http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7

PETITIONER:

IN RE: HARIJAI SINGH & ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

IN RE: VIJAY KUMAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/09/1996

BENCH:

KULDIP SINGH, FAIZAN UDDIN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

Faizan Uddin, J.

When this Court was seized of, Writ Petition filed by

the "Common Cause, A Registered Society" with regard to the

alleged misuse and arbitrary exercise of discretionary power

by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry in relation to the

allotment of retail outlets for Petroleum products and

L.P.G. Dealership, from discretionary quota, a news item in

box with a caption "Pumps for all" was published in the

daily newspaper "The Sunday Tribune" dated March 10, 1996

which is reproduced hereunder :-

Pumps for all !

Believe it or not, Petroleum

Minister Satish Sharma has made 17

allotments of petrol pumps and gas

agencies to relatives of Prime

Minister Narashimha Rao out of his

discretionary quota. Allotments in

this category can only be made to

members of the weaker sections of

society and war windows, yet five

of the Prime Minister's

grandchildren have been favoured

as have been five of his nephews

from the family of V. Rajeshwar

Rao. MP Besides, three wards of his

brother Manohar Rao, two relatives

of P. Venkata Rao and the son of

AVR Krishnamurthy whose family

lives with the Prime Minister have

allocated petrol pumps and gas

agencies. Similarly, Rao's

daughter, Vani Devi, who is the

official hostess has a petrol pump

allotted in the name of her

daughter, Jyotiriyal. she was also

favoured by the Airport Authority

of India which released a prime

piece of land located in Begumpet

area to her for just Rs. 3 lakh.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7

The market value is stated to be

over Rs 1 crore. It has been

registered in the name of Shri Jai

Balaji Agency, However, the Prime

Minister's kin are not the only

ones who have benefitted from these

allotments. Two children of Lok

Sabha Speaker Shivraj Patil have

also been favoured as have the two

sons of a Senior Judge of the

Supreme Court. Interestingly, the

Supreme Court had recently asked

the government to supply a list of

all discretionary allotments made

by the Ministry. However, the

minister has so far managed to

withhold this crucial document. But

is has hardly helped as the list

has been leaked by Sharma's own

men."

A similar news item was also published in the Hindi

Newspaper "Punjab Kesari" dated March 10, 1986 the English

translation of which is as follows :-

17 Poor Members of the family of

the Prime Minister

Out of the short out ways of

becoming rich, one way is to obtain

Petrol Pump or Gas Agency. But the

power to allot the same lies with

the Petroleum Minister. He has the

discretionary powers to allot

petrol pump or gas agencies in

charity. This power of doing such

charities has been entrusted in

some special cases which include

the people belonging to the poor,

backward classes and the wives of

those who were killed in the war.

But all those persons to whom these

agencies have been allotted by the

Petroleum minister Capt. Satish

Sharma turned out to be a soam in

itself. The matter was referred to

the Supreme Court in which the

Government was directed to submit a

list. The Petroleum Minister

suppressed the list. The list was

demanded in the Parliament. But

the list was not presented. Now

the list has been leaked out from

the Petroleum Ministry. Believe it,

there are 17 relatives of the Prime

Minister Narsimaha Rao in that

list. Five persons are his

grandsons and grand-daughters. Five

others are the members of the

family of V. Rajeshwar Rao. He is a

Member of Parliament and the

relative of the Prime Minister,

Manohar Rao is the brother of

Narsihmha Rao. These agencies were

also allotted to his three

children. There is one more

relative - P. Venkatrao. Two

allottees have been found in his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7

family. One is A.V.R. Krishna Murty

who resides in the residence of the

Prime Minister. He has also been

allotted the Agency at the Bolaram

Road at Sikandrabad. But the most

interested story is of Jyotirmal

Narasimha Rao is his real grand

maternal father.

The authorized hostess of the Prime

Minister's residence is Vani Devi

who is the daughter of the Prime

Minister and mother of Jyotirmal.

Their agency is situated at

Begumpet under the name style "Sri

Sai Balaji Agency". The land of

2000 sq. m. of the Indian Aviation

Authority was given to Shri Sai

balaji agency merely for rupees

three lakhs. Presently, the cost of

this land is more than one crore.

