Sadhvi
Ritumbhara Vs. Digvijay Singh & ANR [1997] INSC 170 (17 February 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on January 13, 1997, M. Gopal
Reddy, IAS, the then Director of Public Relation & Information and Mangal
Prasad Misra, then Assistant Director, Public Relation & Information
appeared in person. They have filed their affidavits. This court by order date
September 9, 1995 had disposed of the appeal filed by the State of Madhya
Pradesh on the basis of the consent of the learned senior counsel appearing for
the State, Shri P.P. Rao and Shri D.D. Thakur, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, This court had stated that in view of the respective stands taken
by the counsel on either side, the courts below were directed to dispose of all
the pending or connected matters between the parties on their merits, without
being influenced by any of the findings and observations made by the High Court
in the Impugned judgment under appeal. The appeal was accordingly disposed or.
On September 9, 1995, after the receipt of the order
passed by this Court, M.P. Mishra, the them assistant Director, Public
Relations & Information in the Directorate of the Government of Madhya
Pradesh at Bhopal had the news published conveying to
the public that the order of the High Court court was reversed by this Court.
Thereby, the detention of the petitioner herein by implication stood upheld and
the stand of the Government also stood fortified. As a consequence, the State
was directed to proceed with the matter in the court below, the above statement
is a clear distortion of the order passed by this court. There, the respondents
have committed wilful distortion of the judgment which amounts to contempt of
this Court.
M. Gopal
Reddy, the then Director, States that the Press release was prepared and issued
by M.P. Mishra, who was not conversant with the legal terminology and,
therefore, he committed that act of publishing as a news without knowing the
correct implication of the order passed by this Court. M.P. Mishra has stated
that "I joined the Department as a daily wager in the year 1980, after
about 6 months, I was appointed as L.D.C. Later, I was appointed as Scrutiniser
and assistant Public Relation Officer. I was promoted as Assistant Director
(Advertisement) in the year 1990 and in 1991, I was shifted to the News
Section, I do not possess any qualification in law, I submit that as a person
working under the Government, I am not acquainted with legal terminology. I never
had and opportunity of preparing a press release covering the judgment/order
passed by this Hon'ble
Court." Thereby,
he admits that "In own up my mistake in not understanding the order dated
8.9.1995 correctly. I misunderstood the worlds "leave granted:" as
accepting the case of the State Government on merits. I was under the
impressing that by permitted the proceedings in the Trial Court to continue
uninfluenced by the findings and observations of the High Court, the petitions
of the Government were accepted." Thus, he admits that he cannot
understand the legal terminology and has no capacity to understand the legal
terminology and has no capacity to understand the order to the implications or
effect of it since he was not acquainted with the legal terminology and he did
not have any opportunity to prepare the press release on an earlier occasion
covering the judgment and order of a court. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior
counsel appearing for him. repeatedly stated that as soon as the order was
received, he released it. Since he admits that he is incapable of understanding
the court order, is it not his duty to consult the Law Department or the
Director before issuing the distorted statement.
It
would, thus, be seen that he has lack of knowledge or experience in the
publication of the press release of the judgment or order of the Court. This
also would show that he did not even care to take necessary instruction from
the persons who had an experience or sought guidance from the law department
before releasing distorted version of the judgment. Thereby, it is admitted
that what the Assistant Director has done was distortion of the contents of the
judgment with a view to convey to the public that the petitioner's detention
order was upheld by this court as this Court did not go into that question and
directed the courts below to decide the controversy without being influenced by
any of the findings and observations made by the High Court including of this
Court. Thus, M.P. Mishra has deliberated done the act of misleading the public
by making mis-statement of the contents of the order and, thereby, committed
contempt of this Court. we do not think that he has done so deliberately with a
view to undermine the order of this Court, We accept his unconditional apology
and close this matter as against him. Equally, M.Gopal Reddy, being the
Director, it is his duty to see that the Directorate function properly,
particularly when it relates to the issuance of the public information of
contents of an order of this Court; unfortunately, he has not done it, it is
not clearly from the record whether it was brought to his notice before
publishing or matters are passing without his knowledge from his Directorate
side tracking him. Even then Director himself as Director ultimately bears
responsibility for that acts done by the Directorate, Under these
circumstances, we accept his unconditional apology and close the matter.
The
Contempt Petition is ordered accordingly.
Back
Pages: 1 2