RAJESH KHAITAN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL — 1983 DIGILAW 43 (CAL)

P. C. BOROOAH, J. ( 1 ) ON the January 11, 1983 in public interest I had issued a Rule against the authorities of the Dum Dum Central Jail and the State of West Bengal, inter alia, relating to the conditions prevailing in the said jail. By the same order I had appointed the Chief Reporters of the Statesman and the Telegraph to visit the Jail and to submit their reports to this Court about the conditions prevailing therein. On January 25, 1983 Mr. Sujoy Sen Gupta of the Statesman submitted his report; so did Mr. Tarun Ganguly of the Telegraph. Along with his report Mr. Tarun Ganguly submitted eight photographs and later on made over to me some more photographs along with the negatives. ( 2 ) BY my order dated January 25, 1983 I made it clear that the contents of the reports or the photographs or the recordings in the tapes must not be published in the Press until further orders of this Court. ( 3 ) ON February 15, 1983 Mr. Somnath Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the Jail authorities drew my attention to a copy of the Sunday dated 13-19 February, 1983. In pp. 50-58 of the said issue certain photographs of the interior of the Dum Dum Central Jail had been published. As, according to Mr. Chatterjee, the publication was in direct violation of the order passed by me. I issued a notice on the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Sunday to show cause why a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be drawn up against them. I also directed Mr. Tarun Ganguly to submit a written explanation as to how and under what circumstances the photographs came to be published in the said issue of the Sunday. ( 4 ) ON February 23, 1983 Mr. Naranarayan Gooptoo, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal, drew my attention to pp. 6-7 of the issue of the Telegraph dated February 17, 1980 wherein some more photographs of the inmates of the Dum Dum Central Jail were published along with an article by the Editor Mr. M. J. Akbar. On hearing the submissions of the learned Government pleader I had on that day called upon Mr. 6-7 of the issue of the Telegraph dated February 17, 1980 wherein some more photographs of the inmates of the Dum Dum Central Jail were published along with an article by the Editor Mr. M. J. Akbar. On hearing the submissions of the learned Government pleader I had on that day called upon Mr. Akbar to submit an explanation in writing as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be instituted against him for such publication. ( 5 ) MR. Sankardas Banerjee has appeared before me today on behalf of the Sunday and the Telegraph. He has firstly submitted that Mr. M. J. Akbar is taking upon himself the sole responsibility for the publications both in the Sunday and in the Telegraph. Mr. Banerjee on behalf of Mr. Akbar has also placed before me two written show causes in respect of the two orders passed by me. Both the show causes are alike and paragraphs 2,3,4 and 5 which are relevant read as follows:"that your humble petitioner states that the petitioner has the highest respect of this Hon'ble Court and the petitioner never intended to show any disrespect to this Hon'ble Court. That the only reason which led your humble petitioner who is a journalist to publish these photographs was to undo the wrongs and the downright tyranny that was being perpetrated in the said Dum Dum Central Jail which should never have been done to the members of the public had not lost their fundamental right to be treated as human beings. It is submitted that the very object and function of the Jail authorities is to rehabilitate correct and reform the prisoners. That the sole object of publishing the photographs in"the Telegraph"was humanitarian and in the interest of public welfare. That the extent of horror revealed in those photographs was revolting and which alone led to the publication with expectation that the authorities would introduce change of conditions which would introduce change of conditions which would make it possible for the inmates to live properly. " ( 6 ) MR. Banerjee has reiterated that by the publications Mr. M. J. Akbar had no intention to show any disrespect to this Court for whom he holds the highest regard nor was it the intention of Mr. Akbar to interfere with the due process of justice or to lower the Government as a whole. " ( 6 ) MR. Banerjee has reiterated that by the publications Mr. M. J. Akbar had no intention to show any disrespect to this Court for whom he holds the highest regard nor was it the intention of Mr. Akbar to interfere with the due process of justice or to lower the Government as a whole. ( 7 ) THE learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of the State has with reference to the publication in the Sunday submitted that by the said publication there has been a direct violation of my order dated