ORDER
R.P. Sethi, CJ.
1. Taking cognizance of two news items published in the Times of India dated 11-1-1996 in its Bangalore Edition, a learned Judge of this Court initiated suo motu action directing the Registrar General to register his order of reference as writ petition and obtain appropriate orders from the Chief Justice for allocation of Court. In his order of reference, the learned Judge found that there was virtual break-down of law enforcement machinery which was found reflected because of the alleged rise of crime in the city of Bangalore.
2. Vide Court order dated 29th May, 1996, notices were issued to the Respondents. On 12th July, 1996, this Court felt that notice should also be issued to the Chairman of the Bar Council of Karnataka to assist the Court in adjudicating the powers, limitations and extent of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction in public interest litigation initiated suo motu. Notice was also issued to the Resident Editor of the Times of India, Bangalore.
3. In his reply, the 5th respondent has submitted that the news items were published on the basis of the information collected by his Reporter. It is further submitted that the aforesaid news items were published in
all other newspapers published from Bangalore. The publication is claimed to be bona fide and not intended to harm any person or authority. It is claimed that the publication of the news items was in furtherance of the right of freedom of speech and expression and was not the result of reckless publication without any basis.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing in the case and perused the records. We are of the opinion that initiation of writ proceedings suo motu in public interest is inalienable part of the constitutional scheme and within the competence of every Hon’ble Judge of this Court. But, such power is required to be exercised and regulated in accordance with the rules made, the norms set by the High Court, keeping in view the administrative instruction issued and Roster of Sitting prepared by the Chief Justice. While exercising the suo moto power of initiating public interest litigation self-restraint and judicious exercise is expected to be borne in mind. Such power has to be resorted to cautiously and sparingly in order to ensure that such exercise is not utilised merely for publicity or purposes alien to the object sought to be achieved. It would be appreciated that as and when any matter of public importance is sought to be brought to the notice of the Court, a reference may be made to the Chief Justice for initiation of action. The Chief Justice in turn is required to get the matter examined according to the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in that regard. After the matter is examined, the same can be placed before the appropriate Bench in accordance with the directions issued in that regard by the Chief Justice, for further necessary action. It is expected that before initiating suo motu proceedings in public interest, care shall be taken to keep in mind the relevant judgments of the Apex Court and this Court on the subject. The guidelines laid down in a latest judgment of this Court in K.V. Amarnath and Another v State of Karnataka and Others may have to be kept in mind while recommending initiation of action in public interest. In this case also, the learned Judge, after taking notice of the circumstances rightly referred the matter to the Chief Justice for further appropriate action.
5. The grievance of the respondent-State is that the learned Judge was not justified in making sweeping observations regarding the conduct of the police force in the State of Karnataka without affording them an opportunity of explanation. We agree with the learned Counsel appearing for the State and are of the opinion that the general observations regarding the conduct of the Police and the State Machinery without affording the respondent-State an opportunity was not called for at the initial stage. The observations with respect to the drivers of BTS/KSRTC were also unwarranted without notice to the concerned. It appears that being moved by the heinous nature of the crime alleged to
have been committed by the accused persons, the learned Judge was overwhelmed while issuing notice and in this regard made the sweeping general observations. The observations made in the order of reference against any Department, official or Corporation shall not be deemed to be an attribute to their functioning in the exercise of governmental, statutory or administrative powers.
6. The importance of the press in a democratic set up can neither be minimised nor curtailed. The conferment of freedom of speech and expression on the press pre-supposes their responsibilities, limitations and accountability. It is expected from a responsible press that before reporting, they shall exercise restraint and try to ascertain the genuineness, correctness and the authenticity of the report to be published. It is emphasised that such an obligation is expected more while reporting the Court proceedings. Before reporting the Court proceedings, the responsible press is required to ascertain the true position either from the record or from an official of the registry. Such a course is necessary not to erode the confidence of a common man in the judiciary. We are sure that the press would come to the expectations of the people and take effective measures wherever needed in reporting the matters of public importance.
No further action is required to be taken in the matter. Petition is disposed of.
We wish to place on record the appreciation for the assistance rendered to us by the learned Counsel for the parties.