BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SR SEN
CRL.OP(C) NO. 1 OF 2015
27.01.2015
In response to the order dated 14.01.2015, respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 namely; Mr. Adelbert Nongrum, CEM, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Mr. Thomas Lim, Editor, The Meghalaya Times and Mrs. Patricia Mukhim, Editor, The Shillong Times are present.
Also seen the affidavits filed by the respondents.
On perusal of the affidavit/show cause of respondent No. 1 at Para-6 it appears that: “That, I respectfully beg to state that whatever I might have or reported to have stated, it was done on emotion before the public and media. I have no intention to disobey or undermine the authority of the Judiciary by making derogatory statement”.
1. From the above mentioned paragraph, it appears that the respondent No. 1 is ready to tender unconditional apology before the Hon’ble Court for such statement.
2. Further, when respondent No. 1 was personally asked, whether he has made such statement, he answered in affirmative. Though, in his affidavit he has stated that, he is ready to tender his apology but from his body language and conduct it appears that, there is no repentance or realization on his part. Mr. Nongrum respondent No. 1, when asked what encouraged him to say that, “dared the Meghalaya High Court to hold him in contempt and to punish him for the same”, which appeared in Meghalaya Times a daily newspaper dated 31st December 2014. He was also asked to explain, what exited him further to give a statement that, “I strongly suspect that there is a hidden agenda against the indigenous community behind this ruling” which appeared in Shillong Times dated 8.01.2015. (He gave this statement against the Judgment & Order dated 10.12.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 363 of 2014).
3. The respondent No. 1 failed to place any satisfactory answer to the queries put by this Court against the statement given by him as quoted above. Hence, it is clear that whatever apology he mentioned in his affidavit is nothing but mere paper and hollow apology only. However, in the middle of dictation of this order he said that, he has tendered his apology.
4. He rather stated that, he is a constitutional functionary, so he should have been consulted before passing the Judgment & Order dated 10.12.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 363 of 2014, though he was not a party. In hostile manner he asked the court to remain patient and was trying to provoke the court repeatedly prior to the dictation of this order.
5. For such slur, mudslinging and bald statement against the Judge of the High Court in particular and High Court in general without any basis, and today his conduct in court room have definitely affected the majesty of law and has shaken the confidence of the people upon the judiciary, hence, such paper and hollow apology is not at all acceptable.
6. The author of the judgment passed in WP(C) No. 363 of 2014 had never written any judgment or order with any hidden agenda. A Judge does not have any caste, religion or language or any personal agenda and he is above all those practices and his only motive is to render justice and to ensure that rule of law to prevail and dignity of the Constitution to be upheld. I mentioned that, this Court is not against any customs or usages or against any practice unless it is un-reasonable. Customs and usages cannot be rigid but it is always flexible and changes with times as per the requirements of the people at large. It is also a fact that, there was no such practice that headman to issue NOC or to interfere with the work of the District Administration as well as Police Administration. I further made it clear that, no custom or usage can supersede the statutory law and fundamental rights of a person as granted by the Constitution of India, So, any practice or usage which is contradictory with the Constitution of India, statute or principle of natural justice, such custom and usage cannot continue. Truth and rule of law to prevail and dignity of Constitution to be upheld at any cost.
