# State of U.P v. Resident Editor, Times of India and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 164
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-02-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Case No. 1788 (C) of 2010
- **Bench:** Rajiv Sharma, Vedpal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-resident-editor-times-of-india-and-others-41819
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Sri Ramji Das
Sri Vishnu Pad Das
Sri Z.Zilani

Contempts
of
Court
Act-Section
2Criminal Contempt-on suo moto-new
item published in Times of India dated
18.08.2010-regarding
Babri
Masjid
Dispute-interview of Mohd. Hasmi the
plaintiff-by
Ms.
Manjari
MishraLanguage-"I want a proof that India is
Secular
Country
(a
Jamhuriyat)
(Democracy on people's Rule) "Let the
Judges proof it now"---------------------
Black Day in History"-from affidavit of
Contemnor's
clear
beyond
doubt
whatsoever ever stated by Mohd. Ansariaccurately the same was publishedcontempt made out-considering growing
age as well as unconditional apology in
view of law laid down by Apex Court in
Harjai Singh case-with warning to be
conscious in future-apology acceptedfurther proceeding dropped.

Held: Para-26

In Re: Harijai Singh & Anr. [(1996) 6 SCC
466] a similar case had come before
Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the
Editors, Publisher, and Reporters of
newspaper were held guilty of contempt
of court but all of them had tendered
unconditional apology. The Apex Court
had
accepted
unconditional
apology
tendered by media personnels. In the
present
case
Mohd.
Hashim
Ansari,
interviewee is an old man and is about
90 years of age and he has also tendered
unconditional apology. He should also be
treated alike the media personnels. In
view of above, the apology tendered by
all of them should be accepted with a
warning that each of them should be
careful in future.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2005 SC 2473; [AIR 1954 SC 10]; [1993
Supp. (4) SCC 446]; [(1996) 6 SCC 510];
[(1996) 6 SCC 466]

## Text

164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
directed to hold an inquiry and collect
relevant materials in support of the
applications
dated
26.03.2001
and
27.03.2001 moved by the revisionist No.3
and pass appropriate order afresh in
accordance with law.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.02.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE VEDPAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Case No. 1788 (C) of 2010

State of U.P.

 ...Petitioner
Versus.
Resident Editor, Times of India and
others.

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Govt. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramji Das
Sri Vishnu Pad Das
Sri Z.Zilani

Contempts
of
Court
Act-Section
2Criminal Contempt-on suo moto-new
item published in Times of India dated
18.08.2010-regarding
Babri
Masjid
Dispute-interview of Mohd. Hasmi the
plaintiff-by
Ms.
Manjari
MishraLanguage-"I want a proof that India is
Secular
Country
(a
Jamhuriyat)
(Democracy on people's Rule) "Let the
Judges proof it now"---------------------
Black Day in History"-from affidavit of
Contemnor's
clear
beyond
doubt
whatsoever ever stated by Mohd. Ansariaccurately the same was publishedcontempt made out-considering growing
age as well as unconditional apology in
view of law laid down by Apex Court in
Harjai Singh case-with warning to be
conscious in future-apology acceptedfurther proceeding dropped.

Held: Para-26

In Re: Harijai Singh & Anr. [(1996) 6 SCC
466] a similar case had come before
Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the
Editors, Publisher, and Reporters of
newspaper were held guilty of contempt
of court but all of them had tendered
unconditional apology. The Apex Court
had
accepted
unconditional
apology
tendered by media personnels. In the
present
case
Mohd.
Hashim
Ansari,
interviewee is an old man and is about
90 years of age and he has also tendered
unconditional apology. He should also be
treated alike the media personnels. In
view of above, the apology tendered by
all of them should be accepted with a
warning that each of them should be
careful in future.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2005 SC 2473; [AIR 1954 SC 10]; [1993
Supp. (4) SCC 446]; [(1996) 6 SCC 510];
[(1996) 6 SCC 466]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J. )

1. These proceedings for contempt of
Court have been initiated by this Court suo
motu on the basis of the news item,
published in the Times of India dated
18.8.2010 with the caption " AYODHYA,
MEMORIES
OF
A
DISPUTED
LIFTTIME" to which the attention of the
Court was invited by certain members of
the Bar.

