Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 436 (GAU)

In Re: Rupin Sharma v. .

2008-06-13

ANIMA HAZARIKA, J.CHELAMESWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT A. Hazarika, J. 1. The Deputy Commissioner, (Judicial), Nagaland, Dimapur submitted a report dated 17.09.05 to the Registrar, Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench), Kohima, Nagaland regarding the contempt of Court committed by the Senior Superintendent of Police (CID) Mr. Rupin Sarmah, IPS and the Editor of the local daily, "The Nagaland Page", Mrs. T. Monalisa Changkija by publishing a news item in the abovementioned daily in its issue dated 16th September, 2005 under an article captioned as "Ex-director in Police net, more arrested." In the said article the following statements have been made against the judiciary which are reproduced herein below: 2. (a) The Court of the DC (Judicial), "as expected" granted bail to Mr. A.S. Rengma, Retired Director of School Education, "notwithstanding the hard facts that has reportedly established on him regarding bogus appointment of teachers." (b) The Court has granted bail though the accused Mr. A.S. Rengma was absconding. (c) The police "today questioned Vikiho (not interrogation) in the presence of the media." This exercise is self-explanatory. (d) The judiciary is the principle custodian of the criminals. (e) The SSP (CID) says, "it is horrible state of affairs" and the article goes on to State "he resents the manner in which the "judiciary has become protector of criminals notwithstanding the facts being established on criminals." (f) The SSP (CID) accuses the judiciary of "haphazardly entertaining the bail petitions" and goes on to say that "if criminals are arrested they immediately become sick and the judiciary grants them bail ignoring the degree and magnitude of the crimes committed." (g) The paper goes on to add that "the police have openly criticized the manner in which judiciary is functioning and accused it of being the safe custodian and protector of criminals in the state." (h) The paper goes on to add, "however, there was no word from the judiciary till date." 3. The accusations and statements as appearing in the article above referred are based entirely on false statements for the following reasons: i) By a P.R. Bond dated 29.8.05 the accused Mr. A.S. Rengma was released by none other than the I.O. of the case. ii) The case in which the accused was granted bail is Crime Cell Case No. 7/05 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruptions Act. A.S. Rengma was released by none other than the I.O. of the case. ii) The case in which the accused was granted bail is Crime Cell Case No. 7/05 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruptions Act. This makes the charge against the accused a bailable offence and the course adopted by the I.O. in releasing the accused Mr. A.S. Rengma on executing a P.R. Bond is a valid exercise. iii) The accused, apprehending arrest inspite of the execution of the P.R. Bond approached the Court of the DC (J) Dimapur, i.e., the Special Judge, for bail and surrendered before the said Court on 14.9.05. Considering all the above facts the Court of the DC (Judicial) by an order dated 14.9.05 granted bail to the accused. iv) The article captioned "Ex-Director in Police net, more arrested" followed the said order. 4. It appears that in the interview staged by the SSP (CID) in which the media were invited, reporters from other papers were also present. However, though these papers published reports of the events they did not make any denigrating/demeaning/contumacious statements against the judiciary. 5. It may not be out of context for me to say that in my experience as an officer of the Bench for about three decades I have found that the prosecuting agencies in the State lack the expertise to successfully prosecute and detain criminals. The records will bear ample testimony to this fact. In the instant matter too, I feel that the prosecuting agency are attempting to hide their shortcomings by shoving the blame upon the judiciary. That too in a most contumacious manner and also by resort to theatrics. 2. After receiving the aforesaid report, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) laid the said report before Mr. Justice R. Gogoi at Kohima Bench on 20.09.05 for his examination and necessary order. After perusal of report on the same day, Justice Gogoi directed for listing the matter on the judicial side on 21.09.05. Accordingly, on 21.09.05 the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge at Kohima Bench which was registered as Original Cont. Case (Crl.) No. 2 (K)/05 and the learned Single Judge passed an order directing the registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice as there was no Division Bench available at Kohima at that time. Accordingly, on 21.09.05 the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge at Kohima Bench which was registered as Original Cont. Case (Crl.) No. 2 (K)/05 and the learned Single Judge passed an order directing the registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice as there was no Division Bench available at Kohima at that time. Accordingly, the matter was taken up by the Division Bench of this Court in the Principal Bench at Guwahati which has been re-numbered as Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 10/05. 