ORDER
1. Contemner No. 1 Govind Roy is the Chief Editor of the weekly “Shilalekh”, which is published from Delhi and Gwalior. Contemner No. 2, Sanjay Roy is the Editor of the said weekly paper. Contemner No. 3, is the Director/publisher of Bhuwan Publications, Pvt. Ltd. and Contemner No. 4, Smt. Kamleshwari Roy, is the printer of the said weekly.
2. An editorial was published in the weekly dated 15-21st August, 1993 at p.2, under the caption, “BHRASHTA NYAYAPALIKA AUR AAM AADMI”. Smt. Renu Sharma, Third Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Gwalior, has made a reference under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, for short, the ‘Act’, the said publication being highly contemptuous which maligns and, undermines the reputation and dignity of the judicial system as a whole and the officers working there in and Advocates, in particular. Two Advocates of this Court also filed a petition for taking action under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Act.
3. All the four contemners, today, filed a reply in both the matters and submitted that they never intended to undermine the dignity of the Court. The contemners have also stated that they withdraw the publication and tender unconditional apology. Shri M. M. Kaushik, learned counsel, appealing for the contemners, submitted that the contemners do not justify their action and, therefore, the apology be accepted and the contemners be pardoned.
4. A bare look to the publication shows that it contains highly objectionable and scandalizing remarks about the courts, Advocates and the staff working in the judiciary. The editorial is calculated and designed to bring the Judiciary into ridicule with a view to shake the confidence of the people in it. It lowers down the respect of the Judiciary and destroys public confidence. In fact, it lowers down the prestige of Judges and the Court in the eyes of the people, thus, it is a clear case of contempt of Court. Therefore, merely by tendering the apology and stating that the publication was made of the general type, the contemners cannot be let off and apology will not purge the contempt.
5. In our opinion, it is a clear case of Court’s criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act, which is punishable under Section 12 thereof, therefore, the contemners are liable to be punished. Shri Kaushik submitted that the contemners have tendered apology at the first instance and did not dispute nor justify the publication, therefore, a lenient view be taken in the matter.
6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the contemners have tendered apology, we direct contemner Govind Roy to deposit a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and the remaining contemners to deposit a fine of Rs. 500/- each and to suffer sentence till rising of the Court. We also direct that in the next publication (reportedly, due on Friday next), the contemners will publish the apology, tendered today, in their weekly.
7. All the contemners are hereby warned to be utmost careful in future in the matter of publication of such material.
8. A copy of this order shall be placed on records of both cases.