The Petroleum Minister also

allotted the agencies to the two

children of Shivraj Patil, Speaker

of the Lok Sabha. You should not be

astonished if you find the names of

two sons of Mr. Ahmadi, Chief

Justice of India in the list of the

discretionary quota. Otherwise the

names of such poor and backward

persons are also available in this

list.

Since, the aforesaid news items contained an allegation

that two sons of a senior judge of the Supreme Court and two

sons of the Chief Justice of India were also favoured with

the allotments of petrol outlets from the dictionary quota

of Ministry and, therefore, by our Order dated March 13,

1996. We issued a notice to the Secretary, Ministry of

Petroleum and Natural Gas to file an affidavit offering his

comments and response to the facts stated in the aforesaid

two news items. Pursuant to the said notice, Shri Vijay L.

Kelkar, Secretary in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, Government of India, filed his affidavit dated March

20, 1988 stating that since the allegation regarding

allotment under the discretionary quota in favour of two

sons of a senior judge of the Supreme Court are vague and in

the absence of specific names, it is difficult to deal with

the same. Thereafter when the matter again came up before

this Court on March 21, 1988 Shri Altab Ahmad, learned

Additional Solicitor General stated that he would look into

the records and file further affidavit of a reasonable

officer giving response to the other allegations regarding

relationship of VIPs. We therefore, granted time for the

purpose and at the same time directed the relevant files to

be produced in Court. It was thereafter that Shri Devi

Dayal, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas, Government of India filed his affidavit dated

March 28, 1996. In paragraph 5 of his affidavit, he made a

categorical statement that there is no allotment in favour

of son/sons of any Supreme Court judge. After verification

of records and affidavits referred to above. We found that

the news items referred to above patently false and,

therefore, by our Order dated March 27, 1996, we initiated

contempt proceedings against the Editors and Publishers of

the daily "The Sunday Tribune", Chandigarh and "The Punjab

Kesari" Jalandhar and issued notices to them to show cause

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7

why they may not be punished for the contempt of this Court.

In response to the contempt notice, Shri Hari

Jaisingh, the Editor of 'The Sunday Tribune' filed an

affidavit dated June 24, 1996 admitting that the news item

published in "The Sunday Tribune" dated March 10, 1996 with

regard to the allotment of petrol outlets to the sons of

senior Judge of the Supreme Court was not correct and,

therefore, tendered unqualified apology and has prayed for

mercy and pardon. He has stated that it was an inadvertent

publication made bonafide on the faith that the item

supplied by an experienced journalist. Shri Dina Nath Misra,

who is generally reliable would not be factually incorrect.

It has been stated that Dina Nath Misra is a journalist of

standing for over 30 years and there have been no complaints

about the correctness of the material contributed by him and

believing the said item of news to be correct it was

published without any further scrutiny in a good faith. He

has submitted that he has the highest respect for the

judiciary in general and to this Court in particular and

tendered his unqualified apology with a feeling of remorse.

He has submitted that since it was noticed that the news

item was not correct. An apology was already published by

him in the Tribune May 12, 1986 and necessary instructions

to all members of the editorial staff were issued to be

careful and assuring the factual accuracy of all legal

reports.

Lt. Col. S.L. Dheer (Retd.) the Publisher of "The

Tribune", in response to the contempt notice has also filed

his affidavit dated June 27, 1996 more or less in the same

terms as the one filed by Shri Hari Jaisingh and has

tendered his apology and prayed for mercy and pardon due to

the bonafide mistake.

In response to the contempt notice, Shri Vijay Kumar

Chopra, Editor and Publisher of daily "Punjab Kesari"

Jalandhar has also filed his affidavit dated June 29, 1996

stating that the news item in the daily "Punjab Kesari"

referred to above was published on the basis of the news

report sent by a senior journalist which due to inadvertence

escaped the attention of the Editor. He has stated that

immediately after the incorrectness of the news item was

noticed a contradiction and apology was carried out

prominently in the issue of the Paper dated April 7, 1996.

He has stated that the said news item was not actuated by

any malice towards the judiciary and that the mistake was

bonafide. He has also tendered his unconditional and

unqualified apology.

