The Hindu : Contempt case: strong exception taken to Registrar-General's statement

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Feb 14, 2003

National

National

Contempt case: strong exception taken to Registrar-General's statement

By Our Staff Reporter

BANGALORE FEB. 13. The newspapers facing suo motu criminal contempt of court action in the Karnataka High Court in connection with the "Mysore episode'' today took strong exception to the statement by the Registrar-General (RG) that their (newspapers') pleas to call for the production of certain documents were an attempt to delay the proceedings and termed the same as "wholly uncalled for.''

Appearing for The Hindu and Vijaya Karnataka, senior counsel, Anil Diwan, said the RG did not deny the possession of documents sought for by the newspapers. The RG had stated in his statement of objections that the "documents sought were not necessary at this juncture to adjudicate the issue.'' He further stated that the plea to summon documents was premature and was intended to delay the proceedings.

Making clear the legal position, Mr. Diwan said the accused had every right to seek material in the possession of the prosecution even before the framing of charges. It was for the court to decide whether the material sought for was necessary for adjudication. However, the court could not conclude that the material sought did not throw any light on the issue without verifying the material.

Mr. Diwan submitted that denial to furnish material in one's possession could lead to the adverse inference that the material contained vital information in favour of the accused. The newspapers had been accused of committing contempt and if the court refused their plea to summon the documents, a fair hearing would be denied to them.

While Mr. Diwan sought the communications between the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) pertaining to the proposed transfer of the three judges, other publications sought the report of the committee appointed by the CJI and the first report by the Registrar (Vigilance) on the incident.

When the court pointed out to Mr. Diwan that the RG would not possess the committee report, counsel said the RG did not deny the same and thus it should be deemed that he possessed the same.

Mr. Diwan submitted that mere aberrations in reporting an incident with a view to upholding the majesty of the judiciary could not be construed as contempt. Also, contempt proceedings should not be used to protect individual cases. "We want that any judge should not be obligated to any other machinery of the Government (in an attempt to shield himself from being exposed).''

Earlier in the day, A.K.Subbaiah, who appeared for the Lankesh Patrike weekly, termed the proceedings as arbitrary and initiated without an application of the mind. The proceedings were initiated without specifying which part of the publication amounted to contempt, violating the mandate of Section 15(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The RG should have understood the articles first and then moved the motion.

When his attention was drawn to the heading of a Kannada article — `Mylordgala manmathaleele', Mr. Subbaiah said the English translation of the heading was "romantic acts of Mylords.'' It did not mean "sexual orgy of Mylords'' as translated by the RG. `Manmatha' was a mythological personality known for romance, he said adding that using the word `Manmathaleele' did not amount to contempt.

Rajagopal, appearing for Outlook, submitted that the publication carried an article discussing ways to bring in a mechanism for the Judiciary to prevent deviant behaviour. There was only a reference to the Karnataka incident, which did not amount to contempt.

Santosh Mathew, appearing for The Week, submitted that the magazine presented only the various views expressed by newspapers and individuals on the "Mysore episode.'' He sought the production of the report submitted to the CJI by the committee.

Senior counsel S.Ramadas, continuing his submissions, said the then CJI, G.B. Pattanaik, himself had stated in an interview to Outlook that he was gathering information from his own sources. Thus, the newspapers' stand was vindicated.

The court adjourned the hearing to February 18 and requested the amicus curiae to enlighten the court on the newpapers' pleas seeking certain documents.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National