IN RE : HARIJAI SINGH AND ANR.versusIN RE : VIJAY KUMAR

                 IN RE : HARUAI SINGH AND ANR.                                   A
                      IN RE : VUAY KUMAR

                          SEPTEMBER 17, 1996

           (KULDEEP SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]
                                                                                 B
      Constitution of India: Article 19(J)(a).

       Freedom of press part of freedom of speech and eJ.pression-Mother of
all liberties in a democratic society-Freedom of press is not absolutely
unlimited and unfettered-Element of responsibility must be present in the C
conscience of the Joumalists--Rights of press to be recognised with its duties
and responsibilities towards the society-Newspaper publishing improper and
false news must be punished by cowt of law.

      Common cause a regd. society filed a writ petition against alleged
misuse and arbitrary exercise of discretionary power by the Petroleum and        D
Natural Gas Ministry in relation to allotment of retail outlets for
petroleum products and LPG Dealership from discretionary quota.

      During the pendency of writ petition a Box news under caption
"pumps for all" was published in the Sunday Tribune on March 10, 1996
stating that Petroleum Minister has made 17 allotments of petrol pumps           E
and gas agencies to relatives of the then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao
out of his discretionary quota though. the allotment under this caD only be
made to the weaker section of the society and war-widows. It also stated
that two children of Lok Sabha Speaker Shiv Raj Patil and two sons of a
Senior Judge of Supreme Court have also been favoured.
                                                                                 F
      Similar News item was also published in Hindi Newspaper Punjab
Kesari dated March 10, 1996 which stated that 17 relatives of the Prime
Minister Narasimha Rao have been allotted petrol pumps or gas agencies
out of the discretionary quota. Then it went on to add that the list includes
names of two sons of Mr. Ahmadi, Chief Justice of India.                         G
      Notice was issued by the Supreme Court to the Secretary, Ministry
of Petroleum and Natural Gas. In his affidavit dated March 20, 1996 he
stated that since the allegations regarding allotment under the discretion-
ary quota in favour of two sons of senior Judge of Supreme Court are vague
and in the absence of specific names it is difficult to deal with the same. On   H
                                    411
         412                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

     A the request of Additional Solicitor General time was granted to file further
         affidavit of a respvnsible officer and it was further directed that relevant
         files be produced in Court.

               Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt.
         of India in his affidavit dated March 28, 1996 categorically stated that there
     B   was no allotment in favour of son/sons of any Supreme Court Judge.

               Since the allegations were completely false, contempt proceedings
         were initiated again~t the Editors and Publishers of the Sunday Tribune,
         Chandigarh and the Punjab Kesari, Jalandhar and show cause notices were
         issued to them.
     c
               Editor of ''The Sunday Tribune" Hari Jai Singh filed affidavit admit-
         ting that the news item published in 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
     D   apology and prayed for mercy and pardon.

                He further stated that it was an inadvertent publication as the news
         item was supplied by an experienced journalist Dina Nath Misra who is a
         journalist of 30 years standing. He submitted that he has the highest
         respect for the Judiciary in general and to this Court in particular and
     E   tendered his unqualified apology with a feeling of remorse. It was further
         submitted that an apology was already published in the Tribune dated May
         10, 1996. Similarly affidavit was also filed by Publisher of the Tribune Lt.
         Col. S.L. Dheer, tendering his apology and prayed for mercy and pardon
         due .to Bonafide Mistake.

     F       Vijay Kumar Chopra, Editor and Publisher of Punjab Kesari,
       Jalandhar also filed his affidavit and statedthat news item was published
       on the basis of report sent by a senior Journalist which due to inadvertence
       escaped the attention of the Editor. And an apology was carried out
       prominently in the Newspaper on April 7, 1996. He also tendered his un-
     G conditional and unqualified apology.
                Thereafter a contempt notice was issued to Dina Nath Misra and he ·.~.
         filed an affidavit on August 1, 1996 and admitted that a capsule item about
         the allotment of Petrol Pumps to the sons of senior Judge of the Supreme
         Court was not factually correct and he tendered his unqualified apology for
     H   the lapse that he had committed.
                INRE:HARIJAISINGH INRE: VDAYKR.                           413

       He filed additional affidavit on Aug. 29, 1996 and admitted that he A'
has committed a grievous error in writing news items which have no basis
and again offered his unconditional apology. Disposing of the contempt
petitions, this Court

      HELD : 1. Freedom of press is an essential pre-requisite of a
democratic form of Govt. The freedom of press is a part of the freedom of        B
the speech and expression as envisaged in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitu-
tion of India. The freedom of press is regarded as the mother of all liberties
in a democratic society. [419-G, 420-A]

      Indian Express Newspaper v•.Union of India, [1985] 1 SCR 641 and           C
Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India, AIR (1986) SC 872, relied
upon.

