In Re:
Harijai Singh & Anr [1996] INSC 1149 (17 September 1996)
Kuldip
Singh, Faizan Uddin Faizan Uddin, J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
When
this Court was seized of, Writ Petition filed by the "Common Cause, A
Registered Society" with regard to the alleged misuse and arbitrary
exercise of discretionary power by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry in
relation to the allotment of retail outlets for Petroleum products and L.P.G.
Dealership, from discretionary quota, a news item in box with a caption
"Pumps for all" was published in the daily newspaper "The Sunday
Tribune" dated March 10, 1996 which is reproduced hereunder :- Pumps for
all ! Believe it or not, Petroleum Minister Satish Sharma has made 17
allotments of petrol pumps and gas agencies to relatives of Prime Minister Narashimha
Rao out of his discretionary quota. Allotments in this category can only be
made to members of the weaker sections of society and war windows, yet five of
the Prime Minister's grandchildren have been favoured as have been five of his
nephews from the family of V. Rajeshwar Rao. MP Besides, three wards of his
brother Manohar Rao, two relatives of P. Venkata Rao and the son of AVR
Krishnamurthy whose family lives with the Prime Minister have allocated petrol
pumps and gas agencies. Similarly, Rao's daughter, Vani Devi, who is the
official hostess has a petrol pump allotted in the name of her daughter, Jyotiriyal.
she was also favoured by the Airport Authority of India which released a prime
piece of land located in Begumpet area to her for just Rs. 3 lakh.
The
market value is stated to be over Rs 1 crore. It has been registered in the
name of Shri Jai Balaji Agency, However, the Prime Minister's kin are not the
only ones who have benefitted from these allotments. Two children of Lok Sabha
Speaker Shivraj Patil have also been favoured as have the two sons of a Senior
Judge of the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the Supreme Court had recently asked
the government to supply a list of all discretionary allotments made by the
Ministry. However, the minister has so far managed to withhold this crucial
document. But is has hardly helped as the list has been leaked by Sharma's own
men." A similar news item was also published in the Hindi Newspaper
"Punjab Kesari" dated March 10, 1986 the English translation of which is as follows :- 17 Poor
Members of the family of the Prime Minister Out of the short out ways of
becoming rich, one way is to obtain Petrol Pump or Gas Agency. But the power to
allot the same lies with the Petroleum Minister. He has the discretionary
powers to allot petrol pump or gas agencies in charity. This power of doing
such charities has been entrusted in some special cases which include the
people belonging to the poor, backward classes and the wives of those who were
killed in the war.
But
all those persons to whom these agencies have been allotted by the Petroleum
minister Capt. Satish Sharma turned out to be a soam in itself. The matter was
referred to the Supreme Court in which the Government was directed to submit a
list. The Petroleum Minister suppressed the list. The list was demanded in the
Parliament. But the list was not presented. Now the list has been leaked out
from the Petroleum Ministry. Believe it, there are 17 relatives of the Prime
Minister Narsimaha Rao in that list. Five persons are his grandsons and
grand-daughters. Five others are the members of the family of V. Rajeshwar Rao.
He is a Member of Parliament and the relative of the Prime Minister, Manohar Rao
is the brother of Narsihmha Rao. These agencies were also allotted to his three
children. There is one more relative - P. Venkatrao. Two allottees have been
found in his family. One is A.V.R. Krishna Murty who resides in the residence
of the Prime Minister. He has also been allotted the Agency at the Bolaram Road
at Sikandrabad. But the most interested story is of Jyotirmal Narasimha Rao is
his real grand maternal father.
The
authorized hostess of the Prime Minister's residence is Vani Devi who is the
daughter of the Prime Minister and mother of Jyotirmal.
Their
agency is situated at Begumpet under the name style "Sri Sai Balaji
Agency". The land of 2000 sq. m. of the Indian Aviation Authority was
given to Shri Sai balaji agency merely for rupees three lakhs. Presently, the
cost of this land is more than one crore.
The
Petroleum Minister also allotted the agencies to the two children of Shivraj Patil,
Speaker of the Lok Sabha. You should not be astonished if you find the names of
two sons of Mr. Ahmadi, Chief Justice of India in the list of the discretionary
quota. Otherwise the names of such poor and backward persons are also available
in this list.