7. In the case of L.D. Jaikwal vrs State of U.P. reported in (1984) 3 SCC 405 (Para- 7 & 8), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that:
“7. We have yet to come across a Judge who can take a decision which does not displease one side or the other. By the very nature of his work he has to decide matters against one or other of the parties. If the fact that he renders a decision which is resented to by a litigant or his lawyer were to expose him to such risk, it will sound the death knell of the institution. A line has therefore to be drawn somewhere, some day, by someone. That is why the Court is impelled to act (rather than merely sermonize), much as the Court dislikes imposing punishment whilst exercising the contempt jurisdiction, which no doubt has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. We do not think that we can adopt an attitude of unmerited leniency at the cost of principle and at the expense of the Judge who has been scandalized. We are fully aware that it is not very difficult to show magnanimity when someone else is the victim rather than when oneself is the victim. To pursue a populist line of showing indulgence is not very difficult – in fact it is more difficult to resist the temptation to do so rather than to adhere to the nail-studded path of duty. Institutional perspective demands that considerations of populism are not allowed to obstruct the path of duty. We, therefore, cannot take a lenient or indulgent view of this matter. We dread the day when a Judge cannot work with independence by reason of the fear that a disgruntled member of the Bar can publicly humiliate him and heap disgrace on him with impunity, if any of his orders, or the decision rendered by him, displeases any of the advocates, appearing in the matter.
8. We firmly believe that consideration regarding maintenance of the independence of the judiciary and the morale of the Judges demand that we do not allow the appellant to escape with impunity on the mere tendering of an apology which in any case does not wipe out the mischief. We are of the opinion that the High Court was therefore justified in imposing a substantive sentence. And the sentence imposed cannot be said to be excessive or out of proportion.”
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bal Kishan Giri vrs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 7 SCC 280 has observed that:
“The appellant advocate, during the pendency of the bail applications of the accused in triple-murder case, where one of the victims was the nephew of the appellant, filed an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court alleging that the accused were closely related to a local MLA and ex MP, and had links with three Judges of the High Court including one J who had earlier served as a judicial officer in the District Court. He expressed his apprehension that J would favour the accused persons to get bail since he had granted bail to two other accused illegally and with ulterior motive.
The High Court examined the complaint and placed the matter on the judicial side. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant as to why the criminal contempt proceeding should not be initiated against him. The appellant presented an unconditional apology submitting that the application was made by him as he had been misguided by the advocates of the District Court and he was in great tension as his nephew had been murdered.
The High Court convicted the appellant by the impugned judgment sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 with default stipulation. Hence, the instant appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court Held:
The allegations made by the appellant against the three Judges of the High Court are too serious, scandalous and admittedly, sufficient to undermine the majesty of law and dignity of court and that too without any basis. The appellant is a practicing advocate. The plea taken by him that he had been misguided by other advocate is an afterthought. He must have been fully aware of the consequence of what he has written.”
9. The detail discussion has been mentioned in Para- 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the said Judgment.
10. After considering the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1, the explanation given before this Court as well as his body language, I find that he is not at all repentant or realize the gravity of the case from his heart, as such; I am unable to accept his apology. However, in respect of the other 2(two) respondents (i.e. respondents No. 2 & No. 3) who are present in the Court, I find that they have not committed anything wrong, being journalist, they have done their duties to publish the statement of the respondent No. 1, who admitted the statement appeared in Newspapers mentioned is his statement. Hence, they are dropped from this instant Criminal Contempt case.
11. The Superintendent, CBI Shillong, Mr. SS Kishor also present in the Court on call and he is directed to conduct a thorough inquiry and find out who are responsible for misleading the people pertaining to the said Judgment and instigating law and order problem, and trying to divide the people on communal line, who were shouting slogan outside the court premises and bringing around hundred people to create fear psychosis and disturb the court proceedings for which the District Administration had to clamp Section-144 CrPC to maintain law and order in and around the High Court campus.
12. The state police is also directed to cooperate with the CBI in all respect. CBI to submit report preferably within a month in sealed cover.
13. Since I find that the respondent No. 1 is liable to Criminal Contempt of Court and since it is the subject matter of the Division Bench, let the file be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting) to constitute an appropriate Bench as he desires to address the contempt of court.
14. Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya is directed to place the case record before the Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting).
15. Further, Respondent No. 1 is directed to collect the date of next hearing from his counsel Mr. HS Thangkhiew and to be present personally.
16. Registry is also directed to furnish a copy of this order to the Superintendent CBI, Shillong.
JUDGE