       2. 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. The primary function of the press is to provide D
comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of country's politi-
cal, social, economic and cultural life. It has an educative and mobilising
role to play. It plays an important role in moulding public opinion and
can be an instrument of social change. [420-D, 420-F]
                                                                                 E
       3. But it has to be remembered that freedom of press is not absolute,
unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving
an unrestricted freedom of speech and expression would amount to an
uncontrolled licence. If it were wholly free even from reasonable 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.     F
In fact the element of responsibility must be present in the conscience of
the journalists. IIi an organised 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              G
doings. If a newspaper publishes what is improper, mischievously false or
illegal and absues its liberty it must be punished by Court of law.
                                                            [420-H, 421-A-B]
     4. Editors of a Newspaper or a Journal have a greater responsibility
to guard against untruthful news and publications. Certain restrictions          H
    414                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A are essential for preservation of the freedom-of the press itself. (421-B-D]
          5. It is the duty of true and responsible Journalist to inform people
    with accurate and impartial news after dispassionate evaluation of facts
    and information received by them. (421-D-E]

B          6. In the instant case neither the printer, nor the editor and reporter
    took necessary care in publishing the news item of an allegation of a
    serious nature having great repercussion causing embarrassment to this
    Court. Such an irresponsible conduct of Editor, Publisher and Reporter
    is distinctly opposed to the high professional standards. Even the ordinary
C   care was not resorted to by the contemners in publishing such a false news
    item. This cannot be regarded as a public service but a disservice to the
    public by misguiding them with a false news. [421-G-H, 422-A]

         7. This Court is not hypersensitive in matters relating to contempt
  of courts and has always shown magnanimity in accepting apology. Fair
D criticism within the parameters of law is always welcome in democratic
  system. But the news item in the present case is neither fair nor made in
  good faith but wholly false and explanation given is far from satisfactory.
  However the written unconditional apology tendered by Bari Jai Singh,
  Editor of Sunday Tribune, Ft. Col. H.L. Dheer, Publisher and Editor of
E the· Sunday Tribune and Vijay Kumar Chopra, Editor and Publisher of
  Punjab Kesari is accepted with the warning that they should be careful in
  future. (422-B-D, 422-G]

        8. As for Dina Nath Mishra, he being a very experienced fournalist,
F should have taken extra care to verify the correctness and if he had done
  so there would not have been any difficulty in coming to know that
  information supplied to him had absolutely no legs to stand and was
  patently false and the publication would have been avoided which not only
  caused embarrassment to this Court but conveyed a wrong message to the
  public at large jeopardizing the faith of the illiterate masses in our
G judiciary. He committed a serious mistake but, his sincere repentence and
  unconditional apology are accepted. [422-G, H, 423-A]

          9. The contemners will publish in the front page of their respective
    newspaper in a box; their respective apologies, specifically mentioning that
H   the said news item were absolutely incorrecfand false. (423-CJ
        . INRE:HARIJAISINGH INRE: VJJAYKR.(FAIZANUDDIN,J.]                  415

         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition Nos. 206-                 A
    207of1996.

                                        IN

         Writ Petition (C) No. 26 of 1995.
                                                                                   B
         (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

         In-Person for Petitioner.

         K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, Ram Jethmalani and Ash-
    wini Kumar, Prashant Bhushan, P.H. Parekh, Arvind Sharma, Sameer               C
    Parekh, Ms. Bina Madhavan and K.S. Chauhan for the appearing parties.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         FAIZAN UDDIN, J. When this Court was seized of, Writ Petition
    filed by the "Common Cause, A Registered Society'' with regard to the D
    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 E
    reproduced hereunder :

            "Pumps for all!

