SHILLONG: The Division Bench of the High Court of Meghalaya has fined both the Editor and the Publisher of The Shillong Times, Patricia Mukhim and Shobha Chaudhuri, respectively, for a report in the daily which critiqued an order of Justice SR Sen on the retirement benefits of judges.
Later, the court took up contempt proceedings.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir and Justice SR Sen in the order delivered on Friday, said, “We sentence both the contemnors to sit in the corner of the Court room till the rising of the Court and impose a fine of Rs 2 lakh each which is to be deposited with the Registry within a week and then to be deposited in the welfare fund of this High Court”.
The court also directed that in default of payment, both the contemnors will have to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and the paper will automatically come to an end (banned).
After examining the report on December 10, 2018 under the caption ‘When Judges judge for themselves’ and other comments on social media, the court said on the perusal of the contents of the newspaper as well as the affidavits shown and show cause filed by the contemnors, rejoinder affidavit and reply to the show cause filed by the Amicus Curiae, additional affidavit and reply against the affidavit filed by the Amicus Curiae and after hearing the submissions advanced by S. Thapa, counsel for the contemnors and the Amicus Curiae, “the contemnors have no regrets at all and no respect for the Indian Judicial System; rather they are trying to challenge the system instead of asking an apology, which is not at all acceptable”.
The court also observed that on March 1, the matter came up again for hearing before the Division Bench where the counsels for the contemnors, K. Paul appeared along with Thapa and they admitted the fact regarding the news item and social media report and further submitted that the procedure adopted by the court was defective and in the criminal contempt proceeding, a formal charge needs to be framed and then evidence be taken as well as the contemnors be given a chance to reply.
Referring to the arguments advanced by K Paul, the court said, “He also tried to put in different views on technicalities, which is totally misleading and we believed that it is against the principle of professional ethics. Furthermore, we observed that even today, there was no regret or apology from the contemnors.”
The court also pointed out that after conclusion of the argument on March 1, the contemnors in the second half of the day appeared to have filed two affidavits in the registry without any permission where they have tendered unconditional apology, which appears to be a calculated strategy to avoid punishment.
“The contemnors all along have contested the matter and finally realising that the contest is not in their better interest have tendered unconditional apology at the last moment. The contemnors being responsible persons should not have indulged in the acts falling within the purview of derogation to the administration of justice”, the division bench said.
The court said the backdrop of the petition is that the state government had arbitrarily withdrawn the protocol service to the retired Judges and their family members without consulting this High Court. When it came to the notice of the Court, the Chief Justice called for a meeting where the Chief Secretary, Law Secretary, the Commissioner & Secretary, GAD were asked as to how they withdrew the facilities which were provided for earlier, but to which they had no answer.
“Therefore, they were asked to rectify it immediately and to restore the protocol service to the retired Judges and their family members. Unfortunately, after a lapse of two months also when the matter was not solved, the retired Judges and their family members faced problems and a suo motu proceeding was drawn”, the court said.
Later, a notice was issued and since the government remained silent, necessary order was passed directing to comply within a month. “Thereafter, when the government failed to do so, a contempt proceeding was drawn and the Chief Secretary, Law Secretary and the Commissioner & Secretary, GAD, were asked to appear in person. Thereafter, the Government moved an appeal before the Division Bench and the matter is pending before the Division Bench”, the court said.
“Therefore, the question of a particular Judge on the verge of retirement taking steps for himself or his family does not arise”, the court added.
Hence, the report which appeared in The Shillong Times is totally false and without any basis, the court said.
The court also reminded the contemnor number 1 that “We are judges and our job is to deliver justice for the people in general and we have our own disciplinary methods”.
