Durga Oraon vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Heard learned counsel for the applicant respondent no.21 of the writ petition in I.A. No. 109 of 2012, Who is a former Chief Minister of the

State of Jharkhand and has been lodged in jail since November, 2009 after investigation by C.B.I., and Enforcement Directorate(E.D.) Learned

counsel for the applicant/respondent no.21 submitted LA. No. 109 of 2012 requesting this Court to suo-motu take cognizance of the contempt of

Court committed by former M.L.A., Mr. Saryu Roy, who is the author of the book namely ""Madhu Kora Loot Raj"" which was published and

released on 15.01.2012, on the ground that in a subjudice matter, that too of sensitive nature wherein the said respondent is behind the bar, the

said book has been published by Mr. Saryu Roy, to interfere in the process of the Court as well as to prejudice the defence of the respondent

no.21 and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of M.P. Lohia etc. Vs. State of West Bengal and

Another, wherein such practice of publishing article in the newspaper with respect to pending criminal case has been deprecated and caution was

issued to the publisher, editor and journalist, who were responsible for such article, against indulging in such trial by media when the matter was

subjudice.

The applicant/respondent no.21 also prayed for interim order restraining the author publisher from releasing the book titled ""Madhu Kora Loot

Raj"" However the said book has now been released and therefore. learned counsel for the application/respondent no.21 prayed that now the

circulation of the book may be stopped.

We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent no.21 and perused the facts stated in the said

interlocutory application. The applicant has submitted this application but has not annexed a copy of the said book which may not be in the

possession of the applicant because it was not released when this application was submitted. However, now the said book has been released and

yet a copy of the said book has not been placed on record by the applicant/respondent no.21.

Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that forming an opinion by a person on the basis of certain materials available and conveying his

opinion is valuable right of a person which is freedom of speech and expression protected by Constitution of India which cannot be curtailed unless

a strong case is made out. Every publication cannot interference in investigation or trial. We have also considered the judgment of the Hon''ble

Supreme Court delivered in the case of M.P. Lohia Vrs. State of W.B. and another(supra) wherein, in fact situation, Hon''ble Supreme Court has

condemned the media trial which likely to interfere in trial and such media trials, in various other orders also by the Courts have been normally

deprecated. But at the same time, doing some research work (as per the ability and knowledge of a person) and publishing in the form of a book,

which book contain the facts and views according to perception of that person. Unless directly interference in the process of investigation or trial,

cannot be prohibited from publication because of the reason that the perception of one person, whose perception may be wrong, can not influence

the trial of the case or Court proceedings and the Court or witness. Neither the witnesses can give evidence on the basis of view and opinion of

authors nor the Court can admit evidence based upon others'' opinion or views. The Court will look into the evidence on record and are not sewed

by view of some one.

At this juncture, we may point out here that in the application submitted by respondent no. 21, no factual foundation has been laid down to show

that how publishing of said book will affect the fair trial or investigation or will influence the witness. Therefore, in each and every case for each and

every publication, such type of objection cannot be sustained. We may further point out that it is not a case of media trial which normally can be

done by even one newspaper or one electronic media or may be large number of newspapers and large number of news channels by repeated

programmes and articles, shown or published by taking help from one clue or other clues, based on rum ours, may be a case where such practice

can be deprecated in view of the fact that there may not be complete record of such material with the person and he may not know from which of

the repeated articles or news items, one witness may have been influenced. Here in this case, it is said that a book has been published and is,

obviously put for sale on price which will be purchased by a class of person who can form his own opinion and such publications are not casual

publications. In present case publication is not an act of repetition but is only an opinion of the author of the said book given in one book.

We may further observe that criminal trials are decided by evidence given in a case and we have full faith in. the administration of justice system

in India which is not influenced by any such abstract consideration of publication and canvassing for and against any body involved in criminal

cases. The publication of one book by one author and that too in a case where a criminal case and E.D. case was registered in the light of the

directions issued in this writ petition filed as back as in the year 2008 and applicant/respondent no.21 is behind the bar since the year 2009, much

time has passed and several news were published in the various newspapers, therefore, at this belated stage, if one more publication is there,

neither it amounts to interference in the administration of justice or obstacle in doing the justice by the Court nor it is lowering down the prestige of

the Court Therefore, no case is made out for initiation of contempt proceedings.

So far as seeking restraint-order against the circulation of the said book is concerned, we do not find any justification for the reasons mentioned

above and further more, there are laws in existence to confiscate any publication and if the applicant/respondent no.21 is having a feeling that he is

defamed, he may take recourse in accordance with law but so far as expression of the opinion is concerned, it has not been proved to be an

interference with administration of justice. We are of the considered opinion that even no case for stoppage of the publication or its circulation is

made out. Therefore, I.A. No. 109 of 2012 is dismissed but however, of no cost.