Karnataka HC Imposes Costs Of ₹10 Lakh On New Indian Express For Publishing Inquiry Report Against District Judge Which Had Been Rejected By Full Court

The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the owner of Express Publications (Mudhurai) Ltd, which publishes the New Indian Express newspaper for publishing a report indicating the findings of an inquiring Authority report conducted against a district judicial officer, even when the Administrative Committee, of the High Court had already resolved to not accept the Report of the inquiring Authority dated 30.05.2013.A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said: “I am therefore of the view that this would be an appropriate case to impose costs of Rs.10,00,000 on respondent No.13 (the owner of the Newspaper), payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The court further directed that an inquiry be conducted by the High Court as to how the inquiry report dated 30.05.2013, became available to the Newspaper. The court said that the New Indian Express acted in a manner unbecoming of a responsible Newspaper, and their reporters and Editors have also acted in an unacceptable manner.Further, it said that nearly 6 months before the publication of the article in question, a decision not to accept the report had already been taken, and yet, this crucial aspect of the matter was missing in the newspaper article.“The fact that they have given a summary of each charge laid against the petitioner establishes the fact that they had access to the contents of the Report. It is incomprehensible that the Newspaper would not know of the procedure of the requirement of the inquiry Report having to be placed before the Administrative Committee for its decision, and thereafter placing the entire material before the Full Court for its final decision. The Newspaper cannot disown its responsibility of stating that it was unaware of the decision of the Administrative Committee and that it did not therefore state that fact in its article,” the Court said. It was held that a leading newspaper of the country which admitted that it contacted the Registrar General, and the petitioner before publishing the article in question cannot be permitted to state that it was unaware of the entire procedure relating to the inquiry. It was stated that given the sensitive nature of the issue, it was definitely unprofessional, and the failure on their part had caused immense damage to the petitioner and also the entire judicial process of judging the conduct of a Judicial Officer."A responsible Newspaper such as the New Indian Express ought to have ascertained complete facts and ought not to have published an article with incomplete facts, more so when the matter was admittedly of a sensitive nature relating to a Senior Judicial Officer,” the Court said.The directions were given while hearing a petition filed by Veeranna G Tigadi a retired District and Sessions Judge who was appointed on 15.05.1996 and had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2014. Case Details: On 04.02.2011, a complaint was lodged by three Advocates with the Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka. In said complaint, there were certain allegations of the petitioner having illicit relationships with two women, apart from alleging acts of financial impropriety.On 14.02.2011, the Chief Justice ordered the Registrar (Vigilance) to conduct a discreet inquiry and submit a report. On 05.08.2011, the Registrar (Vigilance) submitted a report after conducting a discreet inquiry and this report was placed before Administrative Committee No.1 of the High Court. On 16.08.2011, said Administrative Committee No.1 considered the report submitted by Registrar (Vigilance) and resolved that a departmental inquiry be initiated against the petitioner, with a direction to the Registrar General to prepare the Articles of Charges and Statement of Imputations, along with a list of documents and witnesses. This resolution was approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. On 30.05.2011, the Chief Justice of the High Court appointed a sitting Judge of the Court as the Inquiry Authority. The petitioner submitted his defence in the form of a statement of objections and also an additional statement of objections. On 30.05.2013, the inquiry Authority prepared a report, in which it was held certain charges were held to be proved. On 18.11.2013, the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the charges were proved were not accepted by the Administrative Committee. On 20.12.2013, an Article was published in the New Indian Express Newspaper on the front page with the title, “Judge Guilty of 'Unacceptable Intimacy with Steno': HC Report”On 21.12.2013 i.e. the day following the publication of the news article, the inquiry Report and the Resolution of the Administrative Committee were placed before the Full Court of this Court, and the Full Court resolved to drop and close the proceedings that had been initiated against the petitioner.On 18.06.2014, the petitioner issued legal notices to the respondent Nos.2 and ...

Karnataka HC Imposes Costs Of ₹10 Lakh On New Indian Express For Publishing Inquiry Report Against District Judge Which Had Been Rejected By Full Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

Karnataka HC Imposes Costs Of ₹10 Lakh On New Indian Express For Publishing Inquiry Report Against District Judge Which Had Been Rejected By Full Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers