S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. - (1.) ON the 9th of May, 1982 the Hindustan Times, Delhi in its Sunday magazine section prominently published an article captioned as 'The Judge's relative' spread over the whole of the first page thereof. Its contents undoubtedly did raise ripples in the legal circles within the country. The Allahabad High Court initiated proceedings for contempt against the newspaper. Compelled to take notice the certain offending passages therein which were particularly directed against this High Court following order was recorded on the 3rd of June, 1982 :- "I have with the utmost care perused and re-perused the contents of the article captioned as 'the Judge's relative' (including the cartoon) prominently published in the issue of the Hindustan Times dated the 9th of May, 1982. Its tone, its tenor, and its tendancy to scandalise the higher judiciary in general and this Court in particular and to hold them up to ridicule and contempt is writ too large on its face to call for any further elaboration. Certain factual allegations therein are not only false but totally baseless. A prima facie case of criminal contempt under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is thus clearly disclosed. In accordance with the Full Bench judgment in Court on its own motion v. Kasturi Lal and others, AIR 1980 Punjab and Haryana 72 proceedings be initiated against the condemners." In pursuance thereto, notices under rules 5 and 6 of the Contempt of Courts, Punjab and Haryana Rules 1974 were issued to four respondents, namely, Messrs B.M. Sinha the author of the article, Khushwant Singh the Editor of the newspaper, Sukumar Chatterjee Cartoonist, and G.S. Rajhans Printer and Publisher of the Hindustan Times, New Delhi. In response thereto the aforesaid four respondents filed affidavits in a somewhat contentious tone by way of reply to the contempt notices on the 4th of October, 1982. However, on thoughtful consideration later (apparently in the maturer hands of their learned counsel) wiser counsels patently prevailed and an application was moved on the 16th of March, 1983 praying that the affidavits filed earlier be allowed to be withdrawn altogether and fresh affidavits enclosed to the said application be substituted therefore and read as reply to the notices. The conciliatory, if not a contrite therein, is sampled by the following in the affidavit of the Editor :- "....... The judiciary, one of the most cherished institutions in our country, has been bulwark of democracy and the media wished and desires that it continues to perform its functions within the constitutional framework with full public confidence in the administration of justice. It is the duty of the media to place before the public various aspects about this institution, which are agitating the public. The objective of course is that in doing this the institution, aware of criticism from outside, is able to deal with it in its own manner. It is in this spirit that the said article was written and published. The object was not the denigration of the institution in the eyes of the public. and then. The above articles does not and did not express the view of the management of the Hindustan Times and certainly not the views of the deponent. I have the highest regard for the institution of the judiciary, very much value its independence and am convinced of the fact that the judiciary in India has played a vital role in protecting the rights of citizens. In allowing the said publication of the article. I was merely placing a point of view of the members of the legal profession as well as those closely connected with it on a matter of public interest and national importance, which view I bonafide believed, they were entitled to express. It is in this light that the Hindustan Times participation in the national debate which has agitated the public mind. I had not slightest intention or motive to scandalise the Court, to lower the prestige of judiciary or to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner. I reiterate my high regard and esteem for the judiciary in the country."
(2.) REVERTING back to the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1488 of 1983, dated 16th March, 1983, Mr. R.N. Narulla appearing for the respondent-condemners was unable to cite any express provisions or direct-precedent which could possibly warrant the wholesale withdrawal of affidavits filed by way of reply in a case of contempt and their substitution in toto. We were somewhat sceptical of the maintainability of the said application and notice thereof was issued to the counsel opposite. On March 21, 1983 when the matter came up for arguments, Mr. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court highlighted the fact that contempt procedure were criminal or in any case quasi criminal in nature, and, therefore, a totality withdrawal or the substitution of the affidavits and the plea of the condemners which would be in the nature of the statement of an accused person, would not be permissible, on principle. This apart he also placed reliance, on 'In re : Bai Amrit (1884) 8 Bombay 380; R.P.C. Connor v. P.G. Sampath Kumar, AIR 1953 Madras 897, and Manalal Rikhbaji and others v. Mohanlal Hari Lal Rathi and others, AIR 1963 Bombay 94, for contending that before the High Court it being a Court of Record, a document duly filed could not be wiped off the record and be withdrawn as if it did not exist at all.
(3.) FACED with the aforesaid stand Mr. Soli Sorabjee learned Senior Counsel for the four respondents had adroitly stated at the very threshold that he would not press the specific claim of the whole-sale withdrawal of earlier affidavits. He took the stand that he would rest content if the fresh affidavits now being filed were read as explanatory to or in any case as clarificatory in nature of the earlier ones. In view of this and because of the conciliatory and the contrite stand taken on behalf of the respondents by their counsel to which a reference follows hereinafter, we do not feel compelled to adjudicate on this legal issue. However, we cannot help noticing that but for the mature and sagacious handling of the matter by Mr. Soli Sorbajee, these proceedings would perhaps have undoubtedly taken a different turn.;