2. Brief facts leading to these
proceedings for contempt of Court are that
Ram Janma Bhoomi Babri Masjid Title
Suit, being O. S. No.4 of 1989 was
pending before this Court for adjudication
wherein one Sri Mohd. Hashim Ansari was
plaintiff No.7. Sri Mohd. Hashim Ansari
was interviewed by Ms. Manjari Mishra,
Reporter of Times News Network and was
photographed by Sri Ajay Singh. The said
interview was published in Times of India
1 All] State of U.P. V. Resident Editor, Times of India and others
165
Edition no. 194 Vol. 28 dated 18.8.2010 by
Sri Dhanush Vir Singh without editing.
The said news item was selected by Sri
Saurabh
Banerjee
Editor,
who
was
responsible for selection of news under
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867
in the said newspaper. The Reporter of the
said news-item was Ms. Manjari Mishra,
which was based on an interview given by
Md. Hashim Ansari. The interview as
printed in the Times of India dated
18.8.2010 is as under:-

"AYODHYA, MEMORIES OF A
DISPUTED LIFETIME"

Manjari Mishra/TNN : Ayodhya :
"Last 60 years seem more like a graveyard
full of memories." Hashim Ansari, the
original plaintiff in the Babri Masjid-Ram
Janambhoomi Title Suit and convener of
Babri Masjid Reconstruction Committee,
when angry, is known to turn poetic.

Sitting at his home, badgered by a
"band of hare-brained mediators rooting
for an out of court amicable settlement.",
Hashim seethed with rage: "Aren't we all
60 years late for a compromise, " he asked.
"All witnesses are dead, litigants are dead,
even lawyers have gone to the other world.
Only Hashim Ansari lives to see this
tamasha, " he complaints.

Babri dispute today has no 'mazhabi'
(religious) character. It is a pure and
simple political battle, a multi-crore
cottage industry of Ayodhya for those who
have made a fortune peddling the image of
a deity behind bars, he continues in the
same tone. Why will they close shop so
easily, " he asks.

The handkerchief size room has space
barely for two wooden takhats, Hashim,
facing a framed photograph of Babri
Masjid, occupied one. "I want the point,
but to pray. Pray for sanity to be restored,
for communal amity so that everybody
lives in peace. This is not asking for
much."

Memories of the joint journey to
courtroom in company of Ramchandra
Paramhans Das (the main defendant, now
no more) are still fresh in him mind. " You
see there are no Muslim and Hindu issues
in Ayodhya, " the old man insists. "Ask me,
I know best. A man who has been fighting
a court case since 1950....60 long years
and till this day no Hindu has every
misbehaved with me....... na kisi Hindu ne
gaali di, na patthar mara. What proof can
be bigger than this?"

The Babri case could well be the
reason for his longevity. "How can I go
before the
case is decided? " Hashim
asks. Though ailing, he has been regular
about his attendance in the courtroom. The
last one logged in on January 11, 2010, he
proudly declares. Not bad for a man of 90,
he chuckles.

"However, these are stressful times.
Dil Bahot dhadakta rahta hia, " he admits.

These eyes have seen so much, what
else is to follow, I wonder, Hashim says as
he launches into a bitter tirade against
politicians. Right from Narsimha Rao,
Sonia Gandhi, Mulayam Singh, Azam
Khan et al, each one of them has let the
Muslims down, " charges he.

"I want a proof that India is a
secular
country
a
'Jamhuriyat'
(democracy or people's rule)" he says and
challenges. "Let the judges prove it now."
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

"What if the verdict goes against
him?"

His eyes flashing. Hashim's voice
goes several decibels higher. " What do
you mean? Why are you forcing me to
state something which everybody knows
anyway? That will be a black day in our
history signifying mobocracy has replaced
democracy in India. There will of course
mayhem, bloodbath and much else. " the
excitement proves too exhausting and he
is quiet to regain his breath.