On being apprised that the news items referred to above

found to be false which were published on the basis of the

information and material supplied by the journalist/reporter

Dina Nath Misra to "The Sunday Tribune" and "Punjab Kesari",

we issued a similar contempt notice to Dina Nath Misra by

our Order dated July 9, 1996. The journalist Dina Nath Misra

in his affidavit dated August 1, 1996 admitted to have

written a capsule item about the allotment of petrol pumps

to the sons of a senior judge of the Supreme Court which

was not factually correct and he has therefore tendered his

unqualified apology for the lapse that he had committed. He

has stated he has been journalist for about 4 decades and is

known for his integrity and commitment towards the

professionalism. He has further stated that a highly

reliable source who had earlier given many reliable

information to the deponent gave this information also which

was believed by him to be true, but it turned out to be

incorrect. He has stated various other facts to show that

the mistake was bonafide, but we find the said excuses and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7

explanations to be not acceptable at all. He has, however,

expressed his deep repentance and tendered unqualified

apology and seeks forgiveness for this honest and

inadvertent blunder. In yet another additional affidavit

dated August 29, 1996, he has reiterated the said facts and

admitted that he has committed a grevious error in writing

news items which have absolutely no basis, and has again

offered unconditional apology to Hon'ble the Chief Justice

as well as this Court.

It may be relevant here to recall that the freedom of

Press has always been regarded as an essential pre-requisite

of a Democratic form of Government. It has been regarded as

a necessity for the mental health and the well being of the

society. It is also considered necessary for the full

development of the personality of the individual. It is said

that without the freedom of press truth cannot be attained.

The freedom of press is a part of the freedom of the speech

and expression as envisaged in Article 19(1)(a) of the

Constitution of India. Thus, the freedom of the press is

included in the fundamental right of freedom expression. The

freedom of Press is regarded as "the mother of all other

liberties' in a democratic society. Further, the importance

and the necessity of having a free press in a democratic

Construction like ours was immensely stressed in several

landmark judgments of this Court. The case of Indian Express

Newspaper v. Union of India (1985(1) SCR 641), is one of

such judgments rendered by Venkataramiah, J. (as he then

was). Again in another case of Indian Express Newspaper v.

Union of India (AIR 1986 SC 872). A.P. Sen J. (as he then

was) described the right to freedom of the press as a pillar

of individual liberty which has been unfailingly guarded by

the Courts.

It is thus needless to emphasis that a free and healthy

press is indispensable to the functioning of true democracy.

In a democratic set-up, there has to be an active and

intelligent participation of the people in all spheres and

affairs of their community as well as the State. It is their

right to be kept informed about current political, social,

economic and cultural life as well as the burning topics and

important issues of the day in order to enable them to

consider and form broad opinion about the same and the way

in which they are being managed, tackled and administered by

the Government and its functionaries. To achieve this

objective the people need a clear and truthful account of

events, so that they may form their own opinion and offer

their own comments and view points on such matters and

issues and select their further course of action. The

primary function, therefore, of the press is to provide

comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of

the country's political, social, economic and cultural life.

It has an educative and mobilizing role to play. It plays an

important role in moulding public opinion and can be an

instrument of social change. It may be pointed out here that

Mahatama Gandhi in his autobiography has stated that one of

the objectives of the newspaper is to understand the proper

feelings of the people and give expression to it; another

is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments ;

and the third is to fearlessly express popular defects. It,

therefore, turns out that the press should have the right to

present anything which it thinks fit for publication.

But is has to be remembered that this freedom of press

is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all items and

in all circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of

the speech and expression would amount to an uncontrolled

license. If is were wholly free even from reasonable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7

restraints it would lead to disorder and anarchy. The

freedom is not to be misunderstood as to be a press free to

disregard its duty to be responsible. Infact, the element

of responsibility must be present in the conscience of the

journalists. In an organized society, the rights of the

press have to be recognised with its duties and

responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency,

morality and such other things must be safeguarded. The

protective cover of press freedom must not be thrown open

for wrong doings. If a newspaper publishes what is improper,

mischievously false or illegal and abuse its liberty it must

be punished by Court of Law. The Editor of a Newspaper or a

journal has a greater responsibility to guard against

untruthful news and publications for the simple reason that

his utterness have a far greater circulation and impact than

the utterances of an individual and by reason of their

appearing in print, they are likely to be believed by the

ignorant. That being so, certain restrictions are essential

even for preservation of the freedom of the press itself. To

quote from the report of Mons Lopez to the Economic and

Social Council of the United Nations "If it is true that

human progress is impossible without freedom, then it is no

less true that ordinary human progress is impossible without

a measure of regulation and discipline". It is the duty of

a true and responsible journalist to strive to inform the

people with accurate and impartial presentation of news and

their views after dispassionate evaluation of the facts and

information received by them and to be published as news

item. The presentation of the news should be truthful,

objective and comprehensive without any false and distorted

expression.

