# Dr. Nutan Thakur v. Sri Uday Kumar Verma. Secy., Ministry of Information and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 556
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-23
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Arora
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-nutan-thakur-v-sri-uday-kumar-verma-secy-ministry-of-information-and-others-42302
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Contempt of Court Act, 1971-Section 12willful
'disobedience-allegation
that
inspite
of
clear
stay
regarding
publication of news items, electronic
media about movement of Army Troopsthe chairman P.T.I. Made statement
against the validity of direction as not
'correct'-but
inspite
of
repeated
opportunity no material produced by
which it can be presume that after stay
order
any
manner
Press
Council
published any news item relating to
movements of Army Troops-contempt
petition nothing except to came in lime
light-application rejected with cost of Rs.
One Lakh.

Held: Para 38

Thus, petition lacks bona fides and is an
abuse of the process of the Court. It
appears that the petitioner has filed this
petition just to come in limelight and
nothing else, which waisted time of the
Court. The time of Court is precious for
the reason that it is publics time and
must be utilised for adjudicating the
matters which have substance and need
to be decided at the earliest. If the time
of the Court is consumed, that too, a
lion's share, by frivolous and bogus
litigations which is bound to take away
the time which could have been utilised
for needy litigants.

## Text

556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
respondents that respondent no. 1 has died,
steps have been taken and the substitution
application has been filed. The Court is of
the view that at the stage of second appeal
also, the heirs of the party who died during
the pendency of suit or appeal can be made
as party and their names can also be
substituted. It is settled law that in the cases
of substitution and in setting aside the
abatement, a liberal view should be taken to
avoid the defeat of justice.

10. In the circumstances, the
substitution application is allowed. The
appellants may substitute the heirs of
respondent no. 1.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.

Contempt No. - 1170 of 2012

Dr. Nutan Thakur

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri Uday Kumar Verma. Secy., Ministry of
Information and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dr.Nutan Thakur(Inperson)

Contempt of Court Act, 1971-Section 12willful
'disobedience-allegation
that
inspite
of
clear
stay
regarding
publication of news items, electronic
media about movement of Army Troopsthe chairman P.T.I. Made statement
against the validity of direction as not
'correct'-but
inspite
of
repeated
opportunity no material produced by
which it can be presume that after stay
order
any
manner
Press
Council
published any news item relating to
movements of Army Troops-contempt
petition nothing except to came in lime
light-application rejected with cost of Rs.
One Lakh.

Held: Para 38

Thus, petition lacks bona fides and is an
abuse of the process of the Court. It
appears that the petitioner has filed this
petition just to come in limelight and
nothing else, which waisted time of the
Court. The time of Court is precious for
the reason that it is publics time and
must be utilised for adjudicating the
matters which have substance and need
to be decided at the earliest. If the time
of the Court is consumed, that too, a
lion's share, by frivolous and bogus
litigations which is bound to take away
the time which could have been utilised
for needy litigants.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Arora, J.)

The applicant/ petitioner who claims
herself a Journalist, preferred a writ
petition in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) (W.P. No. 2685 (MB) of
2012) before this Court seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents viz
Union of India through Principal Secretary,
Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi to
conduct an enquiry (preferably an enquiry
by an Independent Judicial Commission)
with respect to the news article dated
4.4.2012,
published
in
?The
Indian
Express? newspaper (Annexure No. 1 to
the Writ Petition) and another news item
published in ?The Sunday Guardian?
newspaper (Annexure No. 5 to the Writ
Petition) and take legal action against such
persons as per the provisions of law. A
Division Bench of this Court dismissed the
writ petition vide order dated 10.4.2012
with the direction to the Secretary, Home
Affairs, the Secretary, Information &
Broadcasting, Government of India and the
2 All] Dr. Nutan Thakur V. Sri Uday Kumar Verma. Secy., Ministry of Information and others
557
Principal Secretary, (Home), Government
of U.P. to ensure that there is no
reporting/release of any news item by the
Print as well as Electronics Media relating
to subject matter, namely, the movement of
troops as contained in the accompanying
annexures enclosed therein. It would be
useful to reproduce the final order dated
10.4.2012, which reads as under:

"Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh, J.

Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit, J.

Order (Oral)

We have heard petitioner in person
and learned Assistant Solicitor General of
India, Sri I.H. Farooqi, for Union of India.