            Believe it or not, Petroleum Minister Satish Sharma has made 17
1           allotments of petrol pumps and gas agencies to relatives of Prime      F
            Minister Narasimha Rao out of his discretionary quota. Allotments
            in this category can only be made to members of the weaker
            sections of society and war widows, 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          G
            of his brother Manohar Rao, two relatives of P. Venkata Rao and
            the son of A VR Krishnamurthy whose family lives with the Prime
            Minister have been 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 Jyotiriyai.
            She was also favoured by the Airport Authority of India which          H
    416                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A           released a prime piece of land located in Begum.pet area to her
            for just Rs. 3 lakh. 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
            benefited from these allotments. Two children of Lok Sabha
            Speaker Shivraj Patil have also been favoured as have the two sons
B           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 Min-
            ister has so far managed to withhold this crucial document. But it
            has hardly helped as the list has been leaked by Sharma's own
c           men."

          A similar news item was also published in the Hindi newspaper
    "Punjab Kesari" dated March 10, 1996; the English translation of which is
    as follows:
D
            "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
E           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
F           Minister Capt. Satish Sharma turned out to be a scam in itself. The     t-
            matter was referred to the Supreme Court in which the Govern-
            ment was directed to submit a list. The Petroleum Minister sup-
            pressed 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
G           Minister Narsimaha Rao in that list. Five persons are his grand-
            sons and grand-daughters. Five others are the members of the
            family of V. Rajeshwar Rao. He is a Member of Parli~-ient and_
            the relative of the Prime Minister, Manohar Rao is the brother of
            Narasimha Rao. These agencies were also allotted to his three'
H           children. There is one more relative - P. Venkatrao. Two allottees
     INRE:HARUAISINGH INRE: VIJAYKR.[FAIZANUDDIN,J.]                    417

        have been found in his family. One is A.V.R. Krishna Murty who A
        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 Jyotiramal. Narasimha Rao is his real
        grand maternal father.

            The authorised hostess of the Prime Minister's residence is
                                                                               B
        Vani Devi who is the daughter of the Prime Minister and mother
        of Jyotirmal. Their agency is situated at Begumpet under the name
        and style "Shri Sai Balalji Agency". The land of 2000 Sq. M. of the
        Indian Aviation Authority was given to Sri Sai Balaji Agency
        merely for rupees three lakhs. Presently, the cost of this land is     c
        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 back-        D
        ward person 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 allotment of petrol outlets from the
discretionary quota of Ministry and therefore, by our Order dated March        E
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, 1996 stating     F
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,
1996, Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General stated that       G
he would look into the records and file further affidavit of a responsible
officer giving response to the other allegations regarding ~elationship 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 26, 1996. In          H
    418                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   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 at records and affidavits referred to above, we found that the
    news items referred to above were patently false and, therefore, by our
    Order dated March 27, 1996, we initiated contempt proceedings against
B the Editors and Publishers of the daily "The Sunday Tribune" Chandigarh         r
    and "The Punjab Kesari", Jalandhar and issued notices to them to show
    cause 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
C the news item published in "The Sunday tribune" dated March 10, 1996
  with regard to the allotment of petrol outlets to the sons of a 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 wa~
  an inadvertent publication made bona fide on the faith that the iten:
D supplied by an experienced journalist, Shri Dina Nath Misra, who i~
  generally reliable would not be factually incorrect. It has been stated t~at
  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
E the highest respect for the judiciary in general and to this Court in
  particular and rendered 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 dated May
  10, 1996 and necessary instructions to all members of the editorial staff
F 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 J aisingh
                                                                                      ;
G 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 affidavit
H   dated June 29, 1996 stating that the news item in the daily "Punjab Kesari"
         INRE:HARIJAISINGH INRE: VIJAYKR.[FAIZANUDDlN,J.]                    419

