Delhi High CourtShri Surya Prakash Khatri & Anr. vs Smt. Madhu Trehan And Others on 28 May, 2001Equivalent citations: 2001 CriLJ 3476, 2001 (59) DRJ 298Author: A PasayatBench: A Pasayat, A Kumar, A D Singh, D Jain, O DwivediORDER Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Expressing concern at the scurrilous manner in which an article has been published, in a jonamed "Wah India," scornfully denigrating Judges putting question marks on their integrity ancompetence, these petitions have been filed. According to the petitioners the article in obnoxiand is "judge bashing". As the petitions involve almost identical prayer, they are taken up togefor disposal. It is alleged that in the name of freedom of press and fair journalism, borders ofdecency and respect for the judiciary have been overstepped and a distorted version has beenpresented which has lowered the image of judiciary and therefore attracts stringent action. Inarticle in question, certain statements have been made which tend to cause aspersions on theintegrity and capability of Hon'ble Judges of this Court. It is highlighted that without any matesupport or even proper verification of the statements purported to have been made by somemembers of the Bar, the article has been published which tends to show members of judiciaryvery poor light and it would result in consumer of justice losing faith on the members of judiciand corrode credibility of the institution. It is pointed out that the article is full of mis-statemeThe lack of accuracy and truth, it is pointed out, is apparent from the fact that fifty "senior cohave been described as one-tenth of the total strength of the Delhi High Court Bar. As to whoso-called senior lawyers are have not been indicated and how they have been described as "selawyers" is shrouded in mystery. It is emphasized that even if any lawyer(s) gave any statemenexpressed his/her opinion, the same cannot be stated to be view of the Bar and therefore DelhCouncil, the Apex statutory body of lawyers has filed one of the petitions i.e. Criminal ContemPetition 8/2001. The other petition being 9/2001 also takes strong exceptions to the article. Prmade is that sinister designs aiming at lowering the image of judiciary and showing the Judgepoor light should be sternly dealt with under the contempt of Court Act, 1971 (in short the AcArticle 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution)2. Unqualified apology has been tendered by the Editor-in-chief and other respondents who arPrinter, Publisher and Editor, Creative Director, Sub Editor and Special Correspondent of themagazine by filing two affidavits each. It has been indicated in the affidavits of apology that thwas no intention to show slightest disrespect to the members of the judiciary; that it was nowto cause any aspersion on the institution or the Hon'ble Judges and it was then not realised thwould be regarded as derogatory to the judiciary, but that it is not realised to be a serious errtheir part and therefore unconditional apology has been tendered. It has been stated that thedeponents do not subscribe to any statement or expression of opinion in the article, and inparticular the appraisal of Hob'ble Judges. Further, the appraisal is not the representative viethe whole Bar and once the date was tabulated no further verification was carried out to ascethe correctness of the result and it was never suggested that the deponents had satisfied them
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
End of preview. Want to read all 19 pages?
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