" I for one don't want to live through
all this, though there are several others
who would simply love that. Babri dispute
could be my passion but to them it is big
money, position and power, " he says."

During the course of interview, Mohd.
Hashim Ansari uttered the following
sentence:-

" I want a proof that India is a secular
country a 'jamhuriyat' (democracy or
people's rule), "he says and challenges.
"Let the judges prove it now."

Thereafter, Manjari Mishra put a
question to Mohd. Hashim Ansari, which
reads as under:-

"What if the verdict goes against
him?"

Reply to the aforesaid question is as
under:-

"His eyes flashing. Hashim's voice
goes several decibels higher. "What do you
mean? Why are you forcing me to state
something
which
everybody
knows
anyway? That will be a lack day in our
history signifying mobocracy has replaced
democracy in India. There will of course
mayhem, bloodbath and much else. " the
excitement proves too exhausting and he is
quiet to regain his breath."

3. When the Court perused the said
news item, the Court was of the opinion
that it prima facie gives an unambiguous
message to the readers that if the matter is
not decided in a particular way, serious
unruly consequences would occur and the
uttering made by Mohd. Hashim Ansari in
his interview was not a sheer wishful
thinking of the result of the suit but there
was clear indication that if anyhow the
result comes otherwise, which is well
known to all, the consequences would be
very serious and thus it amounts to an
implied threat also to the Court to decide
the matter in a particular way as pointed
out by the interviewer. The Court was
further of the opinion that freedom of
speech and expression cannot be acceded
to
publish
any
article
commenting
adversely in sub-judice matter and since it
has been published in the newspaper
without any reservation in violation to all
ethical norms, it affects the administration
of justice and the Editor, the Reporter, the
Photographer and Interviewer all are liable
to be proceeded with for the offence of
contempt of court. Thus notices were
issued to all concerned through Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Lucknow
and
Faizabad.

4. In pursuance of the notice issued
by this Court, Shri Dhanush Vir Singh,
Shri Saurabh Banerjee, Shri Ajay Singh
and Ms. Manjari Mishra appeared and filed
their
response
seeking
unconditional
apology and stated that they have highest
regard and respect for the judicial system
and there was no mala fide intention on
1 All] State of U.P. V. Resident Editor, Times of India and others
167
their part behind publishing the said news
item.

5. Mohd. Hashim Ansari, in his
affidavit, stated that he was co-plaintiff in
O.S.No. 4 of 1989 and is aged about 90
years,is hard hearing and on account of old
age, he is suffering with acute physical
pain also and he was even not in a position
to understand correctly the question put to
him and the answers published. He
clarified that there was no intention on his
part to interfere with the administration of
justice or threat to any judge or to Court or
any hindrance in the administration of
justice and further submitted that he
tenders his unconditional apology and
taking into account his old age, his past
antecedent that he has always been
obedient and respectful to the judiciary and
is law abiding citizen, he may be pardoned
for the publication in question and his
unconditional apology may be accepted.

6. Ms. Manjari Mishra further filed
her counter affidavit stating that what was
infact stated with full understanding by
Mohd. Hashim Ansari in his interview,
was published accurately. No further
affidavit was filed by Mohd. Hashim
Anshari to controvert the averments made
in the affidavit filed by Ms. Manjari
Mishra.

7. We have heard learned counsel for
the alleged contemnors as well as Shri
Jaideep
Narain
Mathur,
Additional
Advocate General and perused the record
of the case.

8. The first question that arises for
consideration is as to whether the uttering
made by Mohd. Hashim Ansari was
accurately published as such in the news
item with the caption "AYODHYA
MEMORIES
OF
A
DISPUTED
LIFETIME" in Times of India dated
18.8.2010.

9. It reveals that interview of Mohd.
Hashim Ansari taken by Ms. Manjari
Mishra has been published in the Times of
India dated 18.8. 2010. The question put to
Mohd. Hashim Ansari and the answers
given by him has been published in "
Inverted Comma" as follows.