January 25, 1983 and the publication of the photographs along with the comments have sought to preempt an impartial judicial verdict. He has further submitted that by such publication the persons responsible have sought to prejudice the public against the respondents in the main Rule. ( 8 ) AS regards the publication in the Telegraph Mr. Gooptu has drawn my attention to the print in bold type at P. 6 of the issue wherein it has been stated "for the price to be paid for publishing these pictures is a trip to Jail, so be it. " According to Mr. Gooptu these words go to show the Editor of the Telegraph has acted in an irresponsible manner and has deliberately flouted my order and unless I take appropriate action and issue a Rule under the Contempt of Court Act it will set a bad precedent and other newspapers will have very scant respect for the orders of this Court. ( 9 ) MR. Gooptu then, in support of his submissions, drew my attention to two decisions of the Supreme Court, the first being the case of In re: P. C. Sen, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1821 . In this case the Supreme Court made the following observations:"any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a Court or a Judge into contempt, or to lower his authority, or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the Court is a contempt of Court. R. V. Gray, 1900-2 QB 36 at p. 40. Contempt by speech or writing may be by scandalising the Court itself, or by abusing parties to actions, or by prejudicing making in favour or against a party before the cause is heard. R. V. Gray, 1900-2 QB 36 at p. 40. Contempt by speech or writing may be by scandalising the Court itself, or by abusing parties to actions, or by prejudicing making in favour or against a party before the cause is heard. It is incumbent upon Courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented; from prejudicing the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finally heard has pernicious consequences. Speeches or writings misrepresenting the proceedings of the Court or prejudicing the public for or against a party or involving reflections on parties to a proceeding amount to contempt. " ( 10 ) THE next case which Mr. Gooptu referred to was the case of E. M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. Narayanan Nambiar, reported in AIR 1970 SC 2015 Wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows: -"the chief forms of contempt are insult to judges, attacks upon them, comment on pending proceedings with a tendency to prejudice fair trial, obstruction to officers of Courts, Witnesses or the parties, abusing the process of the Court, breach of duty by officers connected with the court and scandalizing the judge or the Courts. The last forms occurs, generally speaking, when the conduct of a person tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard. In this conduct are included all acts which bring the Court into disrepute or disrespect or which offend its dignity, affront its majesty or challenge its authority. " ( 11 ) MR. Tarun Ganguly has submitted a written explanation and he has stated, inter alias, as follows: -"i was surprised to notice that some of those photographs which were being processed in the said common pool were published in the Sunday dated 13-19 February, 1983 which is one of the publications of Anandabazar 13-19 February, 1983 which is one of the publications of Anandabazar Groups Publication. I beg to submit that I had no knowledge of the same as from the common pool where photographs are being processed some journalist or other person without my knowledge must have taken out some copies of those photographs without any knowledge of any order of the Hon'ble Court relating to those photographs and their publishing. " ( 12 ) BY my order dated January 25, 1983 I had permitted the reports submitted by Mr. " ( 12 ) BY my order dated January 25, 1983 I had permitted the reports submitted by Mr. Sujoy Sen Gupta of the Stateman and Mr. Tarun Ganguly of the Telegraph to be published. As I have stated above Mr. Ganguly had also submitted some photographs along with his report. As, according to me, the photographs gave a vivid and unadulterated description of the prevailing conditions in the Dum Dum Central Jail, it was not my desire that the photographs should never be published. I had intended to lift the ban after allowing the jail authorities to present their case. It, however, appears that in spite of my order the photographs, whose publication I had banned, had appeared in the Sunday and the Telegraph in the issues referred to above. The question which I have, therefore, to consider is whether I should take further steps in the matter by issuing a Rlue under the Contempt of Courts Act against Mr. M. J. Akbar who has taken upon himself the sole responsibility for such publication. I had banned, had appeared in the Sunday and the Telegraph in the issues referred to above. The