Sudhir Agarwal, J.@mdashThese proceedings commenced on publication of a news item in daily newspaper "Dainik Jagran" in its issue dated 4th April 2006 under the caption "Mandir Aur Masjid Faisle Ke Liye Afsar Parh Rahe Hain Kitaben" . This Court took cognigence of the matter when it was brought to its notice at the Bar and passed following order on 19.4.2006:
The Bar has brought to our notice a news item published in "Dainik Jagran" (Lucknow Edition), on 4.4.2006, wherein some misleading news has been published.
It is stated by the learned Counsel that this Court has directed the Union of India to provide copies of the books cited by the learned Counsel for the parties or copies of those books, list of which were furnished by the learned Counsel for the parties. But in the aforesaid news item an impression is given to show that this Court has asked Sri A.K. Singh, an officer of the Home Department of the State Government to collect evidence in respect of the disputed structure and after reading those books, give his opinion to the Court, which is absolutely baseless since this Court has never invited any comments or opinion from any authority or officer or person in respect of the disputed site as evidence is still in the process of being recorded. It also appears from the aforesaid news item that some misleading observations have been made regarding the existence of temple and non-existence of mosque. These observations prima facie appear to be contemptuous as the matter is still sub-judice before this Court.
Sri A.K. Singh, who is present in Court submits that the corRespondent of the said news item never contacted him nor he had talked to him on telephone as has been alleged in the aforesaid news item.
This is a serious matter and amounts to interference in the administration of justice. We are, therefore, constrained to call upon the Editor-in-Chief of "Dainik Jagran" as well as its publisher to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not drawn against them.
Issue notice accordingly.
Reply to the show cause may be filed within ten days from the date of receipt of notice.
Put up on 16th May, 2006 on which date the Editor-in-Chief as well as the Publisher of "Dainik Jagran" shall appear in person.
(emphasis added)
2. Pursuant to the said notice, Sri Vinod Shukla, Respondent No. 4, and Sri Sanjay Gupta, Editor of Daily Newspaper "Dainik Jagran" appeared on 17th May 2006. They filed reply to show cause notice. They stated that the news item was provided by Sri Piyush Sharma, Telex Division, Bhasha (PTI), P.T.I., Building-4, Parliament Building, New Delhi. They said that the Press Trust of India and its Hindi Service ''Bhasha'' are responsible for the news item in question. These two persons however tendered apology and expressed their regret for publication of the said news item. The averments contained in paras 8, 9 and 10 of reply of Sri Vinod Shukla are as under:
8. That on behalf of Dainik Jagran, the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief are placing unconditional apology on the ground that there was no intention on their part to publish false article and the article was published in good faith, pursuing it to be true transmission by "Bhasha" (PTI).
9. That ''Dainik Jagran'' undertake to be more vigilant in future and to select the agencies article more cautiously and carefully.
10. That in view of the unconditional apology, the show cause notice is liable to be withdrawn.
(emphasis added)
3. Sri Sanjay Gupta has also given identical reply in paras 8 to 10, hence skipped.
4. Sri Vinod Shukla unfortunately died on 18.05.2009, hence, by order dated 6.8.2009 proceedings against him were dropped.
5. By order dated 17.5.2006 this Court issued notice to Sri Vijay Kumar Arya, CorRespondent, Bhasha and Sri Piyush Sharma.
6. Sri Vijay Kumar Arya put in appearance through Sri R.C. Pandey, Advocate and filed reply dated 20.6.2006. In paras 5 to 8 of reply he stated as under:
5. That with due respect the deponentsubmits that the news item published in daily news paper "Dainik Jagran" on 4.4.2006 has been prepared by him as per information given by Sri A.K. Singh, who is working as Special Officer, in "Sampradayikta Prakosth" under the Home Department of State Government.
6. That, it is also relevant to mention here that on 3.4.2006 the deponent contacted to Sri A.K. Singh on his Mobile No. 9415910105 between 12 o''clock to 1.00 p.m., and he got the information regarding the progress of case pending before this Hon''ble Court of Ayodhya Matter.
