ORDER
R. Gururajan, J.
1. This petition is filed by the Registrar General of this Court seeking initiation of proceedings against the respondents and for taking action in terms of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (“Act”, for short).
2. The events resulting in moving this petition according to the averments of the petition are as under.-
On Saturday the 21st day of December, 2002, a news item was published in a Kannada Daily “Mysore Mitra” from Mysore in the name and style “District Judge Hosur Transferred”. On 22nd December, 2002, Deccan Herald, an English Daily, published as “Resort Scandal: Judge Transferred”. Vijaya Karnataka, a Kannada Daily, published resignation of the Judge. Kannada Prabha, a Kannada Daily, got similar news published in the caption “Transfer of Mysore Principal District Judge”. Udaya Vani, Samyukta Karnataka – Kannada Dailies and Times of India, an English Daily, have published similar news items mentioning that Sri K,G. Hosur, Principal District Judge, Mysore has been transferred and the transfer relates to the incident of Mysore Resort, and that due to that Sri K.G. Hosur sent a request letter for voluntary retirement.
It is stated in the petition that no such transfer order has been issued by the High Court transferring the Judge from Mysore to Mangalore as has been published in the newspapers, and that even no such decision has been taken by the High Court. Appointments of Presiding Officers are made by the Governor. No such decision was taken for appointment of Sri KG. Hosur as Presiding Officer of Labour Court and no letter has been addressed by the High Court to the Governor to that effect. Transfer of judicial officers are coming within the purview of Article 235 of the Constitution and no person can interfere with that power and no person is having liberty to speculate such an action of the High Court and publish in a newspaper affecting judicial independence. Publication in a newspaper of such transfer amounts to interference with the administration of justice and it affects day-to-day administration of justice and also it affects reputation of the judicial officers. Sri Hosur is nothing to do with the alleged incident. Therefore, it amounts to criminal contempt. Vijaya Karnataka publishes that two more judicial officers are being transferred. No such proposal is mooted by the High Court. Such publication of false reports unnecessarily creates apprehension in the minds of judicial officers.
With these allegations it is stated that a case is made out for initiation in terms of the Act.
3. We have heard at great length the learned Advocate-General appearing for the High Court. His essential contention is that judicial independence is tried to be interfered with by such false reports. He states that no decision has been taken by the High Court in the matter of transfer and any publication with regard to transfer, according to the learned Advocate-General, would denigrate the judiciary. His further contention is that publication of transfer is not an ordinary report and it has to be read in the context of recent publication in newspaper with regard to certain incident alleged to have concurred at Mysore. His further contention is that these publications are to be read in between the lines.
4. Learned Advocate-General relies on some judgments/rulings to which we refer to in the subsequent paragraphs,
5. After hearing at great length the learned Advocate-General, we pass the following order.
6. The Contempt of Courts Act defines and limits the power of certain Courts in punishing the contempt and regulates the procedure in relation thereto.
7. The Privy Council observed in Surendra Nath v. Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court, ILR (1984) 10 Cal. 109 : 10 Ind. App. 171 (PC)
as under.-
“Although contempt may include defamation, yet an offence of contempt is something more than mere defamation and is of a different character”.
8. Wilmot, C.J., in Wilmot’s Opinions p. 256: Rex v. Davies, 1893 AC 138 has observed as follows.-
“Attacks upon the Judges excite in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with all determinations…. and whenever man’s allegiance to the laws is so fundamentally shaken, it is the most fatal and dangerous obstruction of justice and in my opinion calls out for a more rapid and immediate redress than any other obstruction whatsoever; not for the sake of the Judges as private individuals but because they are channels by which the King’s justice is conveyed to the people”.
9. These two judgments were noticed by the Supreme Court in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras, . After noticing the same, the Supreme Court observed that.-
“A libel attacking the integrity of a Judge may not in the circumstances of a particular case amount to a contempt at all, although it may be the subject-matter of a libel proceeding”.
10. The Supreme Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit, rules in paragraph 11 as under:
“Contempt of Court is disobedience to the Court, by acting in opposition to the authority, justice and dignity thereof. It signifies a wilful disregard or disobedience of the Court’s order; it also signifies such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the Court and the administration of law into disrepute”.
11. There are several instances, in which Courts have to proceed in terms of the Act with a view to maintain dignity and respect of rule of law and the judicial administration. Scandalising Judges is an interference in the administration of justice (sic) of Section 2 and it is an accepted instance of contempt of Court in the given set of facts.
12. In the recent judgement in the case of Arundhati, Roy, the Supreme Court noticed the judgment of Harijai Singh, and pointed out that a free and healthy press is indispensable for the functioning of a true democracy but, at the same time, cautioned that the freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances. Lord Denning in his book Road to Justice observed that press is a watchdog to see that every trial is conducted fairly, openly and above board but the watchdog may sometimes break loose and has to be punished for misbehaviour.
13. The Apex Court, way back in 1954, has noticed the purpose of contempt proceedings in Brahma Prakash Sharma and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, . The Supreme Court in para 8 of the order has noticed as under,–
“It admits of no dispute that the summary jurisdiction exercised by superior Courts in punishing contempt of their authority exists for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of justice and for maintaining the authority of law as is administered in the Courts. It would be only repeating what has been said so often by various Judges that the object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals; it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the Court is lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it is weakened”.
The Supreme Court again in para 10 notices the Privy Council judgment reading as under.-
“In 1943, Lord Atkin while delivering the judgment of the Privy Council in Debi Prasad Sharma and Ors. v. Emperor, AIR 1943 PC 202 observed that cases of contempt which consist of scandalising the Court itself, are fortunately rare and require to be treated with much discretion. Proceedings for this species of contempt should be used sparingly and always with reference to the administration of justice”.