The issue of movement of Army troops
is not a matter of the kind which should
require public discussion at the cost of
defence official secrecy and the security of
country. Petitioner, a social activist and
freelance journalist, in her submissions
expressed her grave concern over the
media reportings on this subject which, if
permitted to continue, may seriously
interfere with the handling of security
matters
by
Army,
particularly
the
movements of troops from the strategic
point of view in the field as well as peace
areas. Thus, without interfering with the
independence of media and keeping in
view the fact that the news items relating to
movements of troops have already engaged
the attention at the highest level in the
defence as well as in the Government, we
think it appropriate to direct the Secretary,
Home
Affairs,
and
the
Secretary,
Information & Broadcasting, Government
of India and the Principal Secretary
(Home), Government of U.P., to ensure
that there is no reporting/release of any
news item by the Print as well as
Electronic Media relating to the subject
matter, namely, the movement of troops as
contained in the accompanying annexures..

Writ petition is dismissed at this stage
with aforesaid directions.

Let a copy of this order issue today to
the officials concerned as well as to
learned Additional Solicitor General of
India/Assistant Solicitor General of India
and learned Chief Standing Counsel for
immediate compliance."

2. From perusal of record of the
contempt petition, it reveals that after
passing of the order by the Writ Court, the
applicant
has
not
approached
the
authorities concerned, apparently, because
Writ Court had directed for issuance of the
copy of the order to the concerned
officials, mentioned in the aforesaid order.

3. In Para 4 of the petition, it has
been stated by the applicant that she heard
through the Media Reports that Chairman
of the Press Council of India termed the
order of Writ Court as 'not correct' and said
that the Council will challenge the same
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
applicant/ petitioner sent a caveat notice
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
on 16.4.2012 and in its response, a copy of
Special Leave Petition No. 9411 of 2012,
filed by the Press Council of India was sent
to her. It has been further stated that
Annexure No. P-5 of Special Leave
Petition consists of a letter dated 11.4.2012
sent by the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India to the
Contemnor No. 2, Ms. Vibha Bhargava,
Secretary, Press Council of India, New
Delhi. In the said letter, it has been
mentioned that ' Please refer to our
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
telephonic
discussions
regarding
directions issued by the Lucknow Bench of
Allahabad High Court on 10th April, 2012,
in respect of reporting by the print and
electronic media about the movement of
troops in the country. A copy of the said
order is enclosed. In order to implement
the directions of High Court the Ministry
requested Press Council of India to
consider initiating appropriate action. We
would also appreciate if the action taken in
this regard is kindly intimated to us.'

4. The submission of the applicant is
that in pursuance of the aforesaid letter
sent by the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India to Ms.
Vibha Bhargava, Secretary, Press Council
of India, New Delhi, the Press Council of
India was supposed to comply with the
order of this Court immediately but instead
of complying the orders, the Chairman of
the Press Council of India passed order
dated 12.4.2012. In the said order, among
many other things, it was written that '
With great respect to the High Court, I am
of the opinion that the order of the High
Court is not correct.' It also said ' The Press
Council of India will be challenging the
order of the Allahabad High Court in the
Supreme Court of India very shortly.' It is
further submitted that the applicant on
obtaining a copy of the Special Leave
Petition No. 9411 of 2012, came to know
that the observation made by opposite
party no. 4 with regard to order of the writ
court as 'not correct', was not in his
individual capacity while making an
independent assessment of a legal decision
as a legal expert but this was being done in
his official capacity as the Chairman of the
Press Council of India, whereas Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting directed
for execution of Hon'ble High Court's
order.

5. It is also stated that Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting and Press
Council of India have to implement the
order of this Court and if they are
aggrieved by the said order, they had every
right to seek a legal remedy by filing a
Special Leave Petition or by taking any
other appropriate legal measure. It is prima
facie obvious that as an implementing
authority, in compliance of the order of
this Court dated 10.4.2012, the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting, the Press
Council of India and the Chairman of Press
Council of India did not have a legal
authority to sit upon the order of this Court
and comment upon by terming it ?not
correct? and by deciding for themselves
that they would not comply with the order
of this Court.

6. Further submission is that the only
appropriate legal measure available to the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India and the Press Council
of India was to comply with the order of
this Court dated 10.4.2012, but instead of
doing so, the opposite parties no. 4 & 5
tried to put themselves in the role of the
Judge looking into merit of the order
passed by writ court. In this background,
the submission of the applicant is that the
act of the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Press Council of India, the
opposite party no. 4 as its Chairman and
the opposite party no. 5 as its Secretary is
nothing short of contempt of this Court,
where they did not implement the order of
this Court through a self drawn assessment
of the correctness of the decision and
where they declared the decision to be 'not
correct' and decided that it would not be
implemented.

7. It has been contended by the
applicant that mere filing of Special Leave
2 All] Dr. Nutan Thakur V. Sri Uday Kumar Verma. Secy., Ministry of Information and others
559
Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court,
challenging the order of this Court, does
not abrogate and relieve the contemnors
from their act of contempt. Terming an
order of this Court as 'not correct' and not
implementing it on the basis of one's own
assessment and decision, are two entirely
different things.

8. It is also submitted that the
applicant
does
not
have
the
exact
information regarding compliance made by
the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India and Department of Home,
Government of Uttar Pradesh to whom this
Court had also issued directions on
10.4.2012, but possibly they have also not
complied the order. The applicant feels that
it would be imperative to ascertain this fact
from the Secretary, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India and Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Home,
Government of Uttar pradesh and if the
order has not been complied with at their
levels as well, then to launch contempt
proceedings against these two respondents
as well. The applicant also submits that the
cause of action started on and after
12.4.2012, when the Chairman, Press
Council of India became the self appointed
evaluator of the correctness of the decision
of this Court and declaring the same as 'not
correct' and decided not to implement the
same.

9. In this background, the applicant
has
prayed
for
initiating
contempt
proceedings against the respondents as per
law and to nail them under section 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the
willful disobedience of the order of this
Court dated 10.4.2012, passed in W.P. No.
2685 of 2012 (PIL-Civil) after summoning
them in person.

10. In the Supplementary Affidavit, it
has been stated that what it required was an
immediate compliance of the order of this
Court, which would have been possible
only
by
issuing
certain
appropriate
directions to Print as well as Electronic
Media directing them that there must be no
reporting/ release of any news item by the
Print as well as Electronic Media relating
to the subject matter, namely, the
movement of troops as contained in the
accompanying annexures in the writ
petition. But, this was not ensured by the
opposite parties. The fact remains that the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
vide letter dated 11.4.2012 directed the
Press
Council
of
India
to
ensure
compliance of the order of this court and to
intimate it of the action so taken.

11. The Supplementary Affidavit
further states that from perusal of the order
dated 12.4.2012, it is evident that Press
Council did not find it appropriate to
ensure compliance of the order of this
Court dated 10.4.2012 and willfully and
deliberately ignored the compliance and
termed the order as 'not correct' and did not
issue suitable directives. Since the Media
never got any suitable direction/ order
from the respondents, hence, it remained
free to publish whatever it felt like, in
complete transgression of this Court's
order dated 10.4.2012.

12. In an attempt to show as to how
the order was flagrantly violated, the
applicant has annexed copies of four
articles published in various newspapers
like 'The Times of India', 'The Indian
Express',' The Tribune 'and 'The Sunday
Indian along with Supplementary Counter
Affidavit. The applicant also expressed her
bel ieves that there would be many more
such news items published by different
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Media on different other dates and, thus,
despite orders of this Court that there
would be no reporting about the Army
Movement, even prominent newspapers
were openly violating this Court's order
simply because probably they had no
directions issued on that behalf, as the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
passed over its responsibility to the Press
Council of India and the Press Council suo
moto decided that the order was not correct
and it need not be complied with. What
was hugely bewildering was that after
having sent the letter dated 11.4.2012, the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
and the other two respondents did nothing
to get this order implemented, resulting in
this order getting openly violated.

13. It is also stated by the applicant
that the complicity of the respondents gets
doubly verified from the fact that even
when such news articles actually got
published after the order of this Court, the
respondents took no steps/actions in this
regard, which resulted in flagrant violation
of this Court's order. Hence, these acts of
the respondents fall in the category of 'civil
contempt'.

14.

I
have
considered
the
submissions of the applicant appearing in
person and gone through the record.

15. The record of writ petition shows
that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was
filed against the Union of India through
Principal
Secretary,
Prime
Minister's
Office, New Delhi and the said PIL was
dismissed with the directions to the
Secretary, Home Affairs and Secretary
Information & Broadcasting, Government
of India and the Principal Secretary,
(Home), Government of U.P. to ensure that
there is no reporting/ release of any news
item by the Print as well as Electronic
Media relating to subject matter, namely,
the movement of troops as contained in the
accompanying annexures of the Writ
Petition.

