LexSADHVI RITUMBHARA versus DIGVIJA Y SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.A
SADHVI RITUMBHARA
v.
DIGVIJA Y SINGH AND ANR.
FEBRUARY 17, 1997
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)
Contempt of Court :
Judgment of Supreme Court-Press release containing distortion of
contents of judgment-Publication-Misleading-Contempt proceedings in-
C itiated against officers issuing distorted statement-{]nconditional apology ·
tendered by contemnors-Held, the official issuing the distorted statement of
the judgment of this Court has deliberately done the act of misleading the
public by making mis-statement of the contents of the order and thereby
committed contempt of this Court-It is the duty of officials to see that their
D department functions properly particularly when it relates to issuance of public
inf onnation of contents of an order of the Court-However, the unconditional
apology tendered by contemnors is accepted and the matter is closed.
E
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition
(Cr!.) No. 1 of 1997.
IN
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1085-86 of 1995.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 27.4.95 and 5.5.95 of the
F Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos. 596 and 671of1995.
Sushi! Kr. Jain, M.M. Assudani, Naresh Maheshwari, Umesh
Maheshwari, A.P. Dhamija, Pradeep Aggarwal for the Petitioner/Appel-
lant.
G
P.P. Rao and Uma Nath Singh for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on January 13, 1997, M.
Gopal Reddy, IAS, the then Director of Public Relations & Information·
H and Mangal Prasad Misra, then Assistant Director, Public Relations &
94
..
SADHVI RITUMBHARA v. DIGVUAY SINGH
95
Information appeared in person. They have filed their affidavits. This Court A
by order dated September 9, 1995 had disposed of the appeal filed by the
State of Madhya Pradesh on the basis of the consent of the learned senior
counsel appearing for the State, Shri P.P. Rao and Shri D.D. Thakur,
learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This Court had stated that in view
of the respective stands taken by the counsel on either side, the courts B
below were directed to disposed of all the pending or connected matters
between the parties on their merits, without being influenced by any of the
findings and observations made by the High Court in the impugned judg-
ment under appeal. The appeal was accordingly disposed of. On Septem-
ber 9, 1995, after the receipt of the order passed by this Court, M.P.
Mishra, the then Assistant Director, Public Relations & Information in the C
Directorate of the Government of Madhya pradesh at Bhopal had the news
published conveying to the public that the order of the High Court was
reversed by this Court. Thereby, the detention of the petitioner herein by
implication stood upheld and the stand of the Government also stood
fortified. As a consequence, the State was directed to proceed with the D
matter in the courts below. The above statement is a clear distortion of the
order passed by this. Court. Thereby, the respondents have committed
wilful distortion of the judgment which amounts to contempt of this Court.
M. Gopal Reddy, the then Director, states that the press release Was
prepared and issued by M.P. Mishra, who was not conversant with the legal E
terminology and, therefore, he committed that act of publishing as a· news
without knowing the correct implication of the order passed by this Court.
M.P. Mishra has stated that "I joined the Department as a daily wager in
the year 1980, and after about 6 months, I was appointed as L.D.C. Later,
I was appointed as Scrutiniser and Assistant Public Relations Officer. I was F
promoted as Ao;sistant Director (Advertisement) in the year 1990 and in
1991, I was shifted to the News Section. I do not possess any qualification
in law. I submit that as a perfon working under the Government, I am not
~cquainted with legal terminology. I never had any opportunity of prepar-
mg a press release covering the judgment/order passed by this hon'ble
Court." Thereby, he admits that "I own up may mistake in not under- G
standing the order dated 8.9.1995 correctly. I misunderstood the words
"leave granted" as accepting the case of the State Government on merits. J
was under the impression that by permitting the proceedings in the Trial
C~urt to continue uninfluenced by the findings and observations of the
High Court, the petitions of the Government were accepted." Thus, he H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997J 2 S.C.R.
A admitsExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.