Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India was seized of a writ petition filed by Common Cause, a registered society, concerning alleged misuse and arbitrary exercise of discretionary power by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry in relation to allotment of retail outlets for petroleum products and LPG dealership from discretionary quota. While the matter was pending, a news item with the caption "Pumps for all" was published in The Sunday Tribune dated March 10, 1996, alleging that Petroleum Minister Satish Sharma had made 17 allotments of petrol pumps and gas agencies to relatives of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao from his discretionary quota. The news item further alleged that two sons of a senior judge of the Supreme Court and two sons of the Chief Justice of India were also favoured with allotments. A similar news item was published in the Hindi newspaper Punjab Kesari. The court, by order dated March 13, 1996, issued notice to the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, to file an affidavit in response to the allegations. Secretary Vijay L. Kelkar filed an affidavit dated March 20, 1988, stating that the allegations regarding allotment in favour of two sons of a senior judge were vague and difficult to deal with. On March 21, 1988, Additional Solicitor General Altab Ahmad sought time to file a further affidavit. Joint Secretary Devi Dayal filed an affidavit dated March 28, 1996, making a categorical statement that there was no allotment in favour of son or sons of any Supreme Court judge. After verification of records and affidavits, the court found the news items to be patently false and, by order dated March 27, 1996, initiated contempt proceedings against the Editors and Publishers of The Sunday Tribune and Punjab Kesari and issued show cause notices. In response, Hari Jaisingh, Editor of The Sunday Tribune, filed an affidavit dated June 24, 1996, admitting that the news item was not correct, tendering unqualified apology, and stating that it was an inadvertent publication made bonafide on the faith of an experienced journalist, Dina Nath Misra, who was generally reliable. He also stated that an apology was already published in The Tribune on May 12, 1986. Lt. Col. S.L. Dheer (Retd.), Publisher of The Tribune, filed an affidavit dated June 27, 1996, in similar terms tendering apology. Vijay Kumar Chopra, Editor and Publisher of Punjab Kesari, filed an affidavit dated June 29, 1996, stating that the news item was based on a report sent by a senior journalist, that a contradiction and apology were prominently published on April 7, 1996, and that the mistake was bonafide. He also tendered unconditional apology. The court issued a contempt notice to journalist Dina Nath Misra by order dated July 9, 1996. Dina Nath Misra filed an affidavit dated August 1, 1996, admitting that he wrote a capsule item about allotment of petrol pumps to sons of a senior judge which was not factually correct, tendering unqualified apology, and claiming the mistake was bonafide. However, the court found his excuses and explanations not acceptable at all. In an additional affidavit dated August 29, 1996, he reiterated his repentance and offered unconditional apology. The court extensively discussed the importance of freedom of press, stating that it is an essential pre-requisite of democratic government and is included in the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It relied on Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India (1985 (1) SCR 641) and Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India (AIR 1986 SC 872) to emphasise that freedom of press is a pillar of individual liberty. The court observed that a free and healthy press is indispensable to the functioning of true democracy and that the press must provide comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of the country's political, social, economic and cultural life. It also noted that the press should have the right to present truthful information. The final operative order is not included in the provided text, but the court had already initiated contempt proceedings and considered the various affidavits and apologies.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Press - Scope and Ambit of Press Freedom - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19(1)(a) - The court observed that freedom of press is an essential pre-requisite of democratic government and is included in the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). It emphasized that a free press is indispensable for the functioning of true democracy and has an educative and mobilizing role. Held that the press must provide comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of the country's political, social, economic and cultural life. (Paras not mentioned) B) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - False News Scandalising Judiciary - General contempt jurisdiction of Supreme Court - The court, upon verifying records and affidavits, found that news items alleging allotment of petrol outlets to sons of Supreme Court judges were patently false and initiated contempt proceedings against editors, publishers, and the journalist. It accepted unconditional apologies of some contemnors but found the journalist's excuses unacceptable, emphasizing that irresponsible journalism scandalising the judiciary cannot be shielded by press freedom. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether publication of false and defamatory news items alleging allotment of petrol outlets to sons of Supreme Court judges constitutes criminal contempt of court, and what is the scope of freedom of press in relation to such publications.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court found the news items patently false and initiated contempt proceedings. It considered the unconditional apologies filed by the Editor and Publisher of The Sunday Tribune, the Editor/Publisher of Punjab Kesari, and the journalist Dina Nath Misra. The court emphasized the importance of press freedom under Article 19(1)(a) but stressed that it must be exercised responsibly and truthfully. The final operative order is not included in the provided text.
Law Points
- freedom of press is part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India
- 1950
- freedom of press is regarded as the mother of all other liberties in a democratic society
- a free and healthy press is indispensable to the functioning of true democracy
- the press must provide comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of the country's political
- social
- economic and cultural life
- irresponsible journalism that publishes false news scandalising the judiciary constitutes contempt of court
- bonafide mistake and unconditional apology may be considered in mitigation but do not automatically absolve a contemnor
