JUDGMENT M.Y.EQBAL, T.S.SIVAGNANAM ( 1. ) THE petitioner is a practising advocate in the High Court of Madras and is also the President of the Madras High Court Practising advocates? Association. He has filed this pro bono publico for a writ of mandamus to direct the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, the first respondent herein, to issue suitable orders/directions to the print and electronic media not to publish any matter relating to the administration of the High Court without obtaining proper permission from the Registrar General and also not to publish any matter till the Court passes any order therein. ( 2. ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the news item flashed in the New INdian Express on 20.3.2010 under the caption "Judicial INterference in Advocate Body Flayed" prompted him to file this writ petition with a view to curb the interference of Press in the matter of administration of justice. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid news item related to a representation signed by about 100 advocates submitted to the Hon?ble the Chief Justice with certain requests, which cannot and ought not to be published in any newspaper since it was purely between the petitioner and the judiciary, and the newspaper has no right to publish it unless the Registry of the High Court releases it for publication. It is stated that the petitioner had been impleaded in a civil suit, viz. C.S. No. 301 of 2005 and was pleading therein and publishing the said letter, when the matter is pending adjudication before this Court is direct interference in the administration of justice. The petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to file an affidavit about the source of the letter and also produce a copy of the memorandum obtained before the Court for further directions. According to the petitioner, the Press has got some freedom and immunity, but it cannot be extended to the extent of interfering with the judiciary, which is the temple of justice, and it shall not be disturbed by the Press at any cost. According to the petitioner, the Press has got some freedom and immunity, but it cannot be extended to the extent of interfering with the judiciary, which is the temple of justice, and it shall not be disturbed by the Press at any cost. It is stated that the Press has got every freedom to publish only those orders passed by the Court, but the Press has no right to publish any matter before it is admitted or dismissed by the Court, and publishing the matter before the Court passes any order is unappreciable and it will be a dangerous move to damage the temple of justice. This attitude, according to him, has certainly to be nipped in the bud. ( 3. ) IT is further stated that upon filing any petition, the Registry assigns a S.R. Number to a case and immediately after getting the S.R. Number, copy of the petition is given to the Press, which also publishes the matter. In several cases, after assigning of the S.R. Number, the cases have not at all reached the Court for orders. But somehow, in the name of High Court, the matter is appearing in the media. Therefore, he requests that the Press - both the print and the screen media - should be restrained from publishing any matter before it reaches the Court and any order is passed therein. ( 4. ) ON the aforesaid premises, the following directions are sought for by the petitioner, which according to him are necessary for safeguarding the judiciary: (i) The Press should get permission from the Registrar General before publishing any matter, letter, memorandum etc. submitted to the Hon?ble the Chief Justice or any other Hon?ble Judges of the High Court, (ii) Till the Court passes any order in any writ petition, civil suit, original petition etc., the Press shall not publish the contents thereof. The 3rd respondent in his counter affidavit prima facie questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present writ petition as a pro bono publico. It is stated that the directions sought for in the writ petition are all matters concerning the administration of the High Court, and for maintaining such administration, no judicial order is required from the Court. It is further alleged that many advocates, including the petitioner, used to supply information to the press for their publicity. It is stated that the directions sought for in the writ petition are all matters concerning the administration of the High Court, and for maintaining such administration, no judicial order is required from the Court. It is further alleged that many advocates, including the petitioner, used to supply information to the press for their publicity. Unless such behaviour on the part of the advocates is forbidden, it will be difficult to stop the Press from publishing such kind of materials. It is stated that unless the publication of such materials is forbidden by a specific statute, or under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India as a reasonable restriction, the Press has no necessity to get the prior permission from the Registrar General or any other competent authority to publish any news item. It is further stated that the Press is in no way interfering with the administration of the Court by publishing such news items. It is finally stated that the news item under the caption "Judicial Interference in Advocate Body Flayed" published on 20.3.2010 in the New Indian Express, which was also mentioned in the affidavit of the writ petitioner, was published only after ascertaining the genuineness of the records, and it only projected the views of the aggrieved advocates. ( 5. ) IN the rejoinder to the counter, the petitioner - association contended that it has every right to file the present writ petition as a pro bono public, as it