The Hindu : `Contempt proceedings to protect public interest'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Feb 19, 2003

National

National

`Contempt proceedings to protect public interest'

By Our Staff Reporter

BANGALORE FEB. 18. Publications facing suo motu criminal contempt of court proceedings in the Karnataka High Court in relation to the "Mysore Episode,'' submitted on Tuesday that the alleged contemptuous news reports did not target the judiciary or judges, but "certain individuals who had misbehaved.''

Questioning whether judges enjoyed any special privilege or immunity vis-a-vis a common man, except certain protection offered by the Constitution, counsel for The Times of India said that the judges were also governed by laws governing the common man.

To attract contempt proceedings, the news reports should have either scandalised the judiciary or interfered with judicial functioning or with the administration of justice.

However, no such inference could be drawn from them, counsel said.

Responding to the Registrar-General's objections to producing certain documents sought for by the publications, counsel quoted a case law in which it was held that the court had power to summon any document at any stage.

He said that the Supreme Court had held that summoning any document was "a rule of justice and not a rule of procedure.''

Counsel for the Registrar-General said that the publications could not file an application seeking summoning of any document.

Relying upon the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court of Karnataka Contempt of Courts Rules and a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in 1970, counsel argued that the accused could not call for any document to see whether charges were framed or not.

He said affidavits supporting applications seeking documents did not mention their relevance to the proceedings. He argued that truth was not a defence and submitted that the contempt proceedings had been initiated to protect public interest.

He said the only issue in question was whether the news reports amounted to contempt of court or not.

He said that the press had no better freedom than an ordinary citizen.

The court adjourned the case to March 17 for orders on whether or not charges should be framed against the publications.

However, the court did not express any opinion on the plea of the publications to pass orders on the applications seeking summoning of documents.

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

National