7. That with due respect, it is submitted that the news item published in daily News paper "Dainik Jagran" on 4.4.2006 has been prepared by the deponent as per information given by Sri A.K. Singh, Special Officer of Sampradaikta Prakosth, Home Department, of State Government of U.P. It is also stated that the deponent being corRespondent of Bhasha (P.T.I.) written and prepare the news item without interfering in the administration of justice as per statement of Sri A.K. Singh.
8. That the deponent further submits that he prepared and written news item in question as per his little knowledgeand in case by the same news items some controversy and any contempt of Court has been caused by him, for which the deponent tenders his unconditional and unqualified apology with due folded hand.
(emphasis added)
7. Thereafter he also filed a supplementary affidavit dated 24.7.2006 and in paras 3, 4 and 5 thereof he said as under:
3. That it is relevant to point out here that on 03.4.2006 an information was received by the deponent from Sri A.K. Singh an officer of the Home Department of the State Government from his mobile No. -9415910105 regarding the progress of case relating to the Ayodhya matter, being a corRespondent, then, it was informed by Sri A.K. Singh that he is collecting the books from various libraries of the state regarding the evidence as per Hon''ble Court''s order. It is also worthwhile to submit here that deponent demanded details of the incoming and outgoing calls of the mobile of Sri A.K. Singh vide letter dated 12.7.06 from B.S.N.L. Lucknow. It is further submitted that the B.S.N.L. informed to the deponent vide his letter dated 24.7.06, he is unable to provide the details which demanded by the deponent, until the receiving the consent of the concerned party. A photocopy of letter dated 24.7.06 is being enclosed herewith as Annexure No. SA-1 to this affidavit.
4. That it is pertinent to mention here that Sri A.K. Singh wrote a letter to the Director, State Museum, Mathura on 24.3.2006 for supply of the list of relevant books which are available in the state museum as per direction of the court. A photocopy of letter dated 24.3.06 is being enclosed here with as Annexure No. SA2 to this affidavit.
5. That is also submitted that the news item published in the daily news paper "Dainik Jagran" on 04.04.2006 has been prepared by the deponent as per information collected from Sri A.K. Singh, but the heading of the said news item was not prepared by the deponent. A photocopy of the original draft of news item is being enclosed here with as Annexure No. SA-3 to this affidavit.
8. On behalf of Press Trust of India one Devi Das Gupta,, Editor, P.T.I., "Hindi Bhasha" filed affidavit dated 24.7.2006 stating that there was no employee in the name of Piyush Sharma on P.T.I. Roll and perhaps the notice issued meant for Piyush Beble. In respect of the news item, it said in paras 3 to 6, as under:
3. Considering the nature of the subject matter, perhaps in hindsight, Bhasha ought to have been more circumspect and avoided issuing the story. The sequence and events, which led to the publication of the story, as gathered by me on the basis of records and my personal inquiries are narrated in this affidavit and the same are being placed before this Hon''ble Court in order to make available all relevant information to this Hon''ble Court.
4. I respectfully submit that based on my aforesaid efforts in ascertaining the facts, I say that it appears that a story[(the authenticity, veracity, accuracy and correctness of its contents is not only not being commented upon (but is also not relied upon)] came to be filed by one Sh. Vijay Kuamr Arya. Bhasha received this story by fax on April 3, 2006. Mr. Piyush Bebele, a trainee Sub-editor, made minor editorial corrections (subbed) and forwarded the edited item to the creed room for the data operator to punch in the story in the electronic system. Thereupon it appears that the news item(perhaps on account of volume of work as well as accumulation of year end and financial news etc.) unintentionally missed the attention of the News Editor and consequently evoked no alarm both from the Deputy Editor and myself, and resultantly flowed into the news output that was subsequently picked by ''Dainik Jagran'' for their publication.