Since,
the aforesaid news items contained an allegation that two sons of a senior
judge of the Supreme Court and two sons of the Chief Justice of India were also
favoured with the allotments of petrol outlets from the dictionary quota of
Ministry and, therefore, by our Order dated March 13, 1996. We issued a notice
to the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to file an affidavit
offering his comments and response to the facts stated in the aforesaid two
news items. Pursuant to the said notice, Shri Vijay L. Kelkar, Secretary in the
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, filed his affidavit
dated March 20, 1988 stating that since the allegation regarding allotment
under the discretionary quota in favour of two sons of a senior judge of the
Supreme Court are vague and in the absence of specific names, it is difficult
to deal with the same. Thereafter when the matter again came up before this Court
on March 21, 1988 Shri Altab Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General stated
that he would look into the records and file further affidavit of a reasonable
officer giving response to the other allegations regarding relationship of
VIPs. We therefore, granted time for the purpose and at the same time directed
the relevant files to be produced in Court. It was thereafter that Shri Devi Dayal,
Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of
India filed his affidavit dated March 28, 1996. In paragraph 5 of his affidavit, he made a categorical
statement that there is no allotment in favour of son/sons of any Supreme Court
judge. After verification of records and affidavits referred to above. We found
that the news items referred to above patently false and, therefore, by our
Order dated March 27, 1996, we initiated contempt proceedings against the
Editors and Publishers of the daily "The Sunday Tribune", Chandigarh
and "The Punjab Kesari" Jalandhar and issued notices to them to show
cause why they may not be punished for the contempt of this Court.
In
response to the contempt notice, Shri Hari Jaisingh, the Editor of 'The Sunday
Tribune' filed an affidavit dated June 24, 1996 admitting that the news item
published in "The Sunday Tribune" dated March 10, 1996 with regard to
the allotment of petrol outlets to the sons of senior Judge of the Supreme
Court was not correct and, therefore, tendered unqualified apology and has
prayed for mercy and pardon. He has stated that it was an inadvertent
publication made bonafide on the faith that the item supplied by an experienced
journalist. Shri Dina Nath Misra, who is generally reliable would not be
factually incorrect.
It has
been stated that Dina Nath Misra is a journalist of standing for over 30 years
and there have been no complaints about the correctness of the material
contributed by him and believing the said item of news to be correct it was
published without any further scrutiny in a good faith. He has submitted that
he has the highest respect for the judiciary in general and to this Court in
particular and tendered his unqualified apology with a feeling of remorse.
He has
submitted that since it was noticed that the news item was not correct. An
apology was already published by him in the Tribune May 12, 1986 and necessary instructions to all members of the editorial
staff were issued to be careful and assuring the factual accuracy of all legal
reports.
Lt.
Col. S.L. Dheer (Retd.) the Publisher of "The Tribune", in response
to the contempt notice has also filed his affidavit dated June 27, 1996 more or less in the same terms as
the one filed by Shri Hari Jaisingh and has tendered his apology and prayed for
mercy and pardon due to the bonafide mistake.
In
response to the contempt notice, Shri Vijay Kumar Chopra, Editor and Publisher
of daily "Punjab Kesari" Jalandhar has also filed his affidavit dated
June 29, 1996 stating that the news item in the daily "Punjab Kesari"
referred to above was published on the basis of the news report sent by a
senior journalist which due to inadvertence escaped the attention of the
Editor. He has stated that immediately after the incorrectness of the news item
was noticed a contradiction and apology was carried out prominently in the
issue of the Paper dated April
7, 1996.
He has
stated that the said news item was not actuated by any malice towards the
judiciary and that the mistake was bonafide. He has also tendered his
unconditional and unqualified apology.
On
being apprised that the news items referred to above found to be false which
were published on the basis of the information and material supplied by the
journalist/reporter Dina Nath Misra to "The Sunday Tribune" and
"Punjab Kesari", we issued a similar contempt notice to Dina Nath Misra
by our Order dated July 9, 1996. The journalist Dina Nath Misra in his
affidavit dated August
1, 1996 admitted to
have written a capsule item about the allotment of petrol pumps to the sons of
a senior judge of the Supreme Court which was not factually correct and he has
therefore tendered his unqualified apology for the lapse that he had committed.
He has stated he has been journalist for about 4 decades and is known for his
integrity and commitment towards the professionalism. He has further stated
that a highly reliable source who had earlier given many reliable information
to the deponent gave this information also which was believed by him to be
true, but it turned out to be incorrect. He has stated various other facts to
show that the mistake was bonafide, but we find the said excuses and
explanations to be not acceptable at all. He has, however, expressed his deep
repentance and tendered unqualified apology and seeks forgiveness for this
honest and inadvertent blunder. In yet another additional affidavit dated August 29, 1996, he has reiterated the said facts
and admitted that he has committed a grevious error in writing news items which
have absolutely no basis, and has again offered unconditional apology to Hon'ble
the Chief Justice as well as this Court.
It may
be relevant here to recall that the 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 attained.
