In Re : Chandigarh News Line (Indian Express Group) Vs. In Re : Chandigarh News Line (Indian Express Grou
EmailAppeal: Suo-Motu Contempt Petition No. 286 Of 1998
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23360 Of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.97 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14337 of 1997)
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23360 Of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.97 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14337 of 1997)
Petitioner: In Re : Chandigarh News Line (Indian Express Group)
Respondent: In Re : Chandigarh News Line (Indian Express Group)
Apeal: Suo-Motu Contempt Petition No. 286 Of 1998
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23360 Of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.97 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14337 of 1997)
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23360 Of 1997
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.97 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14337 of 1997)
Judges: A.S. ANAND & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 31, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. S.K. Bagga, Mr. Arun Jaitley, Senior Advocate, Mr. P.P. Rao, Mr. Sanjay Sarin, Mr. Ashok Mathur, Mrs. Tanuja Sharma, Mrs. Shurestha Bagga, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Mr. Trideep Pais and Mr. R.S. Sodhi, Advocates with them for the appearing parties.
Head Note:
CONTEMPT OF COURTS
Constitution
Article 140 – Suo-motu action taken by Supreme Court – News item appearing in newspaper as basis – Matter pending – News item not only incorrect but mis-leading – Contempt notices issued – Howev-er contemnors, reporter and editor, already apologising by pub-lishing in newspaper and realising mistake before receipt of notice – Also affidavits filed and unconditional apology tendered – Held that in view of unconditional apology published in newspa-per voluntarily and before issuance of contempt notice and con-temnors being repentant, warned to be careful in future and proceedings dropped.
Constitution
Article 140 – Suo-motu action taken by Supreme Court – News item appearing in newspaper as basis – Matter pending – News item not only incorrect but mis-leading – Contempt notices issued – Howev-er contemnors, reporter and editor, already apologising by pub-lishing in newspaper and realising mistake before receipt of notice – Also affidavits filed and unconditional apology tendered – Held that in view of unconditional apology published in newspa-per voluntarily and before issuance of contempt notice and con-temnors being repentant, warned to be careful in future and proceedings dropped.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Taking note of a news item reading “SC orders removal of homoeo council chief”, in the Chandigarh Newsline published by the Indian Express Group, Chandigarh on 30.4.1998, this Court on May 1, 1998, being of the view that not only the heading of the news item was absolutely incorrect and misleading but even the contents were misleading and the news item had been published while the matter was pending in this Court, issued notice to the Reporter – Mr. K.B. Kapur as well as the Editor of the Indian Express, Chandigarh to show cause why proceedings for committing contempt of court be not initiated against them. In response to the notice, both the respondents are present in Court along with their learned counsel Mr. Jaitley. At the request of the Court, the learned Solicitor General is also present to assist the Court.
2. The contemnors have filed their reply affidavits admitting their mistake and serious lapse, and have tendered unconditional apology to this Court. It has also been brought to our notice by Mr. Jaitley that as early as on May 4, 1998 an apology had been published in the Chandigarh Newsline, which reads thus :
“AN APOLOGY
It has come to the notice of this paper that the report “SC orders removal of homoeo council chief” (April 30) is errone-ous.
On enquiry, it appears that the original report is in fact erroneous.
It was stated in the report that there were directions, in a decision of the Supreme Court announced on April 24 that the state government was to replace the chairman of the Punjab Homoeopathetic Council.
It has since been clarified that no such decision or direc-tion was announced or given by the apex court. The original report was based on a misinterpretation of a communication received by the Punjab Government from R.S. Sodhi, additional advocate general, Punjab.
The newspaper realises the possible repercussions on the pending matter before the apex court due to the inadvertent misinterpretation of the communication as aforesaid.
The error, though grave, was entirely unintentional and is deeply regretted.”
3. It is submitted by Mr. Jaitley, that the apology was pub-lished before the service of contempt notice on both the contem-nors and that the apology had been published on realising the mistake. Mr. Jaitley, learned senior counsel further submits that both the respondents are truly repentant and have bonafide ten-dered their unconditional apologies for the mistake committed by them and that both of them assure that they shall be more careful in future. It is submitted that they had no intention to preju-dice the proceedings pending in this Court. Both the contemnors have placed themselves at the mercy of the Court submitting that their lapse, though grave, was unintentional and they sincerely regret for their mistake.
4. After hearing the learned Solicitor General and Mr. Arun Jaitley and perusing the record as also the unconditional apology submitted by both the respondents, and taking note of the apology published in the Chandigarh Newsline dated 4th May, 1998 volun-tarily, we are satisfied that the respondents are now truly repentant and that their apologies are sincere and bonafide. Under the circumstances, while warning them to be careful in future we do not now consider it necessary to proceed any further with the contempt proceedings. We, accordingly, drop those pro-ceedings. The rule issued against the respondents is accordingly discharged.
1. Taking note of a news item reading “SC orders removal of homoeo council chief”, in the Chandigarh Newsline published by the Indian Express Group, Chandigarh on 30.4.1998, this Court on May 1, 1998, being of the view that not only the heading of the news item was absolutely incorrect and misleading but even the contents were misleading and the news item had been published while the matter was pending in this Court, issued notice to the Reporter – Mr. K.B. Kapur as well as the Editor of the Indian Express, Chandigarh to show cause why proceedings for committing contempt of court be not initiated against them. In response to the notice, both the respondents are present in Court along with their learned counsel Mr. Jaitley. At the request of the Court, the learned Solicitor General is also present to assist the Court.
2. The contemnors have filed their reply affidavits admitting their mistake and serious lapse, and have tendered unconditional apology to this Court. It has also been brought to our notice by Mr. Jaitley that as early as on May 4, 1998 an apology had been published in the Chandigarh Newsline, which reads thus :
“AN APOLOGY
It has come to the notice of this paper that the report “SC orders removal of homoeo council chief” (April 30) is errone-ous.
On enquiry, it appears that the original report is in fact erroneous.
It was stated in the report that there were directions, in a decision of the Supreme Court announced on April 24 that the state government was to replace the chairman of the Punjab Homoeopathetic Council.
It has since been clarified that no such decision or direc-tion was announced or given by the apex court. The original report was based on a misinterpretation of a communication received by the Punjab Government from R.S. Sodhi, additional advocate general, Punjab.
The newspaper realises the possible repercussions on the pending matter before the apex court due to the inadvertent misinterpretation of the communication as aforesaid.
The error, though grave, was entirely unintentional and is deeply regretted.”
3. It is submitted by Mr. Jaitley, that the apology was pub-lished before the service of contempt notice on both the contem-nors and that the apology had been published on realising the mistake. Mr. Jaitley, learned senior counsel further submits that both the respondents are truly repentant and have bonafide ten-dered their unconditional apologies for the mistake committed by them and that both of them assure that they shall be more careful in future. It is submitted that they had no intention to preju-dice the proceedings pending in this Court. Both the contemnors have placed themselves at the mercy of the Court submitting that their lapse, though grave, was unintentional and they sincerely regret for their mistake.
4. After hearing the learned Solicitor General and Mr. Arun Jaitley and perusing the record as also the unconditional apology submitted by both the respondents, and taking note of the apology published in the Chandigarh Newsline dated 4th May, 1998 volun-tarily, we are satisfied that the respondents are now truly repentant and that their apologies are sincere and bonafide. Under the circumstances, while warning them to be careful in future we do not now consider it necessary to proceed any further with the contempt proceedings. We, accordingly, drop those pro-ceedings. The rule issued against the respondents is accordingly discharged.