5. Indeed there was no recordable impact of the said story in Delhi and its surrounding areas and hence the said remained unattended and unnoticed till the occurrence of events, viz, till the issue of notice of Contempt.
6. In continuation to my respectful submissions above, I, along with this affidavit attach self-attested copy of documents furnished to Bhasha by Sh. Vijay Kumar Arya. I respectfully submit that neither Bhasha nor myself take or adopt any view on the above but I am filing the said documents in order to place the entire material on record before this Hon''ble Court.
(emphasis added)
9. Having said so Sri Devi Das in paras 7, 8 and 9 tendered apology with assurance that in future he shall exercise utmost precaution and care.
10. Having considered the reply as also the supplementary affidavit filed by Sri Vijay Kuamr Arya and Devi Das Gupta, this Court on 25.7.2006 passed the following order:
Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of Mr. Vijay Kumar Arya, CorRespondent, Mathura is taken on record.
It appears that in the affidavit of Vijay Kumar Arya, it has been stated that the news item in question was published on the information furnished by Mr. A.K. Singh.
Mr. A.K. Singh shall, therefore, give reply to he averments made in that affidavit within two weeks. Mr. R.C. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. Vijay Kumar Arya shall provide a copy of the said affidavit to Mr. S.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel and Shri G.K. Mehrotra within two days.
Mr. Vijay Vikram, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for Dainik Zagran, Mr. Mahesh Chandra, appearing for Devi Das Gupta, Editor, Bhasha, P.T.I. And Mr. R.C. Pandey, appearing for Vijay Kumar Arya, CorRespondent, Mathura at the outset submitted that the aforesaid news item was published due to some mis-conception and they have tried to explain the same by filing affidavits. Learned Counsel further submit that they would issue a corrigendum/contradiction in the daily edition of "Dainik Zagran" within a week.
Let this matter appear in our next sitting for further orders. Meanwhile, the parties shall exchange their affidavits.
11. Another affidavit sworn on 30.8.2006 was filed by Sri Devi Das Gupta, Editor P.T.I. (Bhasha), tendering unconditional apology as also a copy of corrigendum issued in "Dainik Jagran" published on 1st August and 12th August 2006, expressing regret for wrong information and news. The said published item was appended as Annexures 1 and 2 to the said affidavit.
12. On behalf of the Management of "Dainik Jagran", Lucknow, an affidavit was filed by Sri J.K. Dwivedi tendering apology as also verifying the factum of publication of apology and regret on 1st August 2006 and 12th August 2006.
13. Considering reply of Mr. Vijay Kumar Arya that he was given information by Mr. A.K. Singh, this Court vide order dated 19.9.2006 directed Sri A.K. Singh to file reply. Sri Singh filed affidavit dated 15.11.2006 denying the fact that he ever gave any information to Mr. Vijay Kumar Arya or that he contacted him on telephone. In the circumstances, this Court passed a detailed order on 7.12.2006:
Sri A.K. Singh in his affidavit filed on 15.11.2006, pursuant to this Court''s orders dated 25.7.2006 and 19.9.2006, has asserted that he did not know Mr. Vijay Kumar Arya, CorRespondent with Bhasha (PTI) nor the news item published in the newspaper "Dainik Jagran" on 4.4.2006 is based on the information furnished by him. Whereas on the other hand, Mr. Vijay Kumar Arya has claimed in the rejoinder affidavit that the news item published on 4.4.2006 was prepared by him as per information given by Sri A.K. Singh, who is working as Officer-on-Special Duty in "Sampradayikta Prakosth" under the Home Department of the State Government. He has further disclosed in para-6 of the affidavit that he had a talk with Sri. A.K. Singh on 3.4.2006 on his Mobile No. 9415910105 between 12 Noon to 1 PM. Mr. Vijay Kumar Arya, who is present in Court states that he talked to him form his landline Telephone No. 0565-2404369 and submitted that the information published in the newspaper on 4.4.2006 was given to him by Sri A.K. Singh during the aforesaid talk. He further submits that him version and the aforesaid statement can be verified from the records pertaining to the chart of the calls of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (in short the BSNL). He further states that despite his efforts and demand vide letter dated 24.7.2006, the said information could not be provided to him by the BSNL.
Considering the submissions made before us and also in view of the conflicting statements made on affidavit, it is expedient and in the interest of justice that the details of the calls of Mobile No. 9415910105 and landline Telephone No. 0565-2404369 dated 3.4.2006 be summoned from the BSNL to find out the truth.
We, therefore, direct the BSNL to provide the aforesaid details about the calls received on the said Mobile No. 9415910105 from Telephone No. 0565-2404369. The above details shall be made available to this Court within a fortnight.
Let a copy of this order be provided to Sri Deepak Seth, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Central Government to communicate the BSNL for compliance of this order.
The Registrar, Lucknow Bench of this Court shall also communicate this order to the Principal General Manager (BSNL), Lucknow for compliance.
List the matter in our next sitting.
The personal appearance of Sri Vijay Kumar Arya is dispensed with until further orders of this Court. However, Sri A.K. Singh is directed remain present in the Court in person on the next date.
14. The parties filed affidavits wherein the question of identity of telephone/mobile number and conversation continued to be disputed. Ultimately, this Court on 23.4.2007 passed the following order:
It is stated that telephone No. 2404369 mentioned in our order dated 7.12.2006 is in the name of Sri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, R/o Sudamapuri, Bhains Bahaura, Mathura and not of Sri Vijay Kumar Arya.
In paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed on behalf of BSNL dated 13.3.2007, it has further been averred that as per call record details of Mobile Number 9415910105 on 3.4.2006, there was no telephone call from landline Telephone Number 0565-2404369 to Mobile Number 9415910105 on 03.04.2006 nor there is any call on 03.04.2006 from Mobile No. 9415910105 to Landline No. 0565-2404369.
Learned Counsel, however, submits that telephone number of Shri Vijay Kumar Arya is 2406349 and, therefore, BSNL may be asked to verify from call record as to whether from this number any call was made on Mobile Number 9415910105 or not on 3.4.2006. Learned Counsel appearing for the BSNL submits that after making necessary verification from the call record another affidavit would be filed on the next sitting. We accordingly direct the BSNL to verify from the call records about Telephone No. 0565-2406349 and submit report accordingly on the next sitting.
Let a copy of this order be furnished to the learned Counsel for the BSNL for compliance.
Let the matter appear in the next sitting of this Bench.
15. Again affidavits exchanged between the parties wherein Sri Vijay Kumar Arya reiterated his conversation with Sri A.K. Singh which factum was denied by Sri Singh. When this matter came up for hearing ultimately on 9.2.2011, Sri Mahesh Chandra Advocate and Sri A.K. Singh in person appeared and without going into any intricacies of the matter or any defence etc. they stated that respective parties have tendered unconditional apology. This Court may consider the same and pass appropriate order since they do not intend to go into much more details of the matter.
16. We have considered the matter and perused the record.
17. When the proceedings were going on, this Court noticed that in electronic and print media several discussions and news items were simultaneously carried on discussing the matter sub judice before the Court which was creating a lot of confusion and misunderstanding in the public at large for want of full, correct and authentic information. The matter being quite serious, the Court thought of putting certain checks on these publications and telecast, hence, passed a detailed order on 20.8.2002, relevant extract whereof is as under:
If the newspapers publish opinion of the parties of any other person threatening the Court from passing the order, it amounts to contempt of the Court by the press as it conveys threat of the parties or any other person from passing an order, which they do not wish to be passed. The party or any other person, who expresses opinion pending proceeding, is also guilty of contempt of Court as it interferes in the administration of justice.
The Editors take the responsibilities for whatever is published in the newspapers. If anything is published, which hampers fair trail of poisons public mind it is contempt by the press. We are of the opinion that the publication in the newspapers regarding the opinion by the parties, counsel for the parties and any other person in the pending matter amounts of the contempt of Court. However, instead of issuing show cause notice we, at present, warn them that in future they shall not publish:
1. any opinion of the parties or their counsel or any other person in regard to the pending dispute before us otherwise it shall be treated as contempt of Court.