16. The applicant earlier filed
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1097 of
2012 which was dismissed as not pressed
with liberty to file afresh as the applicant
had not arrayed the authorities as parties to
whom directions were issued by the writ
court.

17. On perusal of the present
contempt petition, it reveals that the
applicant has no where alleged/ averred
that after passing of the order dated
10.4.2012 by the Writ Court, any news
item was published/released ever in any of
the Print as well as Electronic Media on
the subject matter, namely, movement of
troops and when the applicant failed to
demonstrate as to how the order of the
Writ Court has been violated by the
opposite parties, the applicant prayed for
and granted 24 hours' time to enable her to
prepare the case.

18. Today, i.e. 23.05.2012, the
applicant filed a supplementary affidavit
annexing therewith four news items
published
on
26/27.04.2012
in
the
newspapers namely, ?The Times of India?,
?Indian Express?, ?The Tribune? and
?Sunday India?. The perusal of said news
items reveal that the same refers to the
statement given by Defence Minister in
Rajya Sabha regarding the movements of
Army Units in the night of January 16/17,
2012 only and the said report does not
contain
any
report
regarding
fresh
movements of Army Units after passing of
the order dated 10.04.2012 of the Writ
Court. It appears that all these reports have
2 All] Dr. Nutan Thakur V. Sri Uday Kumar Verma. Secy., Ministry of Information and others
561
been filed by the applicant just in order to
satisfy the query, which was put to her on
22.05.2012, as to how order of the Writ
Court has been violated by the opposite
parties. This Court has no hesitation in
observing that the applicant by annexing
newspapers'
report,
containing
the
statement of Defence Minister in the Rajya
Sabha, has made an unsuccessful attempt
to mislead this Court.

19. The sum and substance of the
submissions of the applicant is that in
compliance of the directions of the writ
court no directives have been issued to
Print/ Electronics Media regarding non-
reporting / release of news items on the
subject matter namely, 'the movement of
troops' and the Chairman of the Press
Council of India termed the order of writ
court as 'not correct.'

20. On examining the order of Writ
Court, this Court finds that directions were
issued only to the Secretary, Home Affairs
and
the
Secretary,
Information
&
Broadcasting, Government of India and to
the
Principal
Secretary,
(Home),
Government of U.P. to ensure that there is
no reporting/ release of any news item by
the Print as well as Electronic Media
relating to subject matter, namely, the
movement of troops as contained in the
accompanying annexures of the writ
petition. The applicant has brought nothing
on record, which shows any such reporting
either by Print or Electronic Media after
passing of order dated 10.4.2012 by the
Writ Court, hence, this Court comes to the
conclusion that allegation of the applicant
to that effect are misconceived, unfounded
and self imagination.

21. Now, before coming to the
observation
of
the
Chairman,
Press
Council of India on the order of Writ
Court, this Court feels it appropriate to
examine the judicial pronouncements on
the issue of fair criticism of the judicial act
and judgments.

22. The right of speech and
expression has always been considered as
the most cherished right of every human
being. In a civilized society, the courts
have exhibited high degree of tolerance
and accepted adverse comments and
criticism of their order/judgments even
though, at times, such criticism is totally
off the mark and the language used is
inappropriate. The right of a member of the
public to criticize the functioning of a
judicial institution has been beautifully
described by the Privy Council in Ambard
Vs. Attorney General for Trinidad and
Tobago, 1936 AC 322 : AIR 1936 PC 14,
in following words :-

".... no wrong is committed by any
member of the public who exercises the
ordinary right of criticizing in good faith in
private or public the public act done in the
seat of justice. The path of criticism is a
public
way:
the
wrongheaded
are
permitted to err therein: provided that
members of the public abstain from
inputing improper motives to those taking
part in the administration of justice, and
are genuinely exercising a right of
criticism and not acting in malice or
attempting to impair the administration of
justice, they are immune. Justice is not a
cloistered virtue : she must be allowed to
suffer the0.80" scrutiny and respectful even
though outspoken comments of ordinary
men."

23. In R. Vs. Commr. Of Police of the
Metropolis, ex p Blackburn (No.2), (1968)
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
2 QB 150 : (1968) 2 WLR 1204, Lord
Denning observed :

"Let me say at once that we will never
use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold
our own dignity. That must rest on surer
foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress
those who speak against us. We do not fear
criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is
something far more important at stake. It is
no less than freedom of speech itself.

