- (1.) BY our order dated 15-12-1977, we discharged the notice for contempt issued against the respondents, and indicated that the reasons for the order would be given later. We now proceed to give the reasons.
(2.) THE respondents to this petition are Shrimati Indra Gandhi, Sri Girilal Jain and Sri Ramesh Chandra. Sri Girilal Jain was the Editor of Times of India, New Delhi, and Ramesh Chandra was the printer of the Newspaper. An election petition was filed challenging the election of Shrimati Indra Gandhi. That petition was allowed by this Court on December 6, 1975. On August 2, 1977, a news item appeared in the Times of India which has given rise to the present contempt petition. THE news item was based upon the report of Mohammad Shamim Chief Reporter Times of India. THE relevant part of the news item runs as under ;- "She said that the imposition of emergency was inherent in the situation that had developed after the Allahabad High Court judgment. THE judgment was already known to several opposition leaders even before it was declared. It came at the end of a series of developments...............THE conclusion was inescapable that the judgment itself served as the climatic point of these developments............." It is urged that the insinuation in the statements is either that the Judge or his staff had leaked out the judgment before it was delivered, to the opposition leaders, and further that it contained an insinuation that there was some sort of conspiracy between the Judge and the opposition leaders as regards the judgment. The allegation regarding innuendo is based upon the latter part of the report. It is undoubtedly true that if a newspaper item read as a whole contains obvious implications and insinuations which immediately create a strong prejudicial impact on the mind of readers about lack of honesty, integrity and impartiality on the part of a Judge, the person concerned would be liable to conviction for contempt-See Perspective Publications v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SO 222 p. 226. But, we are of view that the news item "the conclusion was inescapable that the judgment itself served as a climatic point of these developments" do not contain any implication or insinuation that the opposition and the Judge were hand in glove and the judgment was given as a result thereof. The concluding portion fairly read, only means that the judgment constituted the end point of various developments leading to the emergency. Thus no such implication or insinuation can be read into the words as contended. Coming now to the earlier part of the statement, it is settled that the standard of proof required to establish a charge of criminal contempt is the same as in any other Criminal case-See S. Abdul Karim v. M. K. Prakash, AIR 1976 SC 859. Sri Mohammad Shamim, Chief Reporter, Times of India gave the procedure adopted by him regarding recording of the statement of Shrimati Indira Gandhi. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by him, it is stated that Sri Jagjiwan Ram and a number of other opposition leaders criticised the imposition of emergency and what had happened during it and he along with other reporters informally met Shrimati Indra Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India to find out how the Government met the criticism of the opposition leaders. No questions were put by these reporters regarding the judgment of Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha in the election case, but Shrimati Indra Gandhi referred to the judgment in the context of the factors which, in her opinion, led to the imposition of emergency. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, he has stated that the report published was a precise of the statement made by him of the statement of Shrimati Indra Gandhi. This was based on both memory and sketchy notes that he had taken at the time of the informal meeting. In paragraph 6, it is stated that only the text in inverted commas in the news report were the verbatim words of Shrimati Indra Gandhi, and the rest of the item as regards the choice of the words and phrases were his. The basic effort according to the Reporter was to put across the substance of Mrs. Indra Gandhi's statement and not her phraseology. He had made, however, efforts to use as far as possible the words used by Shrimati Indra Gandhi. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit filed by Shrimati Indra Gandhi, it is averred that a [large number of reporters of various papers surrounded her on 6-2-1977 immediately after the conclusion of the meeting of the Central Election Committee, and put to her a large number of questions both in English and Hindi. It is averred that she does not recollect the sequence of the questions put to her and the answers which she gave to these questions. However, it is stated that to the best of her recollection, commenting on the High Court judgment, she had stated that several opposition leaders cLalmed to know of the verdict, before it was declared. This being the factual position, and in view of the fact that onus of proving the alleged statement lies upon the person who wants contempt proceedings to (be taken, we are unable to hold that the first part of the statement as published in the newspaper contains a verbatim precise of the statement made by Shrimati Indra Gandhi. It is apparent from the affidavit of Sri Mohammad Shamim that the report is based both on memory and sketchy notes taken down by him, and does not use the precise words used by Shrimati Indra Gandi while commenting on the judgment. This being so, we are unable to hold that the words attributed to her in the earlier part of the news item represent faithfully the words spoken by her at the time of tie interview. We also see no reason for holding that the respondent No. 1 committed contempt of court by repeating what the opposition leaders and other persons were saying about the final verdict of the election case. It has already been noticed that the respondent No. 1 in the counter-affidavit filed by her has stated that even before the judgment was pronounced, the matter was being discussed in the Central Hall of Parliament, and various Members of the Parliament had informed her that a number of persons including M.Ps. of the opposition were saying that tie judgment in the election case was going against the respondent No. 1. In this context, it has been averred by respondent No. I that the opposition leaders and others cLalmed to know of the judgment before it was pronounced. Inasmuch, as the matter was being discussed by the opposition leaders and other persons freely, and they were expressing the opinion that the judgment would go against respondent No. 1, it is improbable that any person hearing that conversation would form an opinion that such a large number of persons had access to the Judge or his staff, and had thus come to know of the judgment. Considering this aspect, we can take note of the fact that the Courts are held in the highest esteem by the public at large, and no reasonable person could in view of the discussion that was going on, form an opinion that the information regarding the final outcome of the case had been leaked to the opposition MPs. and a large section of the public by the Court. He would attribute it only to intelligent anticipation of the judgment. We may also point out that no attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner or the Government Advocate to justify any action for contempt being taken on the basis of the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent as a defence to this petition, and we think rightly. Thus no case is made out for taking any action against Shrimati Indra Gandhi respondent No. 1.
(3.) SO far as the other respondents are concerned, they have tendered an unqualified apology, and in the circumstances, we do not think it is worthwhile to consider the question as to whether the second and third respondents should be proceeded against for publishing the aforesaid statement (assuming for argument's sake that the earlier part of the statement in the newspaper amounts to contempt). We are in the circumstances inclined to accept their apology. These reasons shall form part of the final order dated 15-12-1977 discharging the notice. Notice discharged.;