3. On 11.11.05 this Court issued notice to the respondents. On 14.12.2005 this Court issued notice for their personal appearance before this Court. In response to the said notice, both the respondents submitted their reply to the show-cause notices in details. 4. Regarding the allegations as mentioned in the report of the Deputy Commissioner, (Judicial), Nagaland, Dimapur, the respondent No. 1 in his reply to the show-cause has stated that during the period 2002 and onwards a scam pertaining to fraudulent drawls of pension was unearthed in Nagaland and he was entrusted the task for heading the Special Investigation Team (SIT for short). In the year 2005 another scam pertaining to fraudulent and bogus appointment of teachers in the Education Department come to light and he was asked to head the SIT for investigation into the scam. During the investigation it has been found that the criminals, who were involved in the scam, some of them had nexus with various factions of insurgents of Nagaland were involved in fraudulent drawal of money from the Government accounts and they are exerting pressures on the Government servants to issue appointment letters to various persons. As a result, the State Government was defrauded to the tune of crores of rupees. During the course of investigation the SIT came to know that one Sri Kuhoi Sema had obtained an appointment order as a Carpenter Instructor on payment of Rs.80,000/- to various persons in the Education Department through his brother Mr. Kekiye Sumi who is also a Government servant. Further investigation revealed that Sri Kekiye Sumi had bribed one Mr. Hevishe Sema, Superintendent in the office of the Director of Education to obtain the appointment letter who was also arrested by the police. Sri Hevishe Sema divulged that he had paid Rs.50,000/- to the former Director of Education Mr. A.S. Rangma. On being summoned Mr. Further investigation revealed that Sri Kekiye Sumi had bribed one Mr. Hevishe Sema, Superintendent in the office of the Director of Education to obtain the appointment letter who was also arrested by the police. Sri Hevishe Sema divulged that he had paid Rs.50,000/- to the former Director of Education Mr. A.S. Rangma. On being summoned Mr. Rangma appeared before the SIT but in the meanwhile he was released on RR. Bond on the health ground and was further asked to report back on 31.08.05. In the meantime, Mr. Rangma moved the Court of A.D.C. (Judicial), Dimapur for regularization of his P.R. Bond and the said Court issued an order that the P.R. Bond shall remain in force till the Designated Court passes the necessary orders. 5. During the search operation by the SIT on two places, specific informations were received about the involvement of two persons viz., one Sri Vikiho Sema, Asstt. Teacher attached to Directorate of School Education and Mr. Wankong Phom a retired employee of the said Department. The SIT summoned both the persons for questioning. However, both the persons applied for bail in the Court of D.C. (Judicial), Dimapur and they were granted bail. While granting them bail, the said Court further directed them to associate themselves with the investigation. Thereafter Mr. Vikiho appeared before the SIT for interrogation. During interrogation, he admitted that he had in connivance with Mr. A.S. Rangma, former Director of Education issued bogus appointment letters in the Education Department and also have processed about 50 (fifty) appointment orders which were all forged documents. On the basis of this admission made by Sri Vikiho a fresh FIR was lodged and both Mr. Vikiho and Mr. A.S. Rangma were arrested. After the arrest of these two persons, the members of the SIT started receiving threats from the underground factions. A letter issued by the Self Styled Government of the People's Republic of Nagaland was received by the respondent No. 1 by which the leader of the SIT was warned of "stern and capital punishment" if the investigation is not stopped. The threats were also received by the respondent No. 1 through telephone which was also informed to the D.G.P., Nagaland. The D.G.P. in turn had taken up the matter with the State Government as well as with the Chairman, Cease Fire Monitoring Group. The threats were also received by the respondent No. 1 through telephone which was also informed to the D.G.P., Nagaland. The D.G.P. in turn had taken up the matter with the State Government as well as with the Chairman, Cease Fire Monitoring Group. The local press had been following the cases very closely and after the arrest of Mr. Vikiho they wanted to talk to him. Once when Mr. Vikiho was being questioned, some press reporters also arrived and witnessed the interrogation and reported the same in the newspaper. 