Sarjoo Prosad, J. - (1.) A rule nisi was issued by this Court on 7 -11 -1953 calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why they should not be committed or otherwise dealt with for contempt of this Court for publishing a news item in an issue, dated 21 -8 -53, of the 'daily' called 'The Times of India'. The. opposite parties 1 and 2 are the Editor and the Printer and Publisher of that paper respectively, and opposite party 3 is the correspondent thereof from Jorhat in the State of Assam. This paper appears to have a large circulation, and is published simultaneously every day in the English language in Bombay, Delhi and Calcutta. The news item in question bears the heading "Failed candidate to get his degree" and is dated, Jorhat, August 20. The publication purports to be a report of a judgment, dated 18 -8 -53, delivered by this Court in Civil Rule No. 3 of 1953. As the report appeared to be a garbled and distorted version of the judgment leading to the impression that it was an arbitrary writ of mandamus issued against the Gauhati University, the attention of the Court was directed to the publication by an affidavit filed by Mr. J. C. Medhi, the then Registrar of the Court.
(2.) THE relevant facts were that one Hemendra Chandra Das who was a student of the Jorhat Agricultural College, appeared in the Bachelor of Science Examination in Agriculture of the Gauhati University for the year 1952 as an examinee. According to the mark -sheet furnished by the University, he secured 1172 marks out of an aggregate of 2400 marks in the Examination, that is to say, he secured in the aggregate 48.8 per cent. marks. He also got more than 30 per cent. marks in 'each 'subject';' though in one of the papers of "Genetics etc." in the subject of 'Agricultural Botany which consisted of two theoretical papers -(i) Plant Physiology and (ii) Genetics etc., -he secured only 28 marks out of 100, but counting the marks in the above two papers of Agricultural Botany, he secured more than 30 per cent. marks even in that subject. The rules simply required that in order to pass the B. Sc. Examination in Agriculture, a candidate must pass in all the subjects by obtaining 30 per cent. or more marks in the theoretical papers and 40 per cent or more marks in the practicals; and in order to get a Second Class, a candidate must obtain 45 per cent. or more marks in the aggregate, but not exceeding 60 per cent., which entitled him to a First Class. The candidate's stand, therefore, was that according to the rules and regulations of the University, he should have been declared to have passed the University Examination in Bachelor of Science (Agri.) and to have been placed in the Second Class; but when the results of the Examination were published in August 1952, the University did not announce his name as a successful candidate in that Examination. Having failed to move the University authorities to consider his case, he applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction on the University by an appropriate writ to declare him to have passed the Examination as aforesaid. The petition was resisted by the University on the ground that each paper for the Bachelor of Science Examination was a subject by itself. It was, in other words, asserted on behalf of the University that Agricultural Botany was not a subject by itself but consisted of two distinct subjects, namely, (i) Plant Physiology, and (ii) Genetics, etc. It was further contended by the University that in order to pass the Examination in question, a candidate must, under the rules, obtain 30 per cent. or more marks in each paper of each subject, and the petitioner having failed to do so, his marks in one of the papers, "Genetics, etc.", being only 28 out of 100, he could not be declared to have passed the Examination, This Court, after hearing the matter on two different dates, and after a careful consideration of the points urged on behalf of the parties, came to the conclusion that the University had acted in direct contravention of the rules in not declaring the candidate, Hemandra Chandra Das, to have passed the Examination. It found that the contention of the examinee was correct; there being two papers on the subject of Agricultural Botany, all that was necessary for a candidate to pass in that subject according to the rules was to obtain 30 per cent. marks in that subject. The candidate having obtained more than 30 per cent. marks in the subject of Agricultural Botany, counting the aggregate of the two papers in that subject under the regulations of the University, he should have been declared to have passed the said Examination of the University and to have been placed in the Second Class. The Court, therefore, accepted the application of the candidate and issued the necessary writ on the University, for announcing the result, as aforesaid, The judgment of the Court was delivered by. me, with which my brother, Deka, J., agreed. We heard the application for the first time in the presence of both parties on 24 -6 -53 when we felt impressed with the case of the petitioner. We, therefore, gave an opportunity to the University to reconsider its decision, but when the case was again taken up on 11 -8 -53, the Court was intimated that the University had no inclination to do so. Then the Court proceeded to hear the parties afresh and give its judgment. The judgment shows that the Advocate -General who represented the University said all that could be said for the action it had taken against the candidate. I concluded my judgment in the case with these observations : Ordinarily, however, a Court would be most reluctant to interfere with the internal discipline of the University and its autonomous working under the Statute. An august body of such importance is entitled to all the reasonable latitude which its position deserves. I was, therefore, anxious that the authorities themselves would realise their mistake and would rectify the wrong which they had done to the petitioner, but I understand that, in spite of my having given them sufficient opportunity to do so, they have consistently refused to consider the claim of the petitioner. As I have said above, the University is a creature of the Statute and must obey the rules and regulations by which it professes to be bound, If it acts in violation of those rules and thereby adversely affects the rights of others, its conduct Is open to question. I have, therefore, no other alternative but to direct that the rules and regulations framed by the University should be strictly followed.
