AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Suo-motu contempt proceedings has been initiated against the accused persons in the light of the order dated 10.09.2012 of a learned Judge of this Court observing that the manner of reporting court proceedings particularly, the proceeding before a Division Bench, of which the learned Judge was also a member in MFA 9783/2011, a matter arising under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, a matrimonial dispute between a differing couple and captions given to the news item, is not only misleading to the actual proceedings that has taken place in the court, but virtually was like distorting the proceedings and tarnishing the image of the judiciary scandalizing or lowering the authority of this Court and virtually amounts to interfering with the administration of justice and therefore, action was warranted in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction of this Court and under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Notice had been issued to the accused persons and they had appeared before this Court on 18.10.2012 represented by Counsel Sri. Ramesh and the said counsel had sought for time to place their version before the Court.
Accused are present before the court today.
Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appears for the accused persons.
Statement of objections on behalf of the accused persons supported by the affidavit of Sri. R.J. Prakasham, the first accused who is the Printer and the Publisher of the publication and the second accused Sri. B. Mahesh, Editor of the Bangalore Mirror Daily newspaper representing on behalf of its proprietor, are placed before the court.
The statement reads as under:-
The Accused Nos. 1 & 2 above named respectfully submit as follows:
The present proceeding has been initiated on account of the publication of the proceedings/orders of the Hon''ble High Court. Division Bench of Dr. Justice Bhakthavatsala and Mrs. Justice Indrakala, with respect to the matrimonial matters which the Bench was hearing, under the caption, "Marriage is not like a public transport system: Judge -Unmarried lawyers are unfit to argue matrimony cases" with a caricature describing the Bench, husband, wife and their Lawyers on 31 August 2012 (the story was published in Bangalore Mirror on 10th August 2012 and not on 31st August 2012 as has inadvertently been mentioned in the note/order of the Hon''ble Judge) and another story captioned "Women suffer in all marriages --You have to adjust, HC Judge to woman who said hubby is adusive" published on 1 September 2012. The accused published the said two articles not with any intention to tarnish the image of the Hon''ble Learned Judges or the Judiciary or to interfere with the administration of Justice or to scandalize the Court. The articles were published to highlight the intricacies of matrimonial disputes and the various ways in which the courts and judges help in reconciliation of the warring couples. It was meant to appreciate the concern shown by the Hon''ble Judges to the institution of marriage. In fact it is the very paper in the front page in a info box under the caption "pro-family Judge", it has been highlighted as to how Dr. Justice Bhakthavatsala who is one of the judges dealing with the matrimonial cases, is radically a pro-family judge who brings about reconciliation between the disputant couples and has greatly appreciated the way in which the Learned Judge has been handling matrimonial cases. The article in question was meant not to demean the Learned Judges, but as matter of appreciation of the enormous efforts that they put in to bring about reconciliation in matrimonial cases. The accused did not anticipate the article being misunderstood. The accused humbly submit that they have highest respect and regard for the Learned Judges and Judiciary. Having regard to the fact that the Learned Judges who were referred to in the articles have felt that the same offends their sensibility and it interferes with the administration of justice, the accused hereby tender and unconditional apology to the learned judges and to this Hon''ble Court.
Wherefore, the Accused Nos. 1 & 2 respectfully prays that this Hon''ble Court be pleased to drop the suo-motu contempt proceedings initiated against them, in the interest of justice and equity.
Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused persons, submits that the accused have realized their mistake; that the publication was not with any design or intention to distort the court proceedings or to bring down the image of the judiciary or to tarnish the fair name of the Judges hearing the matter, but the articles were published to highlight the intricacies of a matrimonial disputes and the various ways in which the courts and judges help for reconciliation and to save a disintegrating marriage and ensure that the couple live together. The intention of the publishers was only to highlight the efforts made on the part of the court for reconciliation and if the publication is in any way treated to be affecting the image of the judiciary, the accused persons tender their unconditional apology to the Court and in this background submits that the criminal contempt initiated against them may be dropped etc.
Sri. Chandra Mouli, learned SPP appearing on behalf of the Advocate General, assisted the court and submits that by the said publication, damage has already been done and a wrong message has been sent to the Society at large and to the readers of the publication in particular and therefore, it is very necessary to set right the said damage in a proper manner i.e. the exact court proceedings and the apology tendered etc. should be reported in its entirety in the very newspaper so that corrective steps taken by the publishers is made known to one and all and to that extent, it can act as a damage control exercise.
We appreciate the submission made by the learned SPP. That even when this Court on consideration of the matter in its proper perspective and taking a very lenient view of the matter as the accused have tendered their unconditional apology, it is just and necessary that the accused ensure that the unconditional apology be reported as the news item in a noticeable manner in the publication and that should be done within ten days from today and thereafter, four sets of the copy of the publication to be filed in the Registry the next day. Subject to the accused persons fulfilling this direction, we in the larger interest of justice and the larger interest of the majesty of the judicial system, drop further proceedings in this contempt petition. The accused persons are discharged.