6. The respondent No. 1 further stated that the threats from the underground faction against him continued unabatedly and ultimately on 1.10.05 one of the staff of the respondent No. 1 was abducted by some miscreants of underground faction. However, he managed to escape from the custody of the abductor in the same night and thereafter he informed the respondent No. 1 that he was directed by the abductors to inform them about the activities and the movement of respondent No. 1 as the abductors were contemplating to liquidate him. When the abovementioned fact was brought to the notice of the D.G.P., Nagaland, the D.G.P. immediately advised the respondent No. 1 to leave Nagaland for his personal safety and security. Immediately on the next day morning i.e. 2.10.05 the respondent No. 1 left Nagaland under extreme mental and physical strain and was temporarily assigned duties including attending a training course in New Delhi. It was under this circumstances the respondent No. 1 could not submit any rejoinder to the abovementioned newspaper report. While he was posted at New Delhi he came to learn about the instant contempt proceedings and when he came back to Nagaland in December, 2005, he received a copy of the contempt petition on 12.12.05 on which day the matter was listed for orders. He immediately rushed to the Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court, however, he was informed that the contempt case was listed before the Principal Bench at Guwahati. When the respondent No. 1 sought permission from the D.G.P., Nagaland and planned for filing his show-cause in the case, the authority summoned him to Delhi immediately, for which again on 20.12.05 he left for Delhi. When the respondent No. 1 sought permission from the D.G.P., Nagaland and planned for filing his show-cause in the case, the authority summoned him to Delhi immediately, for which again on 20.12.05 he left for Delhi. However, in Delhi he developed severe neck pain for which he had to visit AIMS, New Delhi where he was diagnosed with cervical spondylities and was put under medication and advised for strict rest. Hence, in spite of best efforts the respondent No. 1 could not appear before this Court and also could not submit his reply in time. However, he had sent a letter by speed post dated 13.01.06 addressed to the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court expressing his apologies for not being able to attend the court proceedings. 7. An affidavit-in-opposition has also been submitted by respondent No. 1, wherein it has been stated that, so far the statements made in paragraph 1, 2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) & (h) of the report of the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) is concerned, the words used in the newspaper, The Nagaland Page, "as expected and notwithstanding the hard facts that has reportedly established as commented by him, as well as regarding bogus appointment of teachers", have been used in the newspaper in the narrative form and have not been attributed to the respondent No. 1. It has been further stated that when Mr. Vikiho was questioned, he admitted his involvement in the case. The press in Nagaland have been following the bogus appointment scam in the Education Department and other crime stories very closely. During the interrogation of Mr. Vikiho, some of the scribes and NGOs had wanted to meet the accused persons to ascertain the extent of involvement of the accused persons. Since the case has wide ramifications and the involvement of both the factions of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) was suspected, the respondent No. 1 was very cautious in interacting with the media because glorification of achievement under such circumstances can imperil one's life in Nagaland. It was only a coincidence that certain members of the press arrived at the police headquarter when the interrogation of Mr. Vikiho was in progress, although they were not allowed to be there. However, inspite of that some of them asked certain questions to Mr. Vikiho which he answered. It was only a coincidence that certain members of the press arrived at the police headquarter when the interrogation of Mr. Vikiho was in progress, although they were not allowed to be there. However, inspite of that some of them asked certain questions to Mr. Vikiho which he answered. Hence, the question of staging an interview was incorrect and was denied by the respondent No. 1. Further, at no point of time he expressed any opinion to the press about the functioning of the judiciary in Nagaland. The statement that "the police have openly criticized the manner in which the judiciary is functioning and accused it of being the sole custodian and protector of criminals of the state" is a general statement made by the newspaper and it is denied that the same was attributed to the respondent No. 1. 