(3.) IT is in the background of these facts that the offending publication has to be considered. The caption of the article "Failed candidate to get his degree", which is in very bold capital letters, is, by itself, somewhat intriguing and sensational. It may ill accord with the respectability of a responsible journal to cater for sensation -mongering items of news, but the temptation is venial and no serious exception could be taken to it unless what follows thereafter is actually found to be objectionable and constitutes contempt. After some preliminary observation the article says : On an 'ex parte' application of the petitioner, Mr, Hemendra Chandra Das, the Chief Justice Sarju Prasad and Mr. Justice Haliram Deka, of the Assam High Court, issued the writ, declaring the petitioner to have passed the examination. I have shown that the writ was not issued on any 'ex parte' application, but that the two sides were fully represented and heard in the matter, before the judgment was delivered. This is apparent even from the later portion of the publication itself. Therefore, the reporter concerned either did not know the meaning of the word 'ex parte' or had some wrong and hazy notion of its import. Then come the following paragraphs : The petitioner's case was that he sat for the examination in 1952 and obtained an average of 48.8 per cent. of the aggregate total marks for all subjects, but failed to obtain 33 per cent. in one subject alone. University Rules. Under the University rules, a candidate must obtain 33 per cent. marks in each subject to pass the examination, irrespective of the percentage obtained of the aggregate total marks. But the petitioner obtained more than 33 per cent. of the aggregate though he failed in one subject by scoring 28 per cent. The University had, therefore, declared him to have failed in the examination. These paragraphs unmistakably represent (i) that on his own admission the petitioner in that case had failed to obtain 33 per cent. marks in one subject; (ii) that under the University rules, a candidate was bound to obtain 33 per cent. marks in each subject to pass the examination irrespective of the percentage of the aggregate total marks; (iii) that the petitioner obtained more than 33 per cent. of the aggregate though he failed in one subject by scoring 28 per cent. only : and (iv) that the University had, therefore, declared him to have failed in the examination, If those facts as represented in the quotation were correct, the candidate had no case to come to this Court and obtain a writ, when, as the article suggests, on his own showing he had failed in one subject in which he scored 28 per cent. only, and the rules required that he should have obtained 33 per cent. in each subject in order to pass the examination. On these false premises, the reader of the article cannot come to any other conclusion than this that the University was right in not declaring the candidate to have passed, and that this Court, without rhyme or reason, issued a mandamus compelling that important public body to grant the B.Sc. degree in Agriculture to an unqualified candidate. I have shown already what the actual facts were. The candidate had passed in each subject and obtained more than 30 per cent. marks in each of them, which was all that was required to make him pass the examination under the rules. The publication has, therefore, distorted the essential facts and presented them in such a garbled manner as to make it appear that the decision of the University in failing the candidate was quite justified, and that the action of this Court was arbitrary in directing the "failed candidate to get his degree". The other parts of the article in question do not, in my opinion, improve but worsen the position. I may as well quote that part; The petitioner then filed a suit in the Assam High Court against the University to declare him to have passed the examination in the second division. After considering the merits of the case, the Chief Justice issued instructions to the Gauhati University to declare the petitioner to have passed the examination and to intimate their declaration to this effect to the Chief Justice through the Advocate -General on or before August 18. On the failure of the University to carry out the High Court's order, the Chief Justice issued the above writ. The writer of the article who ventures to send reports on important legal topics to an important 'Daily', has not even the faintest notion of the difference between a 'suit' and an 'application' for a high prerogative writ. In the beginning of the article, he used the words "ex parte application". It only shows at least how careless and irresponsible the writer has been in ascertaining his facts. I will, however, proceed to examine the meaning of the above quotation. It states that the Chief Justice issued instructions to the Gauhati University to declare the petitioner to have passed the examination as if this was done by me individually, and not sitting in Court with my colleague (Deka, J.); and that I wanted the reply of the University to be intimated to me by the Advocate -General; and, on the failure of the University to carry out my order, I issued the writ. These are clearly wrong and tendentious statements, likely to mislead the reader and to create the impression that I or the Court was acting in some despotic fashion seeking to impose our authority on the University. The caption of the article in bold glaring letters thus assumes its own mischievous significance. From what I have already discussed earlier, the facts and the contents of the judgment as published in this report are totally incorrect and misleading. The news item is bound to create a misapprehension in the mind of the innumerable readers of the newspaper so as to make them doubt the wisdom and sagacity of the action taken by this Court and shake their confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice, for which this Court exists. It brings into disrepute our decision in the above case and tends to scandalise the Court by false imputations.;