is a registered association with all attributes of a legal person. The petitioner denied the allegation made in the counter that the petitioner also used to give materials for its publication, before the Court passes any order in a particular case. It is stated that the letter addressed to the Hon?ble Chief Justice by a group of advocates, with respect to a pending matter before another Division Bench, is not a public document, and the judicial decorum requires the press to abstain from publishing such material. Otherwise, it will cause unnecessary embarrassment to the persons concerned, and unwarranted aspersion may be caused about the higher judiciary. It is stated that before publishing such material, the press ought to have verified the same with the Registrar General. It is stated that mindless publication about the Courts and Judges would tend to undermine the public faith on the judiciary. It is stated that before publishing such material, the press ought to have verified the same with the Registrar General. It is stated that mindless publication about the Courts and Judges would tend to undermine the public faith on the judiciary. Finally, a further direction was sought for in the rejoinder directing the Registrar General to initiate proceedings under Section 195 and 340 Section 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C and also contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution against the 2nd and 3rd respondents. ( 6. ) WE have heard Mr. Elephant Rajendran, Party-in-Person and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Before going into the merits of the contentions raised in the writ petition, we would like to discuss the rights and privileges of the press and media as guaranteed under the Constitution India and the other laws, for the time being in force. Indisputably, freedom of press is a part of the freedom of speech and expression, which is a fundamental right as envisaged in Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. Freedom of press has always been regarded as an essential pre-requisite of a democratic form of Government. It has been regarded as a necessity for the mental health and the well-being of the society. It is also considered necessary for the full development of the personality of the individual. It is said that without the freedom of press truth cannot be ascertained. ( 7. ) IN the case of Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896 the validity of Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act, 1956 was challenged on the ground of violative of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of INdia. The Supreme Court while discussing the scope of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution observed: (para -10 at page 900) "10. The test of reasonableness has been laid down by this Court in State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 : 1952 SCR 597 in the following words: It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard or general pattern, of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict.? This dictum has been adopted and applied by this Court in several subsequent cases. The surrounding circumstances in which the impugned law came to be enacted, the underlying purpose of the enactment and the extent and the urgency of the evil sought to be remedied have already been adverted to. It cannot be overlooked that the Press is a mighty institution wielding enormous powers which are expected to be exercised for the protection and the good of the people but which, may conceivably be abused and exercised for anti-social purposes by exciting the passions and prejudices of a Section of the people against another Section and thereby disturbing the public order and tranquillity or in support of a policy which may be of a subversive character. The powerful influence of the newspapers, for good or evil, on the minds of the readers, the wide sweep of their reach, the modern facilities for their swift circulation to territories, distant and near, must all enter into the judicial verdict and the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed upon the Press has to be tested against this background. It is certainly a serious encroachment on the valuable and cherished right to freedom of speech and expression if a newspaper is prevented from publishing its own views or the views of its correspondents relating to or concerning what may be the burning topic of the day. Our social interest ordinarily demands the free propagation and interchange of views but circumstances may arise when the social interest in public order may require a reasonable subordination of the social interest in free speech and expression to the needs of our social interest in public order. Our Constitution recognises this necessity and has attempted to strike a balance between the two social interests. It permits the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of public order and on the freedom of carrying on trade or business in the interest of the general public. Our Constitution recognises this necessity and has attempted to strike a balance between the two social interests. It permits the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of public order and on the freedom of carrying on trade or business in the interest of the general public. Therefore, the crucial question must always be: Are the restrictions imposed on the exercise of the rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) reasonable in view of all the surrounding circumstances? IN other words, are the restrictions reasonably necessary in the interest of public order under Article 19(2) or in the interest of the general public under Article 19(6)?" ( 8. ) IN Express Newspaper Limited v. Union of INdia AIR 1958 SC 578 : 