Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. V. Jaishanker through his counsel has submitted an application tendering unconditional apology requesting the Court to drop the proceedings. The then director, Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh present in Court has already submitted his show cause and has also tendered his apology and has Prayed for closing the proceedings. 3. Before I proceed with the said matter, it would be necessary for me to refer to the facts which led to these proceedings. 4. One Nirankar Prasad Singh was awarded certain punishment by the then Director. Before proposing the punishment, the Director referred the matter to the concerned Secretary for approval of the punishment. Mr. V.Jaishanker holding the office of the Secretary approved the punishment and referred the matter back to the Director. After the matter was approved by the Secretary, the Director awarded the said punishment to the petitioner. Nirankar Prasad Singh. It is to be noted that the Secretary himself is the appellate authority in the matter. After receiving the punishment, the said Nirankar Prasad Singh filed an appeal which was to be heard by the concerned Secretary. Instead of hearing the matter, Mr. V. Jaishanker called for the comments from the Director, Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh submitted his comments and observed that the appeal was worth dismissal. Those observations/comments were taken to be a proposal and the concerned Secretary, Mr. V. Jaishanker just below those recommendations put his initial and approved the recommendation that the appeal be dismissed. Beyond that nothing was done. No orders were passed on the merits of the matter. Being shocked with the process/ procedure adopted by these two officers, I called for the original records and found, to my utter surprise, that everything alleged against these two officers was correct. Thereafter, I called for explanation from these two officers. The Director Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh accepted the mistake and narrated that neither he was required to seek approval of the punishment nor he was required to make the recommendation relating to dismissal of the appeal. Mr. V. Jaishanker, however, maintained before the Court that in accordance with the parliamentary procedure and the procedure prevalent in the Secretariat, when the recommendations are made or proposals are made the officer approving the same is not required to say anything beyond putting his initial/signature. Mr. V. Jaishanker, however, maintained before the Court that in accordance with the parliamentary procedure and the procedure prevalent in the Secretariat, when the recommendations are made or proposals are made the officer approving the same is not required to say anything beyond putting his initial/signature. When he was asked by this Court that if he was exercising the authority as the appellate authority then how could he approve the comments to be a proposal, apply the Secretariat procedure and dismiss the appeal. To this, he maintained that what he did was absolutely right and jsutified. That was not the end of the matter. After the Secretary had put his initial on the proposal made by the Director, instead of communicating the dismissal order, a fresh order was written by the Director giving complete reasons for dismissal of the appeal. The recomendations approved by the officers by putting initial were in 10 lines but the order dismissing the appeal as communicated was in two pages. When I asked the concerned Director that under what authority of law he had written the order for and on behalf of the appellate authority, he submitted that he thought that a reasoned order was required to be communicated. 5. When this matter was being heard, was informed by certain persons that Mr. V. Jaishanker was making an enquiry into my character, conduct, assets and properties. Instead of keeping the same to be a secret, in the open Court I told Mr. V. Jaishanker that if he wanted to make an enquiry into my character, conduct, properties and assets he was welcome rather I myself offered an explanation that what was my earnings and what good amount of tax was paid by me. I told him in open Court that it was not proper on his part to make an enquiry into the conduct of the sitting Judges of the High Court. I further told him that if the fingers of allegations are raised against Ramesh Garg then that would be welcome, but if the fingers of allegations are raised against Justice R.S.Garg or against any Judge of this court the same would be cut. The phrase "fingers of allegations would be cut" was not to mean that the fingers would be cut but were simply to mean that allegations would not be tolerated and would be met properly. 6. Even Mr. The phrase "fingers of allegations would be cut" was not to mean that the fingers would be cut but were simply to mean that allegations would not be tolerated and would be met properly. 6. Even Mr. V. Jaishanker would vouch that no allegation was made against his wife. His counsel today present in the Court candidly submitted that this Court did not speak even a single word against the wife of Mr. V. Jaishanker. Speaking personally tor myself I do not know her and as a Judge I had no occasion to see her. 7. Unfortunately, the dialogue between the Court and the Secretary was considered to be of news-value by the newsman for some of the newspapers. A news was published that the Court observed that any finger raised against the Judge would be cut and in some of the newspapers it was said that the Judge made the allegation against Mr. V. Jaishanker and his wife. This news/comments is nothing but is a creation of media. 8. The media is the fourth pillar of the Democracy. The equal distribution of the power between the three segments, i.e. Judiciary, Executive and Legislature has its own importance but the media indeed is considered to be the fourth strong pillar of democracy. 9. A Judgment of the Court may be the news but the Judges are no news. A dialogue between the parties may sometimes be to inform the party that what he is required to say and what is expected of him. Ordinarily these are not of any news-value but these days everything has assumed the news-value. 10. Unfortunately what is not said by me is being thrusted on my head, what is not done is said to have been done by this Court. Because of these news published in different newspapers some holy-spirited man sent a communication to the Chief Justice of this Court that the Judges be asked to use restraint on the language. I am not even aggrieved by that. Because of these news published in different newspapers some holy-spirited man sent a communication to the Chief Justice of this Court that the Judges be asked to use restraint on the language. I am not even aggrieved by that. Any person is entitled to say that a Judge must use temperate language and must behave in a modest manner, but when the statement comes out from a man who after writing a letter does not wait for action of the Chief Justice and releases his letter to the press then bonafide in his action would be lacking and release of the letter was again to create a news. 11. (n the State of Bihar as I read sometimes in the news that some people made a public statement against His Excellency the then Governor that another leg of this limping man would be broken. If that is the liberty given to the general public or to the politicians then at least a Judge would be entitled to use a phrase "that the fingers raising the allegations would be cut." If the statements made by the Judges are not understood in their true perspective or the language used by them is not appreciated in its true perspective then the same is likely to create a great havoc. 