- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred by the petitioner namely Vikas Tiwari who is a practicing Advocate of this Court in which it has been prayed that the respondents who are connected with the publication of offending report in Hindustan Times dated Sept 20, 2010, be proceeded against under the Contempt of Court Act by taking suo motu cognizance of the matter for their acts of scandalizing the Court by making reckless allegation against the sitting Chief Justice imputing to him to have passed the administrative order which it is further alleged inured to the advantage of Smt Mayawati Chief Minister of the State. It is therefore alleged that they have thus diminished the authority of this Court by vilifying the Chief Justice by irrelevant and unvarnished imputations besides interfering with due course of judicial proceedings.
(2.) THE respondents herein are connected with the publication of offending report in Hindustan Times dated Sept 20,2010 under the heading "Maya's Taj Case taken from Judge. Further sub heading in the newspapers mentions " Curious turn-Allahabad HC Chief Justice splits Rs 175 Cr scam case into two, another judge to look into criminal charges. The news item has been published as HT Exclusive by Nagendar Sharma. It is argued that the report has been published in such a way as to convey an impression in the mind of general public that the administration of justice can be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with and thus has the potentiality to shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system. The petitioner has adverted to certain offending passages in the Article. In para 12, the petitioner has adverted to paragraph no. 1 and 2 of the Article as under: "New Delhi: The seniormost judge at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Pradeep Kant, has been suddenly divested of the case challenging closure of Taj Corridor case against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, which he had been hearing since last 18 months." In a move bound to raise questions, the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice J.I Rebello, has issued two administrative orders- copies of which are available with Hindustan Times- on August 28 and 31', which take away the controversial case from the Bench headed by Justice Kant." In para 13, the petitioner has adverted to paragraph no 3 of the news item which reads as under: "The orders by Justice Rebello came barely nine days after he had met the Chief Minister and her senior party colleague, Satish Chandra Mishra at Lucknow on August 19."
(3.) IN para 14, the petitioner has referred to Paragraph no. 7 of the News item which reads as follows. "The August 31, order makes it clear that matters related to sanction of prosecution will no longer be heard by Justice Kant." In para 21, the petitioner has stated that from bare perusal of the said news item, it is apparent that the respondents have wilfully acted in publishing the said news item for the reason that the version of the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, through its any responsible officer, was not taken prior to the publishing of the said news item to have a satisfaction about the authenticity of the facts mentioned in the news item, although the news item contains the statement in paragraph no 11 as follows: "Justice Rebello was not available for his comments. Hon'ble Lordship is out of Allahabad till September 27; his office said. Justice Kant declined to comment on the issue." ;