It is the right of every man, in
Parliament or out of it, in the press or over
the broadcast, to make fair comment, even
outspoken comment, on matters of public
interest. Those who comment can deal
faithfully with all that is done in a court of
justice. They can say that we are mistaken,
and our decisions erroneous, whether they
are subject to appeal or not. All we would
ask is that those who criticize us will
remember that, from the nature of our
office, we cannot reply to their criticisms.
We cannot enter into public controversy.
Still less into political controversy. We
must rely on our conduct itself to be its
own vindication.

Exposed as we are to the winds of
criticism, nothing which is said by this
person or that, nothing which is written by
this pen or that, will deter us from doing
what we believe is right; nor, I would add,
from saying what the occasion requires,
provided that it is pertinent to the matter in
hand. Silence is not an option when things
are ill done."

24. In Aswini Kumar Ghose Vs.
Arabinda Bose, AIR 1953 SC 75, the Apex
Court observed that the Supreme Court is
never oversensitive to public criticism; but
when there is danger of grave mischief
being done in the matter of administration
of justice, the animadversion cannot be
ignored
and
viewed
with
placid
equanimity.

25. In Perspective Publications (P)
Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971
SC 221, a Bench of three Judges after
referring to the leading cases on the subject
held that :

(1) "The summary jurisdiction by way
of contempt must be exercised with great
care and caution and only when its
exercise is necessary for the proper
administration of law and justice.

(2) It is open to anyone to express
fair, reasonable and legitimate criticism of
any act or conduct of a judge in his
judicial capacity or even to make a proper
and fair comment on any decision given by
him because "justice is not a cloistered
virtue and she must be allowed to suffer
the scrutiny and respectful, even though
outspoken, comments of ordinary men".

(3) A distinction must be made
between a mere libel or defamation of a
judge and what amounts to a contempt of
the court. The test in each case would be
whether the impugned publication is a
mere defamatory attack on the judge or
whether it is calculated to interfere with
the due course of justice or the proper
administration of law by his court. It is
only in the latter case that it will be
punishable as Contempt. Alternatively the
test will be whether the wrong is done to
the judge personally or it is done to the
public... the publication of a disparaging
statement will be an injury to the public if
it tends to create an apprehension in the
minds of the people regarding the integrity,
ability or fairness of the judge or to deter
actual and prospective litigants from
2 All] Dr. Nutan Thakur V. Sri Uday Kumar Verma. Secy., Ministry of Information and others
563
placing complete reliance upon the court's
administration of justice or if it is likely to
cause embarrassment in the mind of the
judge himself in the discharge of his
judicial duties.

26. In P. N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker
& Ors., [(1988) 3 SCC 167], it has been
held that administration of justice and
Judges are open to public criticism and
public
scrutiny.
Judges
have
their
accountability to the society and their
accountability must be judged by the
conscience and oath to their office i.e. to
defend and uphold the Constitution and the
laws without fear and favour. Any
criticism about the judicial system or the
Judges which hampers the administration
of justice or which erodes the faith in the
objective approach of the Judges and
brings administration of justice to ridicule
must be prevented. The contempt of court
proceedings arise out of that attempt.
Judgments can be criticized, motives to the
Judges need not be attributed, it brings the
administration
of
justice
into
deep
disrepute. Faith in the administration of
justice is one of the pillars on which
democratic
institution
functions
and
sustains. In the free market place of ideas
criticism about the judicial system or
Judges should be welcome so long as such
criticism does not impair or hamper the
administration of justice. In a democracy
Judges and courts alike are, therefore,
subject to criticism and if reasonable
argument
or
criticism
in
respectful
language and tempered with moderation is
offered against any judicial act as contrary
to law or public good, no court would treat
criticism as a contempt of court.

27. Reiterating the earlier stand, three
Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the
case of Roshan Lal Ahuja [1993 Supp.(4)
SCC 446], observed that Judgments of the
court are open to criticism. Judges and
courts are not unduly sensitive or touchy to
fair and reasonable criticism of their
judgments. Fair comments, even if,
outspoken, but made without any malice or
attempting to impair the administration of
justice and made in good faith in proper
language don't attract any punishment for
contempt of court.