8. It has been further contended that on being asked by the scribe about the grant of bail to the accused persons, the respondent No. 1 informed them about the judgment of the court of Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) and he only narrated the facts of the judgment and did not express any opinion on the judgment. However, it was misconstrued and misinterpreted by the press. This probably could have been the occasion for the scribe to interpret the same as expression of "disappointment" of the respondent No. 1 over the manner of granting bail by the Courts. He further stated that he did not make any comment against the judicial system in the newspaper dated 16.09.05. The reporting in the newspaper was exaggerated and despite the fact that the statements or comments made in the newspaper, which was in fact not made by the respondent No. 1, have tended to project the judiciary in the bad light and have hurt the image and sentiments of the judiciary, for which the respondent No. 1 profusely tenders his apology with folded hands and begs for forgiveness of this Court and further submitted before this Court to exonerate him and accept his unqualified, unreserved and unconditional apologies. 9. So far the respondent No. 2, Mrs. 9. So far the respondent No. 2, Mrs. T. Monalisa Changkija, Editor of the local daily "The Nagaland Page" is concerned, she had submitted her affidavit-in-opposition in the case and at the very outset she tendered her unconditional, unqualified and sincere apologies before this Court for any lapses in her duties and functions as the Editor of "The Nagaland Page", which took place, albeit unintentionally and unwillingly. Regarding the news item including the phrase 'as expected' she stated that it was not intended to malign or in any way disrepute the judiciary. 10. However, on retrospection she finds that the said phrase could have been avoided and the presentation should have been different for which she tenders her apologies sincerely before this Court for the error she committed while editing the said news item. She has further stated that the publication was not intended to bring down the administration of justice or any judicial officer in public esteem. In the reply to the show-cause she has stated that as an Editor she takes full responsibility for editing the news item. She has got highest regard for the Indian Judiciary including the Gauhati High Court and the Subordinate Courts. As a Journalist she always stood for the independence of the Judiciary and have not done anything in her career to impair or undermine the independence or integrity of the judiciary. The language used in the news item should have been more carefully worded and she should have been more mindful while editing. In view of her editorial lapse she tenders her sincere, unconditional and unqualified apology and prays for dropping the instant proceeding against her in the interest of justice. 11. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 submitted another affidavit in response to the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1. Regarding the statements made by the respondent No. 1 that he did not invite any reporter in his chamber, the respondent No. 2 stated that on perusal of the aforesaid statements of the respondent No. 1, she had contacted the reporters of various newspapers to confirm the veracity of the contents of the report on the basis of which the news item was published. The concerned reporters confirmed the veracity of the report and further stated that they were invited by the respondent No. 1 to his office on 15.09.05 in support of which they submitted their individual affidavits. 12. The concerned reporters confirmed the veracity of the report and further stated that they were invited by the respondent No. 1 to his office on 15.09.05 in support of which they submitted their individual affidavits. 12. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings. After hearing the parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings, we have noted that the respondents have tendered their unqualified and unconditional apology at the very outset of the proceeding for punishing the news item in "The Nagaland Page" where same remarks have been made against judiciary though the publication was unintentional. Therefore we do not intend to proceed with the contempt proceeding any further. 13. However, it is expected that in future both the respondents shall be careful not to undertake any illegal exercise to undermine the functioning of the judiciary in any manner, whatsoever. 14. We are extremely sorry to note about the facts brought out to our notice by respondent No. 2 about inviting journalists to attend the police station at the time of interrogation of the accused persons by police during the course of investigation. It is highly objectionable and also highly illegal on the part of the investigation machinery, which ultimately jeopardized the prosecution case. We would like to draw attention of the Government authority to check this type of tendency on the part of the investigation machinery for making public the progress of investigation of the cases. 15. With the above observation this contempt proceeding is closed. 16. Send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland for information.