Court No. 24
ORDER
(Suo motu cognizance under Section 15 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 by the Bench)
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Hon'ble Virendra Singh, J.
During the course of proceedings of the Court, some
members of Bar invited the attention towards the news-item
published in The Times of India dated 18.8.2010 with the caption
“Ayodhya, memories of a disputed lifetime“.
We have read the news-item and a perusal of it reflects
that Mohd. Hashim Ansari, S/o Karim Bux, R/o Mohalla Kutya,
Panji Tola, Ayodhya Pargana Haveli, Avadh, District Faizabad, who
is original plaintiff No. 7 in Suit No. 4 in Ram Janma Bhoomi Babri
Masjid Title Suit was interviewed by Ms. Manjari Mishra, Reporter
of Times News Network. While being interviewed, Mohd. Hashim
Ansari – original plaintiff was also photographed by one Ajay
Singh which is printed in the aforesaid newspaper. During the
course of interview, Mohd. Hashim Ansari used certain threatening
words for dire consequences, in case the verdict of Ram Janma
Bhoomi Babri Majid dispute goes against him. The interview as
printed in the newspaper dated 18.8.2010 is reproduced as
under:-
“AYODHYA, MEMORIES OF A DISPUTED LIFETIME
Manjari Mishra/TNN : Ayodhya : “Last 60 years
seem more like a graveyard full of memories.”
Hashim Ansari, the original plaintiff in the Babri
Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi Title suit and convener of
Babri Masjid Reconstruction Committee, when angry,
is known to turn poetic.
Sitting at his home, badgered by a “band of
hare-brained mediators rooting for an out of court
amicable settlement.”, Hashim seethed with rage:
“Aren't we all 60 years late for a compromise,” he
asked. “All witnesses are dead, litigants are dead,
even lawyers have gone to the other world. Only
Hashim Ansari lives to see this tamasha,” he
complains.
Babri dispute today has no 'mazhabi' (religious)
character. It is a pure and simple political battle, a
multi-crore cottage industry of Ayodhya for those who
have made a fortune peddling the image of a deity
behind bars, he continues in the same tone. Why will
they close shop so easily,” he asks.
The handkerchief size room has space barely
for two wooden takhats, Hashim, facing a framed
photograph of Babri Masjid, occupied one. “I want the
mosque back,” he says softly, “not to prove any
point, but to pray. Pray for sanity to be restored, for
communal amity so that everybody lives in peace.
This is not asking for much.”
Memories of the joint journey to courtroom in
company of Ramchadra Paramhans Das (the main
defendant, now no more) are still fresh in his mind.
“You see there are no Muslim and Hindu issues in
Ayodhya,” the old man insists. “Ask me, I know best.
A man who has been fighting a court case since
1950...60 long years and till this day no Hindu has
every misbehaved with me … na kisi Hindu ne gaali
di, no patthar mara. What proof can be bigger than
this?”
The Babri case could well be the reason for his
longevity. “How can I go before the case is decided?”
Hashim asks. Though ailing, he has been regular
about his attendance in the courtroom. The last one
logged in on January 11, 2010, he proudly declares.
Not bad for a man of 90, he chuckles.
“However, these are stressful times. Dil Bahot
dhadakta rahta hai,” he admits.
These eyes have seen so much, what else is to
follow, I wonder, Hashim says as he launches into a
bitter tirade against politicians. Right from Narsimha
Rao, Sonia Gandhi, Mulayam Singh, Azam Khan et al,
each one of them has let the Muslims down,” charges
he.
“I want a proof that India is a secular
country a 'jamhuriyat' (democracy or people's
rule),” he says and challenges. “Let the judges
prove it now.”
What if the verdict goes against him?”
His eyes flashing. Hashim's voice goes
several decibels higher. “What do you mean?
Why are you forcing me to state something
which everybody knows anyway? That will be a
black day in our history signifying mobocracy
has replaced democracy in India. There will of
course mayhem, bloodbath and much else.” the
excitement proves too exhausting and he is
quiet to regain his breath.
“I for one don't want to live through all this,
though there are several others who would simply
love that. Babri dispute could be my passion but to
them it is big money, position and power,” he says.”
During the course of interview, Mohd. Hashim Ansari uttered
the following sentence:-
“I want a proof that India is a secular country a
'jamhuriyat' (democracy or people's rule),” he says
and challenges. “Let the judges prove it now.”
Thereafter, Manjari Mishra put a question to Mohd. Hashim
Ansari, which reads as under:-
“What if the verdict goes against him?”
Reply to the aforesaid question is as under:-
“His eyes flashing. Hashim's voice goes several
decibels higher. “What do you mean? Why are you
forcing me to state something which everybody knows
anyway? That will be a black day in our history
signifying mobocracy has replaced democracy in
India. There will of course mayhem, bloodbath and
much else.” the excitement proves too exhausting and
he is quiet to regain his breath.”
On the face of record, Mohd. Hashim Ansari had stated that
it shall be black day in the history of our country, in case verdict
goes against him and in such situation, there will be mayhem,
bloodbath and much else. Such observation made by plaintiff of
the Suit tends to interfere with the administration of justice and
also seems to be a threat to Judges, who are seized of the matter.