1961-I-LLJ-339 the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech comprehends the freedom of press, and the freedom of speech and press are fundamental personal rights of the citizens, and freedom of press rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic source is essential to the welfare of the public, but the press is, however, not immune from certain restrictions for the welfare of the State. The Supreme Court, in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1987) 4 SCC 373 , observed as follows: "7. In the case of Prabha Butt v. Union of India and Others, 1982 Cri LJ 148, this Court was considering the claim of a journalist to interview two condemned prisoners awarding execution. The learned Chief Justice said: Before considering the merits of the application, we would like to observe that the Constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, which includes the freedom of the press, is not an absolute right, nor indeed does it confer any right on the press to have an unrestricted access to means of information. The press is entitled to exercise its freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter which does not invade the rights of other citizens and which does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency and morality. But in the instant case, the right claimed by the petitioner is not the right to express any particular view or opinion but the? But in the instant case, the right claimed by the petitioner is not the right to express any particular view or opinion but the? right to means of information through the medium of an interview of the two prisoners who are sentenced to death. No such right can be claimed by the press unless in the first instance, the person sought to be interviewed is willing to be interviewed. The existence of a free press does not imply or spell out any legal obligation on the citizens to supply there is under Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No data has been made available to us on the basis of which it would be possible for us to say that the two prisoners are ready and willing to be interviewed .... Dealing with the matter further learned Chief Justice stated: Rule 549(4) of the Manual for the Superintendence and Management of Jails, which is applicable to Delhi, provides that every prisoner under a sentence of death shall be allowed such interviews and other communications with his relatives, friends and legal advisers as the Superintendent thinks reasonable. Journalists or newspapermen are not expressly referred to in Clause (4) but that does not mean that they can always and without good reasons be denied the opportunity to interview a condemned prisoner. If in any given case, there are weighty reasons for doing so, which we expect will always be recorded in writing, the interview may appropriately be refused. But no such consideration has been pressed upon us and therefore we do not see any reason why newspapermen who can broadly, and we suppose without great fear of contradiction, be termed as friends of the society be denied the right of an interview under Clause (4) of the Rule 549." ( 9. ) IN the case of Smt. Prabha Dutt v. Union of INdia, AIR 1982 SC 6 : (1982) 1 SCC 1 the question with regard to right of press to interview convicts in jail came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. While considering the merit of the case, their Lordships observed: "2. ) IN the case of Smt. Prabha Dutt v. Union of INdia, AIR 1982 SC 6 : (1982) 1 SCC 1 the question with regard to right of press to interview convicts in jail came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. While considering the merit of the case, their Lordships observed: "2. Before considering the merits of the application, we would like to observe that the Constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, which includes the freedom of the Press, is not an absolute right, nor indeed does it confer any right on the Press to have an unrestricted access to means of information. The Press is entitled to exercise its freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter which does not invade the rights of other citizens and which does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of INdia, the security of the State, public order, decency and morality. But in the instant case, the right claimed by the petitioner is not the right to express any particular view or opinion but the right to means of information through the medium of an interview of the two prisoners who are sentenced to death. No such right can be claimed by the Press unless in the first instance, the person sought to be interviewed is willing to be interviewed. The existence of a free Press does not imply or spell out any legal obligation on the citizens to supply information to the Press, such, for example, as there is under Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No data has been made available to us on the basis of which it would be possible for us to say that the two prisoners are ready and willing to be interviewed. We have, however, no data either that they are not willing to be interviewed and, indeed, if it were to appear that the prisoners themselves do not desire to be interviewed, it would have been impossible for us to pass an order directing that the petitioner should be allowed to interview them. While we are on this aspect of the matter, we cannot overlook that the petitioner has been asking for permission to interview the prisoners right since the President of INdia rejected the petitions filed by the prisoners for commutation of their sentence to imprisonment for life. While we are on this aspect of the matter, we cannot overlook that the petitioner has been asking for permission to interview the prisoners right