RE CHANDIGARH NEWS LINE (INDIAN EXPRESS GROUP)versusRE CHANDIGARH NEWS LINE (INDIAN EXPRESS GROUP)

A      RE : CHANDIGARH NEWS LINE (INDIAN EXPRESS GROUP)

                                . JULY 31, 1998

                [DR. A.S. ANAND AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

B
         Constitution of India, 1950 :

         Article 129-Contempt of Court-Incorrect and misleading news item
    regarding a matter pending before the Court published in a daily
    Newspaper-Court took note of the news item and issued contempt notice to
C   Reporter and Editor ofNewspaper-Meanwhile before issuance of notice the
    Newspaper realised the mistake and published an apology in its subsequent
    edition-On appearing before Court the respondents repented and tendered
    unconditional apology-Respondents warned to be careful in future-
    Proceedings dropped-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

D        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Suo-Motu Contempt Petition No.
    286of1998.

                                       WITH

         Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23360of1997.
E        From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.97 of the Punjab & Haryana
    High Court in C. W. P. No. 14337of1997.

          S. K. Bagga, Arun Jaitley, P. P. Rao, Sanjay Sarin, Ashok Mathur, Mrs.
    Tanuja Sharma, Mrs. Shurestha Bagga, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Trideep Pais and
F   R.S. Sodhi for the appearin~ parties.

         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Taking note a news item reading "SC orders removal ofhomoeo council
    chief', in the Chandigarh Newsline published by the Indian Express Group,
    Chandigarh on 30.4.1998, this Court on May 1, 1998, being of the view that
G   not only the heading of the news item was absolutely incorrect and misleading
    but even the contents were misleading and the news item had been published
    while the matter was pending in this Court, issued notice to the Reporter--
    Mr. K.B. Kapur as well as the Editor of the Indian Express, Chandigarh to
    show cause why proceedings for committing contempt of court be not initiated
H   against them. In response to the notice, both the respondents are present in
                                         944
-\- -

               RE : CHANDIGARH NEWS LINE (INDIAN EXPRESS GROUP)                      945
        in Court along with their learned counsel Mr.Jaitely. At the request of the          A
        Court , the learned Solicitor General is also present to assist the Court.

              The contemnors have filed their reply affidavits admitting their mistake
        and serious lapse, and have tendered unconditional apology to this Court. It
        has also been brought to our notice by Mr. Jaitely that as early as on May
        4, 1998 an apology had been published in the Chandigarh Newsline, which              B
        reads thus :

                                         "AND" APOLOGY

                   It has come to the notice of this paper that the report "SC orders
                removal of homoeo council chief" (April 30) is erroneous.                    C
                    On eqnuiry, it appears that the original report is in fact erroneous.

                     It was stated in the report that there were directions, in a decision
                of the Supreme Court announced on April 24 that the State government
                was to replace the chairman of the Punjab Homoeopathetic Council.            D
                   It has since been clarified that no such decision or direction was
                announced or given by the apex court. The original report was based
                on a misinterpretaion of a communication received by the Punjab
                Government from R.S. Sodhi, additional advocate general, Punjab.

                    The newspaper realises the possible repurcussions on the pending         E
                matter before the apex court due to the inadvertent misinterpretation
                of the communicati Jn as aforesaid.

                    The error, though grave, was entirely unintentional and is deeply
                regretted."
                                                                                             F
               It is submitted by Mr. Jaitely, that the apology was published before the
        service of contempt notice on both the contemnors and that the apology had
        been published on realising the mistake. Mr. Jaitely, learned senior counsel
        further submits that both the respondents are truly repentant and have bonafide
        tendered their unconditional apologies for the mistake committed by them and         G
        that both of them assure that they shall be more careful in future. It is
        submitted that they had no intention to prejudice the proceedings pending
        in this Court: Both the contemnors have placed themselves at the mercy of
        the Court submitting that their lapse, though grave, was unintentional and
        they sincerely regret for their mistake.
                                                                                             H
                                                                                      -I

    946                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1998) 3 S.C.R.
                                                                                           c
A         After hearing the learned Solicitor General and Mr. Arun Jaitley and
    perusing the record as also the unconditional apology submitted by both the
    respondents, and taking note of the apology published in the Chandigarh
    Newsline dated 4th May, 1998 voluntarily, we are satisfied that the respondents
    are now truely repentant and that their apologies are sincere and bonafide.
B   Under the circumstances, while warning them to be careful in future we do
    not now consider it necessary to proceed any further with the contempt
    proceedings. We, accordingly, drop those proceeding. The rule issued against
    the respondents is accordingly discharged.

    R.P.                                                     Petition disposed of.