14. In the light of the clear pronouncements on the object of the contempt and its sparing use by Courts, let us see as to whether any interference is necessary on the facts of this case. Before touching upon the merits of the matter, let us see as to whether the publications made by the respondents would amount to criminal contempt in terms of Section 2(c) of the Act.
15. Criminal contempt has been defined under Section 2(c) of the Act, reading as under.-
“”Criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner". 16. According to the petitioners, publication amounts interference or obstruction or tends to obstruct the administration of justice.
17. In Debi, Prasad Sharma’s case, supra, the Full Bench was considering to whether news report would amount to contempt. A report was published in a daily with regard to a Circular issued by the High Court. The matter was taken right up to Privy Council. The Privy Council rules that.-
“The test to be applied is whether the words complained of were in the circumstances calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of the law”.
The Privy Council further notices that.-
“No doubt it is galling for any judicial personage to be criticised publicly as having done something outside his judicial proceedings which was ill-advised or indiscreet. But judicial personages can afford not to be too sensitive. If a Judge is defamed in such a way as not to affect the administration of justice he has the ordinary remedies for defamation if he should feel impelled to use them”.
Ultimately, the Privy Council ruled as under.-
“Their Lordships cannot accept the view taken by the Court as stated above of the meaning of the comment: the words do not support the innuendo. In the opinion of their Lordships, the proceedings in contempt were misconceived, and the appellants were not guilty of the contempt alleged”.
The Apex Court has noticed this judgment in Brahma Prakash Sharma’s case, supra.
18. The Kerala High Court in the case of Kayiath Damodaran v. Induchoodan and Ors., relating to a publication of transfer of a Judge of a subordinate Court, has noticed these two judgments and ruled in para 6 that: “Comment on administrative side of judiciary does not amount to contempt”.
19. As per the averments in the petition, Mysore Mitra has published a news item, the gist of which as stated in the petition is as follows.-
“District Judge Hosur transferred.
Mysore, Dec. 20–The District Judge of Mysore District Sri K.G. Hosur has been transferred to Mangalore District Court. He had been transferred to Mysore only a few months back”.
In Vijaya Karnataka, a Kannada Daily, a news item has been published on 22-12-2002, the gist of which as noticed in the petition is as follows.-
“Mysore, Dec. 21–Sri KG. Hosur, Principal District and Sessions Judge, who has been transferred has sent on Saturday his resignation to the High Court. He had been transferred to Mangalore Labour Court on Friday.
Transfer of two more? In the meantime, it is being stated that two more Judges of Mysore Court have been transferred”.
In Kannada Prabha, Kannada Daily, it is mentioned that transfer is considered a wrong understanding of the fact.
In Udaya Vani, it is mentioned that the Sessions Judge has sought for voluntary retirement.
In an English Daily, Deccan Herald, it has been stated that the Judge is transferred along with two others. In Times of India, it is mentioned that the Mysore Judge has reportedly resigned.
20. Reading of two English Dailies, in particular one English Daily, would show that there is nothing that has been mentioned which would amount to criminal contempt in terms of the Act. It is all nothing but a news item published. In Deccan Herald, it is mentioned that the total number of persons transferred in connection with the resort scandal has risen to three. Nothing scandalous has been mentioned therein amounting to interference with the administration of justice. Kannada publications also do not in any way attribute any such insinuation against the administration of justice. It may at best border “libel statements” if at all. No final opinion is expressed by us. As pointed out by the Supreme Court “libel” stands on a different footing. Sparing power of contempt can be exercised only when it is shown to the Court that the publication obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice. Argument of the learned Advocate-General of “in between reading of the previous publications, etc.,” do not appeal to us. Unless the said publications are shown to be interfering or obstructing in terms of Section 2 of the Act, we cannot take notice in terms of the Act and in the light of the Apex Court ruling.
21. “We may notice a Division Bench decision of this Court in K. Dinakar v. M.S. Kapoor and Anr., AIR 2002 Kant. (HCR) 2925 The Division Bench has held that the necessary ingredients are noticed in the present complaint and ultimately this Court dropped the same based on the allegations. In this case also, we notice that necessary ingredients are not forthcoming on the facts of this case warranting our use of spare power.
22. Learned Advocate-General also placed before us a judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Chandra, There can be no
doubt with regard to a proceedings in terms of the Contempt of Courts
Act in the given set of facts. The facts of that case would show contemp
tuous nature of proceedings. The facts of this case stands on a different
footing.
23. Learned Advocate-General also placed before us an order of notice in CCC Nos. 80 and 81 of 2002, dated 5-12-2002. That very order would show that the Court was satisfied that the publication referred to constitute a contempt of the Court. As mentioned earlier, the facts of this case, in our view, do not satisfy us for initiation of proceedings. Each case stands on its own facts in the matter of contempt.
24. Learned Advocate-General placed before us an order dated 12-4-
2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 42949 of 2001. That was not a case of
contempt proceedings. That order cannot be relied upon in the case on
hand in the light of the facts of this case. Learned Advocate General also
places before us an order dated 5-12-2002 passed by this Court in CCC
Nos. 30 and 81 of 2002. In that case, Court has noticed that the Court
prima facie satisfied that the publication constitute a contempt of the
Court. That is not the case here. In the given set of circumstances, we
are not inclined to proceed further and close this case by this order.
25. However, we deem it proper to observe that a responsible press in a democracy no doubt has to play a vital role in strengthening the democracy, but, at the same time, press is not to commit any act bringing disrepute to the system, and, any such attempt on the part of the press, in our view, would be injurious to a healthy growth of democratic set up.