since the President of INdia rejected the petitions filed by the prisoners for commutation of their sentence to imprisonment for life. We are proceeding on the basis that the prisoners are willing to be interviewed." ( 10. ) IN Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose, AIR 1953 SC 75 , it was held that the Supreme Court is never oversensitive to public criticism; but when there is danger of grave mischief being done in the matter of administration of justice, the animadversion cannot be ignored and viewed with placid equanimity. The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong-headed are permitted to err therein; provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men. In Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 10 it was held that, if the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law by such Court, it can be punished summarily as contempt is a wrong done to the public. It will be injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the Court?s administration of justice, or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. It is well established that it is not necessary to prove affirmatively that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory statement; it is enough if it is likely, or tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of law. ( 11. It is well established that it is not necessary to prove affirmatively that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory statement; it is enough if it is likely, or tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of law. ( 11. ) IN Re Harijai Singh v. IN Re Vijay Kumar AIR 1997 SC 73 : (1996) 6 SCC 466 their Lordships held: (paras - 9 and 10 at pp. 473-474) "9. It is thus needless to emphasise that a free and healthy press is indispensable to the functioning of a true democracy. IN a democratic set-up, there has to be an active and intelligent participation of the people in all spheres and affairs of their community as well as the State. It is their right to be kept informed about current political, social, economic and cultural life as well as the burning topics and important issues of the day in order to enable them to consider and form broad opinion about the same and the way in which they are being managed, tackled and administered by the Government and its functionaries. To achieve this objective, the people need a clear and truthful account of events, so that they may form their own opinion and offer their own comments and viewpoints on such matters and issues and select their further course of action. The primary function, therefore, of the press is to provide comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of the country?s political, social, economic and cultural life. It has an educative and mobilising role to play. It plays an important role in moulding public opinion and can be an instrument of social change. It may be pointed out here that Mahatma Gandhi in his autobiography has stated that one of the objectives of the newspaper is to understand the proper feelings of the people and give expression to it; another is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments; and the third is to fearlessly express popular defects. It, therefore, turns out that the press should have the right to present anything which it thinks fit for publication. 10. It, therefore, turns out that the press should have the right to present anything which it thinks fit for publication. 10. But it has to be remembered that this freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of speech and expression would amount to an uncontrolled licence. If it were wholly free even from reasonable restraints it would lead to disorder and anarchy. The freedom is not to be misunderstood as to be a press free to disregard its duty to be responsible. IN fact, the element of responsibility must be present in the conscience of the journalists. IN an organised society, the rights of the press have to be recognised with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality and such other things must be safeguarded. The protective cover of press freedom must not be thrown open for wrong doings. If a newspaper publishes what is improper, mischievously false or illegal and abuses its liberty it must be punished by Court of law. The editor of a newspaper or a journal has a greater responsibility to guard against untruthful news and publications for the simple reason that his utterances have a far greater circulation and impact than the utterances of an individual and by reason of their appearing in print, they are likely to be believed by the ignorant. That being so, certain restrictions are essential even for preservation, of the freedom of the press itself. To quote from the report of Mons Lopez to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations "If it is true that human progress is impossible without freedom, then it is no less true that ordinary human progress is impossible without a measure of regulation and discipline". It is the duty of a true and responsible journalist to strive to inform the people with accurate and impartial presentation of news and their views after dispassionate evaluation of the facts and information received by them and to be published as a news item. The presentation of the news should be truthful, objective and comprehensive without any false and distorted expression." ( 12. ) FOLLOWING the above decision, in State v. Charulata Joshi, AIR 1999 SC 1379 : (1999) 4 SCC 65 , the Supreme Court held as follows: "3. The presentation of the news should be truthful, objective and comprehensive without any false and distorted expression." ( 12. ) FOLLOWING the above decision, in State v. Charulata Joshi, AIR 1999 SC 1379 : (1999) 4 SCC 65 , the Supreme Court held