit motive would indulge in mis-information, disinformation and manipulation of news and views and that the Government-controlled Media is at least subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny, but not the private broadcasters. He has further opined that a monopoly over broadcasting, whether by Government or anybody else, is inconsistent with free speech right of the citizens. State control really means governmental control, which in turn means control of the political party or parties in power for the time being. Such control is infact an anathema to the right of free speech. According to His Lordship, the free speech right of the citizens is better served in keeping the broadcasting media under the control of the public. Control by public according to him means control by an independent corporation or corporations, as the case may be, formed under a Statute. The corporation must be constituted and composed in such a manner as to ensure its independent free Government and its impartiality on public issues. While making a distinction between the right to establish or run a broadcasting station and the freedom of speech and expression, he has observed that the broadcasting media should be under control of the public as distinguished from the Government.
28. In Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In RE v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(2009) 5 SCC 212], the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the role of the Media and the recommendations of Sri F.S. Nariman Committee, set up by it. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
“30. So far as the role of media is concerned Mr. F.S. Nariman Committee has suggested certain modalities which are essentially as follows:
(a) The Trusteeship Principle-Professional journalists operate as a trustees of public and their mission should be to seek the truth and to report it with integrity and independence.
(b) The Self-Regulation Principles-A model of self-regulation should be based upon the principles of impartiality and objectivity in reporting; ensuring neutrality; responsible reporting of sensitive issues, especially crime, violence, agitations and protests; sensitivity in reporting women and children and matters relating to national security; and respect for privacy.
(c) Content regulations-In principle, content regulation except under very exceptional circumstances, is not to be encouraged beyond vetting of cinema and advertising through the existing statutes. It should be incumbent on the media to classify its work through warning systems as in cinema so that children and those who are challenged adhere to time, place and manner restraints. The media must also evolve codes and complaint systems. But prior content control (while accepting the importance of codes for self-restraint) goes to the root of censorship and is unsuited to the role of media in democracy.
(d) Complaints Principle-There should be an effective mechanism to address complaints in a fair and just manner.
(e) Balance Principle-A balance has to be maintained which is censorial on the basis of the principles of proportionality and least invasiveness, but which effectively ensures democratic governance and self-restraint from news publications that the other point of view is properly accepted and accommodated.
X x x
32. The Nariman Committee has recommended the following suggestions:
(i) India has a strong, competitive print and electronic media.
(ii) Given the exigencies of competition, there is a degree of sensationalism, which is itself not harmful so long as it preserves the essential role of the media viz. to report news as it occurs and eschew comment or criticism. There are differing views as to whether the media (particularly the electronic media) has exercised is right and privilege responsibly. But generalisations should be avoided. The important thing is that the electronic (and print) media has expressed (unanimously) its wish to act responsibly.
The media has largely been responsible and more importantly, it wishes to act responsibly.
iii) Regulation of the media is not an end in itself, and allocative regulation is necessary because the ‘air waves’ the public property and cannot technically be free for all but have to be distributed in a fair manner. However, allocative regulation is different from regulation per se. All regulation has to be within the framework of the constitutional provision.
However, a fair interpretation of the constitutional dispensation is to recognise that the principle of proportionality is built into the concept of reasonableness whereby any restrictions of the media follow the least invasive approach. While emphasizing the need for media responsibility, such an approach would strike the correct balance between free speech and the independence of the media.
(vii) This Committee wholly endorses the need for the formation of
a) Principles of responsible broadcasting, and
b) Institutional arrangements of self-regulation. But the Committee emphasised the need not to drift from self-regulation to some statutory structure which may prove to be oppressive and full of litigative potential.
(ix) The Committee approved of NBA model as a process that can be built upon both at the broadcasting service provider level as well as the industry level and recommend that the same be incorporated as guidelines issued by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, as was done in Vishaka Case.
33. The suggestions are extremely important and they constitute sufficient guidelines which need to be adopted. But we leave it to the appropriate authorities to take effective steps for their implementation. At this juncture we are not inclined to give any positive directions. The writ petitions are disposed of.”
29. Thus, what emerges is that the freedom of speech and expression envisaged under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is indeed guaranteed and extends to both Freedom of Press as well as to Broadcasting Media. The Constitutional Courts, and particularly, the Apex Court in India have always expanded the freedom envisaged under Article 19(1)(a) and have set at naught all decisions or orders which have tried to strifle the freedom guaranteed under the Article. Right from the commencement of the Constitution, freedom of the press has always been underscored by the courts, which is one of the reasons for having a vibrant democracy in India. While freedom of speech and expression is a haloed right, which should always be cherished and upheld, at the same time, one cannot lose sight of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. While there can be no two opinions that there has to be freedom guaranteed to the press as well as the broadcasting media in the context of Article 19(1)(a), yet, one cannot lose sight of Article 19(2), which strikes to achieve a balance. Therefore, the essence of Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2) is to have a free and balanced press and broadcasting media.