"I want a proof that India is a secular
country a 'Jamhuriyat' (democracy or
people's rule)"

He says and challenges. "Let the
judges prove it now."

"What if the verdict goes against
him?"

His eyes flashing. Hashim's voice
goes several decibels higher. " What do
you mean? Why are you forcing me to state
something
which
everybody
knows
anyway? That will be a black day in our
history signifying mobocracy has replaced
democracy in India. There will of course
mayhem, bloodbath and much else. " the
excitement proves too exhausting and he is
quiet to regain his breath.

10. Mohd. Hashim Ansari made a
feign attempt to say that due to old age, he
was not in a position to understand
correctly the question put to him and he is
also not able to say that answers given by
him has been translated and published
accurately in English in the news item.

11. Ms. Manjari Mishra in her
affidavit has deposed that in the interview
what was stated by Mohd. Hashim Ansari
was correctly translated and published in
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
the newspaper and no addition or any
change was made by her. The answers
given by Mohd. Hashim Ansari during the
interview
have
been
placed
under
"Inverted Comma". No affidavit, denying
the truthfulness of the contents of affidavit
filed by Ms. Manjari Mishra has been filed
on behalf of Mohd. Hashim Ansari. Thus,
it stands proved that what was stated by
Mohd. Hashim Ansari in his interview to
Ms. Manjari Mishra was accurately
published in the newspaper and thus this
question is decided accordingly.

12. Now the next question that arises
for consideration is as to whether the
utterings made by Mohd. Hashim Ansari in
his interview falls within the ambit of
Contempt of Court. It reveals from the
perusal of the answers given by Mohd.
Hashim Ansari that if the matter is not
decided in a particular way, serious unruly
consequences would follow and thus there
was clear indication that if anyhow the
result comes otherwise, which is well
known to all, the consequences would be
very serious and thus it amounts to an
implied threat to Court to decide the matter
in a particular way as pointed out by
interviewer. Thus the utterings made by
Mohd. Hashim Ansari in the interview in
question falls within the ambit of contempt
of court. It affects the administration of
justice. Thus, this question is accordingly
decided in affirmative.

13. Now the last question that arises
for consideration is as to whether the
interview of Mohd. Hashim Ansari was
taken and published in the newspaper by
its Reporter, Editor etc. in violation to the
ethical
norms
and
it
affects
the
administration of justice and as such the
Editors, Reporter and Photographer are
also liable for the contempt of Court.

14. In the instant case, four persons
proceeded against belong to the press. The
freedom of press in a country is the symbol
of the great ideologies of greater men. A
free press is the soul of a democracy.
Therefore, the framers of our constitution
gave a lot of importance to "freedom of
speech and expression." It was declared to
be a Fundamental Right, and has been
granted under Article 19 (1) (a) of our
Constitution.

"Article 19. Protection of certain
rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.

(1)All citizens shall have the right-

(a) To freedom of speech and
expression;"

b)....................

(c)............

(d)...............

(e)......................

(f)..................

(g)...................................

15. But, the Constitution under
Article 19 (2) has also laid down
restrictions to the use of the Fundamental
Right, which speaks as follows:

"19.[(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of
clause (1) shall affect the operation of any
existing law, or prevent the State from
making any law, in so far as such law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said
sub-clause in the interests of [ the
sovereignty and integrity of India], the
1 All] State of U.P. V. Resident Editor, Times of India and others
169
security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or
morality, or in relation to contempt of
court, defamation or incitement to an
offense.]"

16. It was the Report submitted by
the Press Commission of India in 1954
which stated:-

"Within the limits of this legal
tolerance, the control over the press must
be subjective or professional. The ethical
sense of the individual, the consciousness
that abuse of freedom of expression though
not legally punishable must tarnish the fair
name of the press, and the censure of the
fellow journalists should all operate as
powerful factors towards the maintenance
of the freedom even without any legal
restrictions being placed on the freedom."