28. Freedom of criticism was again
scrutinised by the Apex Court in the case
of Dr. D.C. Saxena Vs. Chief Justice of
India, (1996) 5 SCC 216, and it observed
as under:

"Law is not in any doubt that in a free
democracy every body is entitled to
express his honest opinion about the
correctness or legality of a judgment or
sentence or an order of a court but he
should not overstep the bounds. Though he
is entitled to express that criticism
objectively and with detachment in a
dignified language and respectful tone
with moderation, the liberty of expression
should not be a licence to violently make
personal attack on a judge. Subject to that,
an honest criticism of the administration of
justice is welcome since justice is not a
cloistered virtue and is entitled to
respectful scrutiny. Any citizen is entitled
to express his honest opinion about the
language pointing out the error or defect
or illegality in the judgment, order of
sentence. That is after the event as
postmortem."

29. In the case of Arundhati Roy
[(2002) 3 SCC 343], the court held, fair
criticism of the conduct of a Judge, the
institution of the judiciary and its
functioning may not amount to contempt if
it is made in good faith and in public
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
interest. To ascertain the good faith and the
public interest, the courts have to see all
the surrounding circumstances including
the person responsible for comments, his
knowledge in the field regarding which the
comments are made and the intended
purpose sought to be achieved. All citizens
cannot be permitted to comment upon the
conduct of the courts in the name of fair
criticism which, if not checked, would
destroy the institution itself. Litigant losing
in the court would be the first to impute
motives to the Judges and the institution in
the name of fair criticism, which cannot be
allowed for preserving the public faith in
an important pillar of democratic set-up i.e.
judiciary.

30. In a recent decision rendered in
Indirect Tax Practitioners' Association Vs.
R.K. Jain, (2010) 8 SCC 281, the Hon.
Supreme Court went on to say as under :-

"In the land of Gautam Buddha,
Mahavir and Mahatma Gandhi, The
freedom of speech and expression and
freedom to speak one's mind have always
been respected. After Independence, the
courts have zealously guarded this most
precious freedom of every human being.
Fair
criticism
of
the
system
of
administration of justice or functioning of
institutions or authorities entrusted with
the task of deciding rights of the parties
gives an opportunity to the operators of the
system/institution to remedy the wrong and
also bring about improvements. Such
criticism cannot be castigated as an
attempt to scandalize or lower the
authority of the court or other judicial
institutions or as an attempt to interfere
with the administration of justice except
when such criticism is ill-motivated or is
construed as a deliberate attempt to run
down the institution or an individual Judge
is targeted for extraneous reasons.

Ordinarily, the court would not use
the power to punish for contempt for
curbing the right of freedom of speech and
expression, which is guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Only
when the criticism of judicial institutions
transgresses all limits of decency and
fairness or there is total lack of objectivity
or there is deliberate attempt to denigrate
the institution then the court would use this
power."

31. This Court after analyzing the
aforesaid pronouncements comes to the
conclusion that the judgments of courts are
public documents and can be commented
upon, analyzed and criticized, but it has to
be in fair and healthy manner without
attributing motives. Before placing before
public, whether on print or electronic
media, all concerned have to see whether
any such criticism has crossed the limits as
aforesaid and if it has, then resist every
temptation to make it public.

32. As for as submission of the
applicant that in compliance of the
directions of the Writ Court no directions
have been issued to the Print/ Electronic
Media regarding non-reporting/ release of
the news item on the subject matter by the
Press Council of India is concerned, this
Court finds that firstly, the Press Council
of India was not a party in the writ petition,
secondly, no directions were issued by the
Writ Court to the Press Council of India
and, thirdly the applicant cannot take any
advantage of the internal correspondence
made between the Ministry of Information
& Broadcasting, Government of India and
the Press Council of India, which she came
to know through copy of Special Leave
2 All] Dr. Nutan Thakur V. Sri Uday Kumar Verma. Secy., Ministry of Information and others
565
Petition filed by the Press Council of India
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for
pressing the contempt proceedings against
the functionaries of the Press Council of
India.

33. Further, Press Council of India is
a statutory body and apart from performing
the functions under section 13 of the Press
Council Act, 1978 also performs the quasi
judicial functions and examines the
complaints in respect of newspapers , news
agency, editor or other working journalist
under section 14(1) of the Act, as per the
provisions prescribed in the Press Council
(Procedure For Inquiry) Regulations, 1979.
The insistence of the applicant that the act
of Press Council of India of not issuing any
directions in pursuance to the request of
the
Ministry
of
Information
and
Broadcasting for compliance of the
directions of Writ Court falls within the
definition
of
Civil
Contempt,
is
misconceived, as it was Secretary, Home
Affairs, the Secretary, Information &
Broadcasting, Government of India and the
Principal Secretary, (Home), Government
of U.P. were required to ensure that there
is no reporting/ release of any news items
by the Print as well as Electronic Media
relating to the subject matter, namely, the
movement of troops and the fact remains
that no reporting was done by either of the
two after the directions of the Writ Court.
In this background, no case for willful
disobedience of the order of Writ Court on
the part of functionaries of the Press
Council of India is made out.