30. Therefore, there has to be compliance with professional ethics in the dissemination of information by the Media, particularly the Electronic Media without any bias, malice o bringing about a conflict in society. If there is already a code of ethics and broadcasting standards in place with regard to the regulation of the Electronic Media, I wonder as to whether there was any violation of the same in the reporting of the incidents that occurred on 02/03/2012 at the City Civil Court Complex and if so, what steps have been taken in that regard. In view of the role of the media on 02/03/2012 what has stated supra and in the absence of any assistance by the various TV News Channels who have been served in this matter, I am of the considered view that it is necessary to issue a direction to the Union of India to consider the establishment of a mechanism to regulate Broadcasting Media, including television channels having regard to Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The concept of regulation of broadcasting media should not be understood to mean control by the Government or the powers that be. No doubt, self-regulation is the most ideal form of regulation. But having regard to the upsurge in innumerable broadcasting channels, some of which are in their nescent stage, self-regulation without the intervention of any legal framework is in my view, inefficacious. Therefore, regulation within a statutory framework is necessary. This is not to be understood as a mechanism to control the media from an outside authority. A statutory framework is necessitated for regulation of the media by the media itself and not by an outside agency. In support of this view, reliance could be placed on the manner of regulation adopted by certain professionals such as, Advocates, Chartered Accountants, Doctors whereby, within the framework of a statute, professional bodies such as, the Bar Council of India, Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Medical Council of India regulate professional standards and also bring to book erring persons. When it comes to the broadcasting industry, such a mechanism is conspicuous by its absence. No doubt, the News Broadcasting Standards Authority has been constituted as a self-regulatory body. But the directions if any, issued by such an Authority or the National Broadcasting Authority does not carry the legal sanctity, which is a pre-requisite for compliance in most cases of falling standards or professional transgression by media men/broadcasters.
31. Hence, in my view, the following directions are required to be issued to the Union of India-respondent No.1 and also directions with regard to orderly conduct of Media personnel in Courts are required. Therefore:-
(i) The Union of India to consider the modalities of regulating Broadcasting Media, including provision of a mechanism for addressing grievances in the realm of broadcasting in the light of Article 19(1)(a) r/w Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India;
(ii) The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore City, are directed to evolve a system whereby, the Media personnel are provided an opportunity to report Court proceedings without disturbing the proceedings or without creating any inconvenience for the Advocates, the litigant public and general public, including a system of accreditation for the press as well as for the Broadcasting Media;
(iii) The Special Investigation Team (SIT) is also directed to investigate into the broadcasting of certain News items by certain Television Channels on 02/03/2012 and on subsequent dates, having regard to the material on record, and initiate action in accordance with law.
(iv) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and Registrar of City Civil Court, Bangalore City.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Order of the Court
Hence, in our view, the following directions are required to be issued to the Union of India-respondent No.1 and also directions with regard to orderly conduct of Media personnel in Courts are required. Having said so the following order is passed:
The writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions:
The constitution, of members of SIT shall be as follows:
(i) Dr. R.K. Raghavan, Retired Director of CBI-Chairman
(ii) Mr. Roopak Kumar Dutta, Director General of Police of CID, Bangalore-Convenor.
(iii) The team of the above two officers who are appointed shall pick a team of their own which will consist of additional three more officers. The said officers may be drawn from the branches of the State Police who will operate and conduct investigation under the guidance and leadership of Dr. R.K. Raghavan.
(iv) The notification by the State Government to the aforesaid effect will be issued as early as practically within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(v) The Committee so formed shall in its first meeting work out the modalities to be adopted for the purpose of enquiry for investigation.
(vi) If any person wants to make a statement before the SIT for giving his/her version of the alleged incident, the SIT shall record it. Those who want to give a version shall in writing intimate the convenor of the committee so that SIT can call in him/her for the purpose of recording his/her statement. It is needless to say that the SIT shall not confine the investigation by recording statement for those who come forward to give his/her version shall have power to make such inquiries, investigation as felt by it.
(viii) The Committee shall investigate into the incident, which has taken place on 2.3.2012 and also with reference to the complaints lodged by all concerned, the Advocates, police as well as the media.
(viii) The State Government shall provide necessary infrastructure and provide resources for the effective working of the SIT.
(ix) The SIT for the purpose of the said investigation shall be trapped with all the powers of the investigating agency as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Police Manual and are entitled to file a Final Report before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
(x) The entire exercise shall be concluded in three months from the date of Government Notification.
(xi) The Union of India to consider the modalities of regulating Broadcasting Media, including provision of a mechanism for addressing grievances in the realm of broadcasting in the light of Article 19(1)(a) r/w Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India;
(xii) The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and the Registrar, City Civil Court, Bangalore City, are directed to evolve a system whereby, the Media personnel are provided an opportunity to report Court proceedings without disturbing the proceedings or without creating any inconvenience for the Advocates, the litigant public and general public, including a system of accreditation for the press as well as for the Broadcasting Media;
(xiii) The Special Investigation Team (SIT) is also directed to investigate into the broadcasting of certain News items by certain Television Channels on 02/03/2012 and on subsequent dates, having regard to the material on record, and initiate action in accordance with law.
(xiv) Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and Registrar of City Civil Court, Bangalore City.
We would conclude with a quotation from William Penn:
“Justice is the insurance we have on our lives, liberty, and property. Obedience of law is the premium we pay for it.”