17. It is true that the media has
freedom under our Constitution but the
media
should
avoid
tendencies
like
sensationalism,
misleading
headlines,
twisting of facts, vilification of an
individual, an institution, a court of law, a
caste, a community or Government,
interfering or tending to interfere with
course of justice by adopting the role of an
investigator, counsel or witness, by
usurping the function of a court of law in
matters sub-judice by publishing extrajudicial information in a pending trial, by
attacking the integrity of judges, etc. If the
media fails to avoid these dangers, it
comes under scrutiny of the law of libel or
slander of defamation or contempt of
court, as the case may be. Therefore, the
media must set its ideals fairly high. True
reporting,
fair
criticism,
impartial
purveying of news should be its motto.
Else, the Printer and Publisher will also be
liable. Absence of knowledge of content of
the news sheet is no defence, nor can
intention be a valid plea.

18. It is a common feature of the
newspaper to publish with fanfare the court
proceedings in pending matters and
particularly
sensational
criminal
proceedings. If the publication does not
purport to prejudge any issue in criminal
proceedings, it is not a contempt to report
the occurrence of a crime or the fact of an
arrest or charge. However, it is a contempt
of court to publish comments on pending
proceedings which prejudges the merits of
the case or which imputes guilt to, or
asserts the innocence of a particular
accused. Similarly, the publication before
trial of what, purports to be the defence to
be put forward by an accused person may
amount to a contempt of court. It is a
serious
contempt
for
a
newspaper
systematically to conduct an independent
investigation into a crime for which a man
has been arrested and to publish the results
of that investigation or to publish the effect
of judgment which is yet to be pronounced.

19. Ram Janam Bhoomi Babri
Masjid dispute has always been a volatile
issue in the Country and this was the
reason that certain guidelines were issued
by the Press Council of India on January
21, 1993 for guarding against the
commission of the following journalistic
improprieties and un-ethicalities:-

1. Distortion or exaggeration of facts
or incidents in relation to communal
matters or giving currency to unverified
rumours, suspicions or inferences as if
they were facts and base their comment,
on them.

2. Employment of intemperate or
unrestrained language in the presentation
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
of news or views, even as a piece of
literary flourish or for the purpose of
rhetoric or emphasis.

3.
Encouraging
or
condoning
violence even in the face of provocation
as a means of obtaining redress of
grievance whether the same be genuine or
not.

4. While it is the legitimate function
of the Press to draw attention to the
genuine and legitimate grievance of any
community with a view to having the
same redressed by all peaceful legal and
legitimate means, it is improper and a
breach of journalistic ethics to invent
grievances,
or
to
exaggerate
real
grievances, as these tend to promote
communal
ill-feeling
and
accentuate
discord.

5. Scurrilous and untrue attacks on
communities, or individuals, particularly
when this is accompanied by charges
attributing misconduct to them as due to
their being members of a particular
community or caste.

6. Falsely giving a communal colour
to incidents which might occur in which
members of different communities happen
to be involved.

7. Emphasizing matters that are apt
to produce communal hatred or ill-will, or
fostering feelings of distrust between
communities.

8. Publishing alarming news which
are
in
substance
untrue
or
make
provocative comments on such news or
even otherwise calculated to embitter
relations between different communities
or regional or linguistic groups.

9. Exaggerating actual happenings to
achieve sensationalism and publication of
news which adversely affect communal
harmony
with
banner
headlines
or
distinctive types.

10. Making disrespectful, derogatory
or insulting remarks on or reference to the
different religions or faiths or their
founders.

20. In the instant case the guidelines
issued by the Press Council of India as
stated above were also not followed in its
letter and spirit. The news item as was
published was provocative, calculated to
embitter
relations
between
two
communities and a message to Court that
if the pending matter is not decided in a
particular
way,
serious
unruly
consequences would occur. It also reveals
from the perusal of the news item that an
attempt was also made to get the answers
of Mohd. Hashim Ansari that in case the
pending suit is not decided in his favour
serious consequences would occur. In this
attempt, a question was put by Ms.
Manjari Mishra to Mohd. Hashim Ansari
that what will happen if the verdict goes
against him, whereupon reply what was
given by Mohd. Hashim Ansari as has
been narrated in earlier part of judgment.
Thus Ms. Manjari Mishra attempted to get
such news that may sensationalize matter
and may also have an affect communal
harmony which affect of yielding pressure
on the Court to decide the matter in a
particular way.