as follows: "3. Coming to the second limb of the objections raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, there cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the order granting permission to the Press to interview an under-trial cannot be passed mechanically without application of mind. Inasmuch as the Court granting permission will have to weigh the competing interest between the right of a Press and the right of the Authorities prohibiting such interview in the interest of administration of justice. The Court, therefore, before disposing of an application seeking permission to interview an under-trial in jail must notice the jail authorities and find out whether there can be any justifiable and weighty reasons denying such interviews. The Court also should try to find out whether any restrictions or prohibitions are contained in the Jail Manual. The so called permission granted by the Court would be subject to the relevant Rules and Regulations contained in the jail Manual dealing with the rights and liabilities of the under-trial prisoners. In PrabhaDutt v. Union of India (supra) this Court had observed that the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression conferred by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution which includes the Freedom of Press is not an absolute right and does not confer any right on the Press to have an unrestricted access to means of information. The Press is entitled to exercise its freedom of speech and expression by publishing a matter which does not invade the rights of other citizens and which does not violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency and morality. The Court also in the aforesaid case expressed the opinion that the Press must first obtain the willingness of the person sought to be interviewed and no Court can pass any order if the person to be interviewed expresses his unwillingness. The Court also in the aforesaid case expressed the opinion that the Press must first obtain the willingness of the person sought to be interviewed and no Court can pass any order if the person to be interviewed expresses his unwillingness. It was also indicated in the aforesaid judgment that the so called right of the Press which it obtains on the basis of a permission from the Court would be subject to the prohibitions of the Jail Manual." It has been repeatedly held that the rule of law is the foundation of democratic society. The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. The confidence, which the people repose in the Courts of justice, cannot be allowed to be tarnished, diminished or wiped out by the contemptuous behaviour of any person. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the Court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded. It is for this purpose that the Courts are entrusted with extraordinary powers of punishing for contempt of Court those, who indulge in acts, which tend to undermine the authority of law and bring it in disrepute and disrespect by scandalising it. When the Court exercises this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. ( 13. ) THE primary function, therefore, of the press is to provide comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of the country?s political, social, economic and cultural life. It has an educative and mobilising role to play. It plays an important role in moulding public opinion and can be an instrument of social change. ( 14. ( 13. ) THE primary function, therefore, of the press is to provide comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of the country?s political, social, economic and cultural life. It has an educative and mobilising role to play. It plays an important role in moulding public opinion and can be an instrument of social change. ( 14. ) BUT it has to be remembered that this freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of the speech and expression would amount to an uncontrolled licence. If it were wholly free even from reasonable restraints it would lead to disorder and anarchy. The freedom is not to be misunderstood as to be a press free to disregard its duty to be responsible. In fact, the element of responsibility must be present in the conscience of the journalists. In an organised society, the rights of the press have to be recognised with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality and such other things must be safeguarded. The protective cover of press freedom must not be thrown open for wrong doings. It is the duty of a true and responsible journalist to strive to inform the people with accurate and impartial presentation of news and their views after dispassionate evaluation of the facts and information received by them and to be published as a news item. The presentation of the news should be truthful, objective and comprehensive without any false and distorted expression, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of In Re Harijai Singh v. In Re Vijay Kumar (supra). ( 15. ) IF a newspaper publishes what is improper, mischievously false or illegal and abuses its liberty, it must be punished by Court of Law. The editor of a newspaper or a journal has a greater responsibility to guard against untruthful news and publications for the simple reason that his utterances have a far greater circulation and impact than the utterances of an individual and by reason of their appearing in print, they are likely to be believed by the ignorant. ( 16. ) IN Rajendra Sail v. Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association, AIR 2005 SC 2473 : (2005) 6 SCC 109 , the Supreme Court observed: "32. ( 16. ) IN Rajendra Sail v. Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association, AIR 2005 SC 2473 : (2005) 6 SCC 109 , the Supreme Court observed: "32. The reach of media, in present times of 24 hours channels, is to almost every nook and corner of the world. Further, large number of people believe as correct which appears in media, print or electronic. It is also necessary to always bear in mind that the judiciary is the last resort of redressal for resolution of disputes between State and subject, and high and low. The confidence of people in the institute of judiciary is necessary to be preserved at any cost. That is its main asset. Loss of confidence in institution of judiciary would be end of rule of law. Therefore, any act which has such tendency deserves to be firmly curbed. For rule of law and orderly society, a free responsible press and independent judiciary are both indispensable. Both have to be, therefore, protected. 37. The power and reach of the media, both print as well as electronic is tremendous. It has to be exercised in the interest of the public good. A free press is one of very important pillar on which the foundation of rule of law and democracy rests. At the same time, it is also necessary that freedom must be exercised with utmost responsibility. It must not be abused. It should not be treated as a licence to denigrate other institutions. Sensationalism is not unknown. Any attempt to make news out of nothing just for the sake of sensationalism has to be deprecated. When there is temptation to sensationalise, particularly at the expense of those institutions or persons who from the nature of their office cannot reply, such temptation has to be resisted, and if not, it would be the task of the law to give clear guidance as to what is and what is not permitted." Now, we will consider the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition. The first relief sought for is the issuance of a direction to the press to take permission from the Registrar General before publishing any letter or memorandum submitted before the Chief Justice or any of the Judges of this Court. The first relief sought for is the issuance of a direction to the press to take permission from the Registrar General before publishing any letter or memorandum submitted before the Chief Justice or any of the Judges of this Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that a representation was given to the Chief Justice by some of the lawyers, and when the same was pending for consideration, the press has published its contents in the newspapers. How a blanket direction can be issued to the press not to publish in the newspaper about the representation given to the Chief Justice, if the press is provided copies of such representation by the lawyers themselves or by the parties concerned. ( 17. ) THE second grievance of the petitioner is that when a writ petition is filed and SR Number is assigned to such writ petition, the information reaches the press and immediately it comes in the newspaper. On this grievance also we only reiterate that after the filing of the writ petition, if a copy thereof is supplied to the press, informing that such and such writ petition has been filed, then how and under what authority of law Court shall injunct the press from publishing news about the filing of such a writ petition. It is a different thing that the press on receipt of such information should verify the correctness of the same and then publish it in the newspapers. ( 18. ) THE next relief sought for by the petitioner is that a writ of mandamus or a direction be issued to the Registrar General of this Court for issuing suitable orders or directions to the press not to publish any matter relating to the High Court administration without the permission of the Registrar General. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, we find some merit in the said prayer made by the writ petitioner. THEre are many matters directly relating to the internal administration of the High Court and the subordinate judiciary in the State of Tamil Nadu. THEre are matters concerning the service conditions, and the departmental enquiries of the judicial officers and the staff of the High Court as well as the subordinate judiciary, which are pending on the administrative side of the High Court. THEre are matters concerning the service conditions, and the departmental enquiries of the judicial officers and the staff of the High Court as well as the subordinate judiciary, which are pending on the administrative side of the High Court. On such administrative matters, a heavy responsibility lay on the press and the media to restrain themselves from publishing such pending administrative matters, if the disclosure of such pending matters damage the dignity, decorum and honour of any individual Judge or members of the judiciary. A good amount of responsibility is cast upon the press and media towards the society to see that the public order, decency and morality are safeguarded. However, it is made clear that there shall not be any restriction to the press and media to publish in the newspaper any decision taken on the administrative side of the High Court against any person after such decision is circulated to the person concerned. Last but not the least, we reiterate what has been held by the Supreme Court that the duty of a true and responsible journalist is to inform the people with accurate and impartial presentation of news after dispassionate evolution of facts and information received by him. Such news may not be published which tend to create apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the judicial officers. Elements of responsibility must be present in the minds of the journalists, if any news is published without knowing the authenticity, and the same will be improper and will not be healthy for maintaining the rule of law. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.