2. They are further restrained from publishing any article in regard to the merit of the case as it may affect public mind in regard to which the Court is yet to take decision on the basis of the evidence, which parties may produce in the Court.
3. We have come to know that the TV Channels are taking interview of the counsel of the parties or other persons in regard to the matter, which is pending in the Court. Television interview, at a time, when the matter is still pending in the Court, may affect the mind of the public and it also undermines the judicial authority and thwarts the majesty of the Court while the Court has yet to take decision in the matter on the evidence, which may be produced by the parties. This will amount to interference in the administration of justice. The TV Channels are prohibited from televising interviews in respect of the Ayodhya matter, which is still subjudice.
The registry is directed to send copy of this order to the Editors of all the newspapers, Press Trust of India and all the TV Channels forthwith.
18. It is in this context when the news item was published in daily newspaper Dainik Jagran on 4th April 2006, this Court took cognizance since a bare reading of news item showed that anyone who would read it, may gather an impression as an officer of Home Department of the State Government was asked by the Court to collect evidence in respect of disputed structure, and after reading books, to provide his opinion to the Court. However, some more misleading observations were made regarding existence of religious building in favour of a particular group and against another group.
19. The news item admittedly was given shape by Sri Vijay Kumar Arya who stated that he had talked with Sri A.K. Singh, Officer on Special Duty of Home Department of U.P. Government on 3.4.2006 and on getting information regarding progress of the matter from him, he had prepared the said news item. Sri Vijay Kumar Arya in para 8 of his reply dated 20.6.2006 has also admitted that he had little knowledge in the matter and prepared the news item as per his little knowledge, meaning thereby he virtually did not realise the consequences and the aspects over which he was making comments in the form of the said news item. What information he actually received from Sri A.K. Singh has not been stated in the same terms but he has placed on record copy of letter dated 24.3.2006 submitted by Sri A.K. Singh to Director, State Museum, Mathura requesting for supply of certain books available in the State museum as per directions of the Court.
20. Further, from the affidavit filed by Sri Devi Das, earlier P.T.I., it is evident that after receiving the text prepared by Sri Vijay Kumar Arya, some editing was made by Mr. Piyush Bebele, a Trainee Sub-Editor, P.T.I. before forwarding the edited item to the Creed Room for data operator to punch in the story in the electronic system. He also admits that News Editor and Deputy Editor as well as the Chief Editor all failed to realize sensitivity and importance of the news item and hence, could not cross-check the same themselves and it was this news item that was picked up by "Dainik Jagran" for its publication.
21. Whether any conversation took place between Sri A.K. Singh and Sri V.K. Arya or not is a matter of serious contention between the two and is crucial in the present matter. Sri Vijay Kumar Arya has not clarified in the affidavit as to how and to what extent he gave colour to the news item that it was actually so stated by Sri A.K. Singh. His only defence is that he had a telephonic conversation with Sri A.K. Singh on 3.4.2006 who gave certain information whereupon the news item in question was prepared and submitted. In this regard he mainly relied on letter dated 24.3.2006 submitted by Sri A.K. Singh to the Director Government Museum, Mathura for making certain books available as directed by the Court. We have gone through the letter dated 24.3.2006 also which reads as under:
fo''ks"k dk;kZf/kdkjh A
@N%lkfuiz & 06 200 �31� @ 03
lkEiznkf;drk fu;U=.k izdks"B]
x`g foHkkx A
y[ku�% fnukad 24 ekpZ 2006
�v''kksd dqekj flag�
22. The aforesaid letter does not show that Sri Singh himself was to read the books or study the material so as to submit opinion to this Court. He worked as Officer on Special Duty in Home Department of Government of U.P. Lucknow and was assisting the Court on behalf of the State Government collecting such material as the State Government was directed to make available. The cases before Court related to a dispute involving history of period, like ancient, medieval and modern etc. Several books of history, culture, religion etc. were referred to by different parties written at different point of time. Most of the books were secondary in nature inasmuch as, they relied on certain information contained in earlier books. Therefore, initial book which constituted "primary material" was to be considered. The Court, in this regard, after receiving books from counsel for the parties, also directed the Government to make such books available. Ultimately 150 and more books were purchased for perusal.