21. The principles relating to the law
of contempt are well settled. The
observations made by the Apex Court in
Rajendra Sail vs. M.P.High Court Bar
Association and others AIR 2005 SC
2473 reads as under:-
1 All] State of U.P. V. Resident Editor, Times of India and others
171

"The judiciary is the guardian of the
rule of law. The confidence, which the
people repose in the Courts of justice,
cannot be allowed to be tarnished,
diminished or wiped out by contemptuous
behavior of any person. If the judiciary is
to perform its duties and functions
effectively and true to the spirit with
which they are sacredly entrusted, the
dignity and authority of the Courts have
to be respected and protected at all costs.
The foundation of the judiciary is the trust
and the confidence of the people in its
ability to deliver fearless and impartial
justice. When the foundation itself is
shaken by acts which tend to create
disaffection
and
disrespect
for
the
authority of the Court by creating distrust
in its working, the edifice of the judicial
system gets eroded. It is for this purpose
that the courts are entrusted with
extraordinary powers of punishing for
contempt of Court, those who indulge in
acts, which tend to undermine the
authority of law and bring it in disrepute
and disrespect by scandalizing it."

In Brahma Prakash Sharma & Ors.
The State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 10]
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"If the publication of the disparaging
statement is calculated to interfere with
the due course of justice or proper
administration of law by such Court, it
can be punished summarily as contempt is
a wrong done to the public. It will be
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
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. It is well established that it
is not necessary to prove affirmatively
that there has been an actual interference
with the administration of justice by
reason of such defamatory statement; it is
enough if it is likely, or tends in any way,
to
interfere
with
the
proper
administration of law."

In Re. Roshan Lal Ahuja [ 1993
Supp. (4) SCC 446], Hon'ble Supreme
Court also held as under:-

"That no litigant can be permitted to
overstep the limits of fair, bona fide and
reasonable criticism of a judgment and
bring the courts generally in disrepute or
attribute motives to the Judges rendering
the judgment. Perversity, calculated to
undermine the judicial system and the
prestige of the court, cannot be permitted
for otherwise the very foundation of the
judicial system is bound to be undermined
and weakened and that would be bad not
only for the preservation of rule of law
but also for the independence of judiciary.
Liberty of free expression is not to be
confused
with
a
license
to
make
unfounded,
unwarranted
and
irresponsible
aspersions
against
the
Judges or the Courts in relation to
judicial matters. No system of justice can
tolerate such an unbridled license. Of
course " Justice is not a cloistered virtue;
she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny
and respectful, even though outspoken,
comments of ordinary men", but the
members of the public have to abstain
from imputing improper motives to those
taking part in the administration of justice
and exercise their right of free criticism
without malice or in any way attempting
to impair to administration of justice and
refrain from making any comment which
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
tends to scandalize the Court in relation
to judicial matters."

22. In Re. Ajay Kumar Pandey
[(1996) 6 SCC 510], it has been held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court that in order a
Judge may fearlessly and independently
act in the discharge of their judicial
functions, it is necessary that he should
have full liberty to act within the sphere
of their activity. If, however, litigants
and their counsel start threatening the
Judge or launch persecution against him
for what he has honestly and bonafidely done in his Court, the judicial
independence would vanish eroding the
very edifice on which the institution of
justice stands.

23. Reverting to the present case, it
is imminently clear that the publication
of the news item was not fair and an
attempt was made to make the news
sensational
by
its
Reporter.
The
photograph of Mohd. Hashim Ansari
was also taken when he was in full zeal
while giving his interview.

24. The words as were extracted
from Mohd. Hashim Ansari in his
interview by Ms. Manjari Mishra were
published in the news item as such
without proper editing, thus in view of
what has been stated above the Editors,
Reporters and Photographer have also
committed contempt of Court.

25. Mohd. Hashim Ansari-the
Interviewee, Shri Dhaush Vir Singh-the
Editor,
Shri
Saurabh
Banerjee-the
Editor,
Ms.
Manjari
Mishra-the
Reporter and Shri Ajay Singh-the
Photographer of Times of India have
very candidly not made any attempt to
justify their action in giving the
interview and Mohd. Hashim Ansari
interviewee, publishing the news report
and only prayed for acceptance of their
apology. The fact that all above
immediately tendered apology after
service of the notice shows that that
there was no intention on their part to
scandalize the judiciary but it was a case
of error of misunderstanding on their
part that interview was given and news
item was published when the case was
pending. for determination.

26. In Re: Harijai Singh & Anr.
[(1996) 6 SCC 466] a similar case had
come before Hon'ble Supreme Court
wherein the Editors, Publisher, and
Reporters of newspaper were held guilty
of contempt of court but all of them had
tendered unconditional apology. The
Apex Court had accepted unconditional
apology tendered by media personnels.
In the present case Mohd. Hashim
Ansari, interviewee is an old man and is
about 90 years of age and he has also
tendered unconditional apology. He
should also be treated alike the media
personnels. In view of above, the
apology tendered by all of them should
be accepted with a warning that each of
them should be careful in future.

27. The apology tendered by
contemnors Mohammad. Hashim Ansari
the Interviewee, Shri Dhaush Vir Singhthe Editor, Shri Saurabh Banerjee- the
Editor Ms. Manjari Mishra-the Reporter
and Shri Ajay Singh-the Photographer is
hereby accepted with a warning that each
of them shall be careful in future.
Consequently, further proceedings are
dropped and the notices issued to them
are hereby discharged.
1 All] Surya Bhanu Pandey V. State of U.P. and others
173

28. The contempt petition is
accordingly disposed of.

29. Registrar of this Court is
directed to send a copy of this order to the
Secretary, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Government of India, New
Delhi as well as to the Chief Secretary,
Government
of
U.P.
for
onward
transmission to the Press Council of India
and other agencies of Media.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.02.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.

Misc. Single No. - 2373 of 1992

Surya Bhanu Pandey

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri U.B. Pandey
Sri R.K.Pathak
Sri S.K.Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Arms Act Section 17 (3)-Cancellation of
fire Arm License-on ground of pendency
of criminal cases-held-mere involvement
or pendency of criminal case cannot be
ground for revocation of license.

Held: Para 4

It is well settled in law that mere
pendency
of
criminal
case
or
apprehension of misuse of arms are not
sufficient grounds for passing the order
of suspension or revocation of licence
under Section 17(3) of the Act. The
question
as
to
whether
mere
involvement
in
a
criminal
case
or
pendency of a criminal case can be a
aground for revocation of licence under
Arms Act, has been dealt with by a
Division Bench of this Court in Sheo
Prasad
Misra
Versus
The
District
Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein
the Division Bench relying upon the
earlier decision of Masiuddin Versus
Commissioner, Allahabad, found that
mere
involvement
in
criminal
case
cannot in any way affect the public
security or public interest. The law
propounded in the said decisions has
been subsequently followed in Habib
Versus State of U.P. reported in 2002
ACC
783,
Ram
Sanehi
Versus
Commissioner,
Devi
Patan
Division,
Gonda and another.
Case law discussed:
[2006(24) LCD 114]; [2006(24) LCD 266];
[2006(24) LCD 374]; 2002 ACC 783

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing counsel.

By means of instant writ petition,
the petitioner assails the order impugned
passed by the Licensing Authority
whereby the arms license of the
petitioner was cancelled inter-alia on the
ground that a criminal case has been
registered against him and is still
pending adjudication against which an
appeal
was
filed,
that
too
was
dismissed.

Aggrieved thereof, the present writ
petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Pleadings were exchanged
between the parties.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner
has
submitted
that
the
petitioner's
arms-license
has
been
cancelled on account of pendency of the