    referred to above was published on the basis of the news report sent by a 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 tow&rds the judiciary and that
    the mistake was bonafide. He has also tendered his unconditional and
                                                                               B
    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 C
    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, D
    therefore, tendered his unqualified apology for the lapse that he had
    committed. He has stated that he has been a 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 informations to the deponent gave this information also
    which was believed by him to be true, but it turned out to be incorrect. He E
    has stated various other facts to show :that the mistake was bonafide, but
    we find the said excuses and 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 F
    the said facts and admitted that he has committed a grievous error in
    writing news items which have absqlutely no basis, and has again offered
    unconditional apolo&ry to Hon'sble the Chief Justice as well as to 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             G
    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             H
    420                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the freedom of the press is
    included in the fundamental right of freedom of 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 Constitution like ours was immensely stressed in several
    landmark judgments of this Court. The case of Indian &press Newspaper
B   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.
c
           It is thus needless to emphasise that a free and healthy press is
    indispensable to the functioning of a true demo(:racy. 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
D   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 i,ts functionaries. To achieve this objective the
    people need a clear and truthful account of events, so that they may form
E   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 a·spects of the country's political, social, economic and
    cultural life. It has an educative and mobilising role to play. It plays an
    important role in •moulding public opinion and can be an instrument of
F   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
G   for publication.

           But it has to be remembered that freedom of press is not absolute,
    unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving an
    u11rest1icted freedom of the speech and expression would amount to an
H   uncontrolled licence. If it were wholly free even from reasonable restraints it
      INRE_:HARIJAISINUH lNRE: VIJAYKR.[FAIZANUDDIN,J.]                      421

would lead to disorder and anarchy. The freedom is, not to be misunderstood         A
as to be a press free to disregard its duty to be reasonable. Infact, the element
of responsibility must be present in the conscience of the joumalists. In an
organised society, the rights of the press have to be recognised with its duties
and responsibilities towards the society. Public orde1; decency, morality and
such other things must be safeguarded. The protective cover of press freedom
                                                                                    B
must not be thrown open for wrong doings. If a new~paper publishes what is
improper, mischievously false or illegal and abuses its liberty it must be
punished by Cowt 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 utterances have a far greater circulation and
impact than the utterances or an individual and by reason of their appear- c
ing 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 rep01t of Mons Lopez to the Economic
and Social Council of the United Nations "if it is tme that human progress
is impossible without freedom, then it is no less tme that ordin01y human D
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 a news item. The presentation of the news should be
truthful, objective and comprehensive without any false and distorted E
expression.

      In the present case, as w~ have noticed above, neither printer,
published nor the editor and reporter took the necessary care in evaluating
the correctness and credibility of the information published by them as the F
news items in the newspapers referred to above in respect of an allegation
of a very serious nature having great repercussion causing an embarras-
ment to this Courts. 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 attitude G
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 stand-
ards as even a 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 H
     422                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A     patently false would have revealed the truth. But it appears that even the
    . ordinary care was not resorted to by the contemners in publishing such a
      false news items. This caMot 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.              1.

B
             But it may be pointed out that various judgments and pronounce-
     ments 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
C    intention of dis-respect towards the Courts or towards any member of the
     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 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
D    in good faith but wholly false and the explanation given is far from
     satisfactory. Shri Hari Jaisingh, Editor of the Sunday Tribune and Lt. Col.
      H.L. Dheer, Publisher as well as Vijay Kumar Chopra. Editor and Publish-
      er 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
     senior journalist of long standing Dina Nath Misra. But this cannot be
E 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 example as in the present case, on the basis of
  information received from the journalist I reporter) will be of no avail for
  the editors and publishers for contempt of Court but for determining the
F 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
G 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
H stand and was catently false and the publication would have been avoided
        INRE:HARIJAISINGH.INRE: VUAYKR[FAIZANUDDIN,lr- 423.

    which not only caused great embarrassment to this Court but conveyed a A
   wrong message to the public at large jeopardizing the faith of the illeterate
    masses in our judiciary. Shri Dina Nath Misra has no doubt committed a
    serious mistake but he has realised bis mistake and expressed sincere
    repentance and has tendered unconditional apology for th~ same. He was
   present in the Court and virtually looked to be gloomy and felt\epentant B
    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,· the~efore,
  . taking ·a .lenient view of the matter, we accept bis apology also. We,
 · however, direct that the contemners 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. C
. This may be done within two weeks. The Contempt Petition Nos. 206-207
    of 1996 are disposed of accordingly.

 S.S.                                                  Petitions disposed of.