12. After all the Judges are also the human beings. Behind the mask of a Judge there is a man an ordinary man, man like you a commonman with a throbbing heart. He has his own feelings. But the mask of the office does not allow him to express it. He is a father, son, brother, husband and even a most ordinary man. The Judges do not have speokesperson. They cannot have a press conference. They are forbidden from giving interview to anybody or press relating to a matter pending in the Court or as to what happened in the Court. A Judge speaks through his judgment only. Every word said in the Court during interaction or the loud thinking if is sought to be interpreted or quoted then it would lead to an impossible situation. The Judge wont be able to speak, interact or counter-act. He would not be able to control the Court proceedings. A Judge is not supposed to be dumb or mute. He has to rise to the requirement of the day. The Judge wont be able to speak, interact or counter-act. He would not be able to control the Court proceedings. A Judge is not supposed to be dumb or mute. He has to rise to the requirement of the day. He must know about the case, case law and precedents. He must stop a party from pressing reliance upon irrelevant facts or law. A Judge has his own duties to discharge in the process of and delivering a judgment. The Judges are neither machines nor computers. One cant use them as a slot machine. When the allegations are made against me it pains me. Being a human being a Judge is also governed by the two masters viz. pain and pleasure. He also suffers the sorrows and enjoys the happiness. 13. It is expected of the Judges that they would stay in exile and seclusion and would not meet the public. For a Judge the other Judges are the brothers and all the lawyers appearing before him are the relations. Despite that if one seeks to fiddle with the authority of the Judge, then he would always be taken to task. 14. When the statements made by a Judge are quoted the reporting has to be scrupulous, meticulous and fool proof. It cant be distorted simply to give it a news value. One cant explain the meaning of the statements nor any one can add anything to it or delete anything from it. None is authorised to read between the lines or beyond the lines. 15. Journalism is an important skillful subject, therefore a heavy duty is cast upon the Journalist, Reporter and the Press. One must remember that any loose reporting may lead to chaos. It may have horrible effects and may affect the public opinion. It may compel public to misunderstand things or presume something which was not said nor intended to be said. 16. "Language is a media of expression. If you make yourself understandable then the purpose of the language is served." This phrase may be applied to ordinary public but the endeavour of the educated and literate should be that not only they are being understood but there is no scope of misunderstanding. This would apply to Press/media also. 17. Investigative journalism is always good, but it has its own limits. This would apply to Press/media also. 17. Investigative journalism is always good, but it has its own limits. One must make investigation to find the truth but he cant create truth for news value. After all, there is no alternative of the truth. 18. For the Judges, it is always said that they are the watchdogs of the Constitution and the fundamental right of the public. The phrase is used to show the authority of the Judges, but that does not make them dogs. A phrase is to be understood subject to the context in which it is used. When this Court says that the fingers of allegations would be cut it would not mean that any finger raised against the act of the Judge would be cut. I may write even for the sake of repetition that the allegations against the Judges would not be tolerated. Sometimes the Judges use ornamental language by using phrase and idioms. Simile and metaphor are part of day-to-day life. When I say he has fingers in all the pies then in fact he does not put his finger in every pie but it would simply mean that he has best of the things and opportunity. When I say that somebody has a finger in the pie then that has a different meaning, it would simply mean that he is involved in something. If a simple change in language can change the meaning then a statement made by the Judge using, colloquial language or a slang or a phrase would not mean that what was said was offending. As the man is known by the company he keeps, so are the words known by the company in which they are used. If a man is appreciated by his family and a dog by his pedigree the word must be appreciated in reference to the context. It is most unfortunate that the language containing simple phrase is not being appreciated properly. In fact the wrong reporting gave an opportunity to some person to raise his fingers against the Judge and ask the Judge to be modest and use temperate language. 19. At this stage, I must regret for what I have not done. I did not say that the finger would be cut, I did not say that the wife of Mr. V. Jaishanker is involved. 19. At this stage, I must regret for what I have not done. I did not say that the finger would be cut, I did not say that the wife of Mr. V. Jaishanker is involved. But I am being accused of what I have not done. I would request the media that what I may write in my order and judgment are the proceedings of the Court. A dialogue between the lawyer and the Judge or a dialogue between the party and the Judge not recorded in the proceedings ordinarily cannot be published unless the permission of the Court is taken. What transpires in the Court is being published these days out of proportion, that too for a news value. Wnen a dog bites a man it has no news value but when a man bites a dog it has a news value. Everything can be given a news value. But the media specially the reporter should not fiddle with the proceedings of the Court. 20. I am required to say all this because some people are trying to take political mileage out of it. 21. I would again repeat that the finger of allegation against the Judges of this Court would not be tolerated. For what a Judge has done personally he is obviously answerable to the public. But what he does in his capacity as a Judge he cant be condemned. If a complaint is made against a Judge then outcome of the same should be awaited for sometime. It is not expected of the complainant to make the complaint and rush to Media and tell them about the complaint. 22. So far as these two officers are concerned, I must record that they do not understand law and the legal position. In view of the apology submitted by them. I close these proceedings.