Higher Judiciary is not the custodian of law alone, but it has to be
vigilant to maintain supremacy of Constitution and enforce the
rule of law within the constitutional framework. It is also the duty
of higher judiciary to ensure that every possible efforts be made
to maintain the beliefs and faith of the people in the
administration of justice.
Ex facie, a bare reading of the above interview gives an
unambiguous message to the readers that if the matter is not
decided in a particular way, serious unruly consequences would
occur. The news-item also prima facie reveals that everybody
knows as to what would be the judgment. It also reflects that it is
not a sheer wishful thinking but as if the result is already known
to everyone and if somehow the result comes otherwise, the
consequences would be very serious. It amounts to an implied/
covered threat also to the Court to decide the matter in a
particular way.
The respect of judiciary and for the judiciary is of
paramount consideration. Every possible effort should be made
and precaution taken which will help in preservation of public faith
and individual dignity.
Freedom of speech and expression sometimes may amount
to interference with the administration of justice as the article
appearing in the print or media could be prejudicial and should
not be permitted. It is essential for the maintenance of dignity of
the courts and is one of the cardinal principles of rule of law in a
free democratic country, that the criticism or even the reporting
particularly, in sub judice matters must be subjected to check and
balances so as not to interfere with the administration of justice.
It is private conversation, but since it has been published in
the newspaper, prima facie, it affects the administration of justice
directly or indirectly. Therefore, the Editor, the Reporter, the
Photographer and Mohd. Hashim Ansari cannot be shrinkage from
their responsibility. In the case of Manu Sharma v. State of Delhi
[(2010) 6 SCC 1], the Apex Court has cautioned all modes of
media to extend their cooperation to ensure fair investigation,
trial, defence of the accused and non-interference with the
administration of justice in matters sub judice. Considering the
desires and gestures, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has required in
the democratic policy a rule of law.
In our view, ex facie, it amounts to serious and deliberate
interference or tends to interfere with the administration of justice
which is a “criminal contempt” as defined under Section 2 (c) of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads as under:-
“Criminal Contempt” means that publication
(whether by words, spoken or written, or by sings, or
by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter
or the doing of any other act whatsoever which –
(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or
lowers or tends to lower the authority of,
any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to
interfere with, the due course of any
judicial proceedings; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or
obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other
manner.”
The aforesaid news-item, it appears, has been published by
the Editor without any edition. The persons belonging to all modes
of media owe a responsibility to the nation. Mr. Dhanush Vir
Singh, who has published edition No.194 volume XXVIII of The
The Times of India on behalf of the proprietors of Bennett
Coleman & Co. Ltd., Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, Editor, 16, Rana Pratap
Marg who is responsible for selection of news under Press and
Registration of Books Act, 1867 and Ms Manjari Mishra, Reporter
of Times News Network are fully aware that 'Babri Title Dispute' is
a highly sensitive matter and any minute irresponsible act may
disturb the communal harmony of the nation. Further, they were
also well aware of the fact that the Bench hearing the 'Ram
Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid Title Dispute' has concluded its hearing
and the judgment is awaited. Despite this, they published the
news-item. Mr. Mohd. Hashim Ansari is also aware with the legal
intricacies and the fact that the judgment is to be pronounced
shortly. The acts and omissions on the part of the aforesaid
persons are nothing but obstructing with the administration of
justice.
Accordingly, in exercise of the powers under Section 15 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with 215 of the
Constitution of India, we issue notice to Mr. Dhanush Vir Singh,
Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, Ms Manjari Mishra, Mr Ajai Singh and Mr.
Mohd. Hashim Ansari to show cause as to why they should not be
proceeded and punished for Contempt of Court as defined under
Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and under Article 215
of the Constitution of India for obstructing in the administration of
justice. The language used in this publication is sufficient to
embarrassment or hindrance and interference in the
administration of justice and accordingly, covered within the
definition of criminal contempt.
You are, therefore, required to file your response, if any, by
30.8.2010.
For the reasons aforesaid, the Registry is directed to
register a criminal misc. case with the following title:-
in re:
(1) Resident Editor, Times of India, 16, Rana Pratap Marg,
Lucknow.
(2) Dhanush Vir Singh, Times of India, 16, Rana Pratap Marg,
Lucknow.
(3) Saurabh Banerjee, Editor, Times of India, 16, Rana Pratap
Marg, Lucknow.
(4) Ajai Singh, Photographer, Times of India, 16, Rana Pratap
Marg, Lucknow.
(5) Ms Manjari Mishra, Reporter, Times News Network,
(6) Mohd. Hashim Ansari, S/o Karim Bux, R/o Mohalla Kutya,
Panji Tola, Ayodhya Pargana Haveli, Avadh, District Faizabad
and others”.
Newspaper, i.e. Times of India published on 18.8.2010 shall
be kept on record.
The Editor of Times of India shall furnish 11 copies of the
aforesaid newspaper to Sri Subodh Kumar, Registrar of the Court
within a week from today.
Notices shall be issued to the aforesaid respondents through
the Chief Judicial Magistrates, Lucknow and Faizabad.
Name of Government Advocate shall be printed in the cause
list when the case is next listed.
List this case on 30.8.2010 on which date all the
respondents shall appear in person before this Court alongwith
their respective replies.
Dt.19.8.2010
HM/lakshman [Virendra Singh, J.] [Rajiv Sharma, J.]
0 comments:
Post a Comment