34. Now, coming to the observation
of the Chairman, Press Council of India on
the order of Writ Court, this Court finds
that the Chairman, Press Council of India
after giving reasons, expressed his opinion
with great respect to High Court. This
Court is of the considered view that
observation of terming the order of the
Writ Court as 'not correct' is just an
opinion of the Chairman of Press Council
of India, who has every right of fair and
healthy criticism of the judgment.

35. The order of Writ Court has also
been challenged by the Press Council of
India before the Hon'ble Apex Court by
means of Special Leave Petition No. 9411
of 2012, which is pending consideration
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

36. At this stage, it would also be
appropriate to mention herein that Section
5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
provides that a person shall not be guilty of
contempt for publishing any fair comment
on the merits of any case which has been
finally decided.

37. Further, from the perusal of
record, this Court comes to the conclusion
that
the
applicant
has
made
an
unsuccessful attempt to make out the case,
out of nothing, but just for the sake of
sensationalism whereas the applicant failed
to bring on record any news item
published/ released in any of the Print as
well as Electronic Media on the subject
matter i.e. Movement of Troops , after
passing of the order dated 10.4.2012 by the
Writ Court.

38. Thus, petition lacks bona fides
and is an abuse of the process of the Court.
It appears that the petitioner has filed this
petition just to come in limelight and
nothing else, which waisted time of the
Court. The time of Court is precious for the
reason that it is publics time and must be
utilised for adjudicating the matters which
have substance and need to be decided at
the earliest. If the time of the Court is
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
consumed, that too, a lion's share, by
frivolous and bogus litigations which is
bound to take away the time which could
have been utilised for needy litigants.

39. In the result, the petition is
dismissed. The applicant/ petitioner is
saddled with costs of Rupees One Lakh
(Rs.1,00,000/-) for filing a frivolous
petition. The cost shall be deposited by the
applicant/petitioner within a month from
today before the Registrar of the Court.
The Registry shall transmit Rs. 50,000/- to
the Mediation and Conciliation Center of
this Court and the remaining amount of Rs.
50,000/- will go to the Library of Oudh
Bar Association for purchase of Books. If
the cost is not deposited by the applicant
within the aforesaid period, the Registrar
of this Court will proceed to get the same
recovered as arrears of land revenue from
the applicant/petitioner.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1312 of 2012

Subhash Verma

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Narendra Kumar and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Mohan Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Ashish Kumar Singh

Code of Civil Procedure, Order XXXIX
Rule-I-Grant of temporary Injunctionsuit based upon un registered deed of
agreement to sale-even in plaint no
specific portion of property claimeddispossession-held-suit
based
upon
unregistered
agreement
itself
not
maintainable-in absence of these three
ingrediance-injunction rightly refused.

Held: Para 22

Since admittedly, the property in dispute
was a joint property in which there were
various co sharers, it was not possible
for
respondents-1
and
2
to
give
possession to the plaintiff over any
specific portion of the property. Neither
in the alleged deed dated 15.11.2009,
nor in the plaint, any specific portion of
the property has been shown, over which
the possession of the plaintiff is being
claimed. In the plaint, the plaintiff
claimed 1/3rd western portion, while
share of defendants-1 and 2 is less than
1/3rd as such, they were not able to
hand over possession of 1/3rd share. In
view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit
of the appellant being based upon an
unregistered
document,
is
not
maintainable. The plaintiff has no prima
facie case and accordingly not entitled
for interim injunction. The order of the
trial court does not suffer from any
illegality. The appeal has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble. Ram Surat Ram
(Maurya), J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohan Srivastava,
counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashish
Kumar Singh for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed from
the order of Civil Judge, (Senior
Division),
Hapur,
Ghaziabad
dated
28.1.2012, passed in Suit No. 89 of 2011,
by which the application for interim
injunction filed by the appellant has been
rejected.

3. The appellant filed a suit
(registered as O.S. No. 89 of 2011) for