Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with a contempt petition arising from the distortion of its earlier order in a press release issued by government officers. The petitioner, Sadhvi Ritumbhara, had filed the contempt petition against Digvijay Singh and another, but the alleged contemnors were M. Gopal Reddy, IAS, the then Director of Public Relations and Information, and Mangal Prasad Misra, the then Assistant Director. The matter concerned a press release published after the Supreme Court passed an order on September 9, 1995, disposing of an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh. In that order, the Court had directed the lower courts to decide all pending matters between the parties on merits without being influenced by the findings and observations of the High Court. The order did not decide on the petitioner's detention. However, the press release conveyed to the public that the Supreme Court had reversed the High Court order and upheld the detention, thereby implying that the State's stand was fortified. The petitioner contended that this was a wilful distortion of the Court's order amounting to contempt. The contemnors were directed to appear in person by an order dated January 13, 1997. They filed affidavits. M.P. Mishra stated that he joined the department as a daily wager in 1980, was later promoted, and had no legal qualification. He admitted that he misunderstood the words 'leave granted' as accepting the State Government's case on merits and was under the impression that by permitting the trial court proceedings to continue uninfluenced by the High Court findings, the petitions of the Government were accepted. He owned up his mistake and tendered an unconditional apology. M. Gopal Reddy stated that the press release was prepared and issued by M.P. Mishra, who was not conversant with legal terminology. The Court observed that Mishra, despite admitting incapacity to understand court orders, had a duty to consult the Law Department or the Director before issuing a distorted statement. The Court found that Mishra had deliberately misled the public by making a misstatement of the contents of the order, which amounted to contempt of court. However, it held that he did not do so deliberately with a view to undermine the order. Accepting his unconditional apology, the Court closed the matter against him. Similarly, the Court held that M. Gopal Reddy, as Director, ultimately bore responsibility for acts done by the Directorate, even if the matter passed without his knowledge. His unconditional apology was also accepted and the matter closed. The contempt petition was ordered accordingly.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Distortion of Judicial Order - Misleading Press Release - No specific statute cited - The Assistant Director issued a press release stating that the Supreme Court reversed the High Court and upheld detention, when the Court only directed lower courts to decide matters uninfluenced by High Court findings; he admitted misunderstanding 'leave granted' and lacking legal knowledge. The Court held this distortion amounted to contempt of court, but accepting his unconditional apology due to absence of deliberate intent to undermine the order, closed the matter against him (Paras Not mentioned). B) Contempt of Court - Vicarious Responsibility of Director - Acts of Directorate - No specific statute cited - The Director claimed the press release was prepared by the Assistant Director without his knowledge, but the Court held that as Director he ultimately bears responsibility for acts done by the Directorate; his unconditional apology was accepted and the matter closed (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the government officers committed contempt of court by issuing a distorted press release about the Supreme Court's order; whether their unconditional apologies should be accepted and contempt proceedings closed.
Final Decision
The Court found that M.P. Mishra deliberately made a misleading public statement amounting to contempt of court, but accepted his unconditional apology as it was not done with a view to undermine the order; similarly, it held M. Gopal Reddy responsible as Director for acts of the Directorate and accepted his unconditional apology; the contempt petition was closed accordingly.
Law Points
- Distortion of court order in press release amounts to contempt of court
- government officers must accurately report judicial orders
- lack of legal knowledge does not excuse failure to consult law department
- director bears responsibility for acts of directorate
- unconditional apology may be accepted if contempt not deliberate to undermine order