23. A historical issue obviously could not have been decided by Court on bare pleadings of the parties since it is permissible to the Court to look into published books u/s 57 of the Evidence Act. In fact, it is in these circumstances, we had also passed an order on 18.1.2010 which read as under:
1. In these matters, while adducing evidence (documentary and oral), the parties referred to certain books of history, archaeology, culture, religion, gazetteers etc. published during different periods and as old as several hundreds years back. The issues involved in these suits require investigation into history and we find that several old books of history, culture, religion etc. need to be consulted, studied and referred. Sometimes these books rely on some earlier publications meaning thereby, the earlier one become primary source of information than the later one. Though we have got certain books purchased also, but we are informed that many a books are not available in market. Besides, neither all the referred books can be purchased as the number may go in hundreds and thousands and more, nor the books are available in the market, can be made available to the Court easily. In respect of some of the books, we are informed that are available in different Libraries of Universities, educational institutions, Government Libraries and the Libraries maintained by other bodies like instrumentalities of the State etc. and Libraries can make those books available if requisitioned and not otherwise. If this Court proceeds to decide the matter without having recourse to such books, which have the value of primary evidence, there is a possibility that an important sensitive historical issue may not be adjudicated properly in the absence of such books, having seen by this Court itself before recording any final opinion in the matter.
2. In these circumstances we find it necessary and also in the interest of justice so that these matters involving sensitive questions of national importance covering the two major communities of the Country, to issue the following directions to the concerned authorities/persons:
(1) All the Libraries in the State of U.P., whether maintained by Universities covered by the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or by other provincial Acts of the State of U.P. or maintained by the Government or its authorities or such bodies which are instrumentalities of the State or the bodies which are receiving financial aid from the Government shall provide, without any further delay, such books as are available with them and requisitioned by the Court through its Authorised Person within three days from the date of receipt of such letter from Authorised Person.
(2) If requisition is sent by this Court or its Authorised Person to a Library, maintained by Central Universities or by the Central Government or its authority or such bodies which are instrumentalities of the Central Government or the bodies which are receiving financial aid from the Central Government, we hope and trust that they shall endeavour to extend their cooperation to this Court by making the books available with them as and when requisitioned by the Authorised Person of this Court without any further delay and in any case within a week from the date of receipt of such requisition. The Government of India is requested to issue necessary direction, if so required, to all concerned forthwith.
(3) If requisition is sent by this Court or its Authorised Person to a Library maintained by any other State Government, their authorities or such bodies which are instrumentalities of concerned State or the bodies which are receiving financial aid from the Government, we request them to endeavour to extend their cooperation by making the books available with them as requisitioned by the Authorised Person of this Court without any further delay and in any case within a week from the date of receipt of such requisition.
(4) For transmission of books from the Library to the Court and back, necessary arrangement shall be made by the Authorised Person of this Court for which requisite expenses shall be provided by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
3. We authorise Sri Hari Shankar Dubey, O.S.D. (RJB-BM), Lucknow Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to requisition the requisite books as desired/required by the Court and take necessary steps to make the books available to the Court and for compliance of this order.
24. A person working in compliance of the directions of the Court just to collect an article or item, does not mean that he was authorised to himself render opinion after studying material. Probably to give sensationality to the news item, concerned reporter namely Sri Vijay Kumar Arya wrote the news item in a manner which distorted correct facts and thereby caused this situation. It is also unfortunate that a responsible media like P.T.I. and its officers/officials failed to exercise due care and caution in such a sensitive matter which they ought to have. Same lapse we have noticed on the part of daily news paper "Dainik Jagran". Even if PTI had drafted a news item in a particular manner, it is not always safe for the print or electronic media to forward information in the same manner if from a bare perusal and reading thereof it is evident that information may cause some disturbance to communal harmony, particularly when it relates to a very sensitive matter.