In the present case, as we have noticed above, neither

printer, publisher not the editor and reporter took the

necessary care in evaluating the correctness and credibility

of the information published by them as the news items in

the newspapers referred to above in respect of an allegation

of a very serious nature having great repercussion causing

an embarrassment to this court. An Editor is a person who

controls the selection of the matter which is to be

published in a particular issue of the newspaper. The Editor

and Publisher are liable for illegal and false matter which

is published in their newspaper. Such an irresponsible

conduct and attribute on the part of the editor, publisher

and the reporter cannot be said to be done in good faith,

but distinctly opposed to the high professional standards as

even as slightest enquiry or a simple verification of the

alleged statement about grant of Petrol outlets to the two

sons of a senior Judge of the Supreme Court, out of

discretionary quota, which is found to be patently false

would have revealed the truth. But it appears that even the

ordinary care was not resorted to by the condemners in

publishing such a false news items. This cannot be regarded

as a public service, but a dis-service to the public by

misguiding them with a false news. Obviously, this cannot be

regarded as something done in good faith.

But it may be pointed out that various judgments and

pronouncements of this Court, bear testimony to the fact

that this Court is not hypersensitive in matters relating to

contempt of Courts and has always shown magnanimity in

accepting the apology on being satisfied that the error

made in the publication was without any malice or without

any intention of dis-respect towards the Courts or towards

any member of judiciary. This Court has always entertained

fair criticism of the judgments and orders or about the

person of a Judge. Fair criticism within the parameters of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7

law is always welcome in a democratic system. But the news

items with which we are concerned can neither be said to be

fair or made in good faith but wholly false and the

explanation given is far from satisfactory. Shri Hari

Jaising, Editor of the Sunday Tribune and Lt. Col. H.L.

Dheer, Publisher as well as Vijay Kumar Chopra, Editor and

Publisher of daily Punjab Kesari have taken the stand that

they had taken the news items to be correct on the basis of

the information supplied by a very senior journalist of long

standing Dina Nath Misra. But this cannot be accepted as a

valid excuse. It may be stated that at common law, absence

of intention or knowledge about the correctness of the

contents of the matter published (for examples in the

present case, on the basis of information received from the

journalist/reporter) will be of no avail for the editors and

publishers for contempt of Court but for determining the

quantum of punishment which may be awarded. Thus they cannot

escape the responsibility for being careless in publishing

it without caring to verify the correctness. However, since

they have not only expressed repentance on the incident but

have expressed their sincere written unconditional apology,

we accept the same with the warning that they should be very

careful in future. As regards the case of Dina Nath Misra,

we find he acted in gross carelessness. Being a very

experienced journalist of long standing it was his duty

while publishing the news item relating to the members of

the apex Court to have taken extra care to verify the

correctness and if he had done so, we are sure there would

not have been any difficulty in coming to know that the

information supplied to him had absolutely no legs to stand

and was patently false and the publication would have been

avoided which not only paused great embarrassment to this

Court but conveyed a wrong message to the public at large

jeopardizing the faith of the illiterate masses in our

judiciary. Shri Dina Nath Misra has no doubt committed a

serious mistake but he has realised his mistake and

expressed sincere repentance and has tendered unconditional

apology for the same. He was present in the Court and

virtually looked to be gloomy and felt repentant of what he

had done. We think this sufferance itself is sufficient

punishment for him. He being a senior journalist and an aged

person and, therefore, taking a lenient view of the matter,

we accept his apology also. We, however, direct that the

condemners will publish in the front page of their

respective newspapers within a box their respective

apologies specifically mentioning that the said news items

were absolutely incorrect and false. This may be done within

two weeks. The Contempt Petition Nos. 206-207 of 1996 are

disposed of accordingly.