The
freedom of press is a part of the freedom of the speech and expression as
envisaged in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the freedom
of the press is included in the fundamental right of freedom expression. The
freedom of Press is regarded as "the mother of all other liberties' in a
democratic society. Further, the importance and the necessity of having a free
press in a democratic Construction like ours was immensely stressed in several
landmark judgments of this Court. The case of Indian Express Newspaper v. Union
of India (1985(1) SCR 641), is one of such judgments rendered by Venkataramiah,
J. (as he then was). Again in another case of Indian Express Newspaper v. Union
of India (AIR 1986 SC 872). A.P. Sen J. (as he then was) described the right to
freedom of the press as a pillar of individual liberty which has been
unfailingly guarded by the Courts.
It is
thus needless to emphasis that a free and healthy press is indispensable to the
functioning of 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 view points 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 mobilizing 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 Mahatama 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.
But is
has to be remembered that this freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited and
unfettered at all items and in all circumstances as giving an unrestricted
freedom of the speech and expression would amount to an uncontrolled license.
If is 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. Infact, the element of
responsibility must be present in the conscience of the journalists. In an
organized 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 abuse 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 utterness 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 news item. The presentation of the news should be
truthful, objective and comprehensive without any false and distorted
expression.
In the
present case, as we have noticed above, neither printer, publisher not the
editor and reporter took the necessary care in evaluating the correctness and credibility
of the information published by them as the news items in the newspapers
referred to above in respect of an allegation of a very serious nature having
great repercussion causing an embarrassment to this court. An Editor is a
person who controls the selection of the matter which is to be published in a
particular issue of the newspaper. The Editor and Publisher are liable for
illegal and false matter which is published in their newspaper. Such an
irresponsible conduct and attribute on the part of the editor, publisher and
the reporter cannot be said to be done in good faith, but distinctly opposed to
the high professional standards as even as slightest enquiry or a simple
verification of the alleged statement about grant of Petrol outlets to the two
sons of a senior Judge of the Supreme Court, out of discretionary quota, which
is found to be patently false would have revealed the truth. But it appears
that even the ordinary care was not resorted to by the condemners in publishing
such a false news items. This cannot be regarded as a public service, but a dis-service
to the public by misguiding them with a false news. Obviously, this cannot be
regarded as something done in good faith.
But it
may be pointed out that various judgments and pronouncements of this Court,
bear testimony to the fact that this Court is not hypersensitive in matters
relating to contempt of Courts and has always shown magnanimity in accepting
the apology on being satisfied that the error made in the publication was
without any malice or without any intention of dis-respect towards the Courts
or towards any member of judiciary. This Court has always entertained fair
criticism of the judgments and orders or about the person of a Judge. Fair
criticism within the parameters of law is always welcome in a democratic
system. But the news items with which we are concerned can neither be said to
be fair or made in good faith but wholly false and the explanation given is far
from satisfactory. Shri Hari Jaising, Editor of the Sunday Tribune and Lt. Col.
H.L. Dheer, Publisher as well as Vijay Kumar Chopra, Editor and Publisher of
daily Punjab Kesari have taken the stand that they had taken the news items to
be correct on the basis of the information supplied by a very senior journalist
of long standing Dina Nath Misra. But this cannot be accepted as a valid
excuse. It may be stated that at common law, absence of intention or knowledge
about the correctness of the contents of the matter published (for examples in
the present case, on the basis of information received from the
journalist/reporter) will be of no avail for the editors and publishers for
contempt of Court but for determining the quantum of punishment which may be
awarded. Thus they cannot escape the responsibility for being careless in
publishing it without caring to verify the correctness. However, since they
have not only expressed repentance on the incident but have expressed their
sincere written unconditional apology, we accept the same with the warning that
they should be very careful in future. As regards the case of Dina Nath Misra,
we find he acted in gross carelessness. Being a very experienced journalist of
long standing it was his duty while publishing the news item relating to the
members of the apex Court to have taken extra care to verify the correctness
and if he had done so, we are sure there would not have been any difficulty in
coming to know that the information supplied to him had absolutely no legs to
stand and was patently false and the publication would have been avoided which
not only paused great embarrassment to this Court but conveyed a wrong message
to the public at large jeopardizing the faith of the illiterate masses in our
judiciary. Shri Dina Nath Misra has no doubt committed a serious mistake but he
has realised his mistake and expressed sincere repentance and has tendered
unconditional apology for the same. He was present in the Court and virtually
looked to be gloomy and felt repentant of what he had done. We think this
sufferance itself is sufficient punishment for him. He being a senior
journalist and an aged person and, therefore, taking a lenient view of the
matter, we accept his apology also. We, however, direct that the condemners
will publish in the front page of their respective newspapers within a box
their respective apologies specifically mentioning that the said news items
were absolutely incorrect and false. This may be done within two weeks. The
Contempt Petition Nos. 206-207 of 1996 are disposed of accordingly.
Back
Pages: 1 2