25. Further, the question whether Sri A.K. Singh O.S.D., Home Department, Government of U.P. disclosed information as claimed by Sri Vijay Kumar Arya or not also needs be seen. The stand of Sri Vijay Kumar Arya is that he had a conversation with Mr. A.K. Singh on 3.4.2006 between 12 to 1 P.M. on Sri A.K. Singh''s mobile number 9415910105. Sri Arya also stated that he made the call from his own telephone land line number 0565 2404369. The call details were sought from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short "BSNL"). The affidavit dated 13.3.2007 filed on behalf of BSNL states that as per call record details of mobile No. 9415910105 on 3.4.2006, there was no telephone call from land line telephone No. 0565 2404369 nor vice versa.
26. Thereafter Sri Vijay Kumar Arya''s learned Counsel corrected himself stating that telephone number of Mr. Arya is 2406349 and not 2404369 and, therefore, call details may be obtained from BSNL of telephone No. 2406369.
27. Taking note of the said fact an order was passed on 23.4.2007 directing BSNL to verify the record and submit its report in respect of landline phone No. 0565 2406349 pursuant whereto an affidavit dated 28.9.2007 was filed on behalf of BSNL by Sri G.K. Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer(Legal) in the office of Chief General Manager/Telecom U.P. East, Telecom Circle, BSNL, Lucknow stating that mobile No. 9415910105 is in the name of Sri Ashok Kumar, Address B-5, Sarvoday Nagar, Lucknow and telephone No. 0565 2406349 is in the name of Telecom Telegraph Superintendent in the office of Departmental Telegraph Office, Mathura. It also stated that on 3.4.2006 at 9.10 AM there was a call from telephone No. 0565 2406349 to mobile No. 9415910105 for a duration of about 12 minutes and 51 seconds, i.e., 771 seconds and no other call on the same date either way.
28. An opportunity was granted to the parties concerned to file their reply to the affidavit of BSNL. Sri A.K. Singh Officer on Special Duty (SNP), Department of Home, Government of U.P., Lucknow admitted mobile No. 9415910105 to be his number pointing out that he does not exactly remember as to who made call at 9.10 AM on 3.4.2006 from land line No. 0565 2406349 at his mobile but he categorically denied to have talked with Mr. Vijay Kumar Arya on the said date with respect to this matter. He also states that falsity of information is writ large from the fact that he (A.K. Singh) is only a graduate and not even a Post Graduate, hence question of writing ''Dr.'' before his name does not arise. Further, he was never an employee in Union Public Service Commission nor did any work on the subject, hence, all these informations are ex facie incorrect as published in the aforesaid news item.
29. Sri Vijay Kumar Arya having noticed the fact that one call on the aforesaid two numbers was verified by BSNL said in his reply/affidavit dated 25.7.2008 that this prove his conversation with Sri A.K. Singh but regarding the time he says that the same was mentioned on presumptive basis for which he tenders apology. He however could not dispute that land line telephone number 0565 2406349 is in the name of Telecom Telegraph Superintendent in the office of Department of Telegraph Mathura. Sri Arya however, could not say anything in his affidavit as to how and in what circumstances he talked with Sri A.K. Singh from the aforesaid telephone number which was in the name of an official of Telephone Department and why could not remember this fact though the date and time he mentioned in his earlier affidavit. If he used the number on payment basis then no evidence in support thereof has been placed on record by him. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that so far as Vijay Kumar Arya is concerned, he has miserably failed to show that news item which has been got published by him, based on information which he collected after conversation with Sri A.K. Singh.