question which I have, therefore, to consider is whether I should take further steps in the matter by issuing a Rule under the Contempt of Courts Act against Mr. M. J. Akbar who has taken upon himself the sole responsibility for such publication. ( 13 ) AN independent, fearless and upright press is essential in a democratic set up. It can play a vital role through the channel of its newspapers and journals in bringing to public gaze cases of bureaucratic or executive lapses or misuse of authority. To quote from the report of Government of India press laws Enquiry committee of 1948:"when great executive power is concentrated in the hands of the cabinet a lively, instructed and critical public opinion is the only safeguard against the misuse of executive authority. Democracy can only survive in the atmosphere of constant controversy; it is essential to it that any Government however-strongly entrenched and however well intentioned, shall be aware that its actions are under constant scrutiny and that there hangs always over its head the sword of public criticism. Democracy can only survive in the atmosphere of constant controversy; it is essential to it that any Government however-strongly entrenched and however well intentioned, shall be aware that its actions are under constant scrutiny and that there hangs always over its head the sword of public criticism. Freedom of speech and of publication consists primarily, as has been very truly said by Alexander Meikejoin, the American Philosopher, not in the liberty of the individual to speak or write what he chooses, but in the liberty of the public to hear and to read what it needs. " ( 14 ) THE Press being an important instrument for the creation of public opinion must serve and protect the public interest. To preserve the sanctity and dignity of the Court is public interest. Therefore, the Press should not utilize its media in such a manner whereby the confidence in the Courts of justice, which the members of the public undoubtedly possess, is any way tarnished or impaired or the dignity and the majesty of the Court is in any manner lowered. ( 15 ) THE very first sentence in Chapter I of James Francis Oswald's "contempt of Court" is as follows: -"contempt, in the legal acceptation of the term, primarily signifies disrespect to that which is entitled to legal regard; but as a wrong purely moral, or affecting an object not possessing a legal status, it has in the eye of the law no existence. " ( 16 ) THEREFORE, the primary ingredient of contempt is disrespect. Disrespect can be shown to a Court in various ways. Wilful disobedence to a judgment or order requiring a person to do any act or to abstain from doing anything is a contempt of Court. Comments in respect of pending judicial proceedings may also amount to contempt of Court, if it tends to obstruct the free and fair course of justice in the case. ( 17 ) THEREFORE, in adjudging whether or not Mr. M. J. Akbar is liable for contempt, his conduct and motive in publishing the aforesaid photographs have to be gone into. By such publication Mr. Akbar could not possibly impede or prejudice the litigation which was then pending before me, because the photographs which were publishing had already been seen by me and copies thereof were also in my possession. I do not for a moment think Mr. By such publication Mr. Akbar could not possibly impede or prejudice the litigation which was then pending before me, because the photographs which were publishing had already been seen by me and copies thereof were also in my possession. I do not for a moment think Mr. Akbar intended to show any disrespect to his Court; he has made this position amply clear in the submissions made through Mr. Banerjee and also in the show causes submitted by him. He has also in his article in the Telegraph of February 17, 1983 reiterated that he has the highest respect for this Court. In my view, Mr. Akbar might have been carried away by his emotions and sense of duty as a journalist after seeing the nature of the photographs. It might have also been his anxiety to give to the public a vivid picture of the horrifying conditions prevailing in one of the central jails of this State. The boldness shown by Mr. Akbar is certainly commendable in the sense that in the wider interest of the public and in the interest of the miserable and helpless inmates of the Dum Dum Central Jail he has caused the publication of the photographs in the Sunday and the Telegraph. My order has definitely been technically violated bat contempt is the sole concern of the Court. As such, in the extraordinary facts and circumstances of this case, I do not intend to institute any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. I, however reprimand Mr. M. K. Akbar and close this chaper with a hope that in future he will be more careful and ponder before doing anything contrary to any order passed by a Court. There will be no order as to costs. . .