30. We may recollect at this stage certain observations made by this Court in its order dated 17.9.2010 which reads as under:
18. Since the media reports have been referred we find it appropriate to say a few words in this regard also. What we find of late, the reports in media, whether electronic or print, are not exactly correct. Instead of giving correct information to enlighten the masses, incomplete and sometimes incorrect information is given, more as sensation than communication of correct information. The latter is the prime duty and obligation of a responsible media. It appears that in some cases, the people try to highlight a few words in a manner so as to create a sensation. The casualty in such approach is correctness of the information. The media people needs to exercise more care and caution and be more precise. We ourselves have experienced that the information regarding proceedings of this Court have also been conveyed to masses, at some places, incorrectly. At times when the published information relates to a serious situation or sensitive matter which may likely to have serious repercussions, the responsibility of media to accuracy and precision of information is much more. Needless to give a recent illustration where we found such a miss when there was a terrorist attack in Bombay. We do not intend to check or restrain the independence of media world. It is they who form the information limb of any country providing awareness and entitlement to masses but then such information must be ensured to be correct.
19. A Court passes an order sitting in the Court Room which is normally known to the parties in the case and, therefore, used to confine to few individuals. The masses acquire information about the happenings in court through media. It is therefore, their utmost and sacrosanct duty towards masses to whom they actually serve to provide correct information so that it may avoid any possible backlash or unwanted reaction particularly in a case like the one we are faced with. Any inaccuracy in information is likely to cause much more serious harm. We add no more on this. We hope and trust that our observations shall be taken in correct perspective and would give a message to powerful wing, which is commonly known as the Fourth State. They shall exhibit their responsibility in a more vigilant, alert, self conscious and self restraint manner so as to subserve the people of this Country in a best possible and responsible manner.
31. Now coming to the role of other, copy of order dated 20.08.2002 was communicated to PTI and all Daily News Papers as confirmed by Registry of the Court. It is nobody''s case that they were not aware of Court''s order dated 20.08.2002. Before publishing such news item, none informed the Court or sought permission. The Court had prohibited publication of anything which may hamper fair trial or poison public mind. A copy of the said order was directed to be sent to editors of all the news papers, PTI and all the news channels. The defiance of the order dated 20.8.2002 is deliberate and intentional since it has been prepared and published despite of knowledge of restraint order. We have no doubt in our mind that the news time and the manner in which it was drafted, published, was capable of misconstruction by a person of ordinary prudence, reading the same. It had the capacity to poison mind of an individual particularly when the matter related to religious sentiments. This is not something on conjectures. In past this country had experienced sensitivity in this matter causing a lot of bloodshed and disturbances. In the circumstances, we have no doubt in our mind that Sri Piyush Beble and Devidas of PTI, Sri V.K. Arya, Reporter, who drafted the news item in question as well as Sri Sanjay Gupta, Editor, Dainik Jagran are guilty of contempt by violating/disobeying orders of this Court deliberately and intentionally, causing hindrance and obstruction in the administration of justice.
32. So far as Mr. A.K. Singh is concerned since his role in the matter is proved otherwise, hence proceedings against him are dropped.
33. Now coming to the question of punishment, we are conscious of the explanation to Sub-section (1), Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971. There are some matters where violation of Court''s order has its impact, irreconcilable and irreparable. Can it be said that even in such cases a mere bona fide apology would be sufficient for contemner(s) to ask for remission of punishment or for discharge. Justice M.P. Thakkar in
34. This negligence cannot be said to be a mere mistake as it could have caused a serious irreparable damage. We hold the above contemners guilty. Considering the fact that sufficient time has already elapsed and especially, when main cases (Original Suits) have been decided on merits vide judgment dated 30.9.2010, in our view, the ends of justice would meet with imposition of punishment of fine. Accordingly, the contemners, Sri Piyush Bebele, Sri Devi Das, Editor, P.T.I., Sri V.K. Arya, Reporter, PTI and Sri Sanjay Gupta, Editor, Dainik Jagran are sentenced with fine of Rs. one thousand each which shall be paid by them within one month.
34. Contempt proceedings stand disposed of as above.
