A.K.Sawhney vs D.R.Choudhary Member Public Service Commission Haryana & Ors.

The petitioner Sh. A.K. Sawhney, is a practising Advocate. The first respondent is one Sh. G. R. Chowdhry, Member, Public Service

Commission, Haryama. Respondents Nos. 2 to 8 are respectively, the Editorinchief Daily Tribune, Special correspondent Daily Tribune, Express.

Chandigarh, Editor Time of India, Editor Hindustan Times and Editor Punjab Keasri and Hind Samachar, Jullundar.

This is a contempt petition. The petitioner seeks to preserve the dignity of the Indian Judiciary and desires this court to punish the first

respondent for making statements derogatory to the dignity of the judiciary and respondent No. 2 on words for publishing the statements made by

the first respondent. In para No. 1 of the petition, the petitioner states that he had been a Judicial Officer in the J&K State for some time and after

that he joined the Bar and started practice. In para No. 2 he expresses his anxiety to maintain and up hold the honour and dignity of the judiciary.

He states that nothing should be done or allowed to be done to bring the judiciary into disrespect or lower the judiciary in the minds of the general

public. In para No. 3 he states that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a judgement quashed the selection list prepared by the Haryana Public

Service Commission. It appears that certain strictures were passed against the Commission in the judgement. The first respondent is to retire on

1121983 He appears to have resigned from the Public Service Commission piqued at the observations contained in the judgement. The petitioner

has enclosed along with this petition cutting from the newspaper with which respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are connected to high light his case that the first

respondent has made statement which would render his guilty for contempt of court. Some of the objectionable statements made by the first

respondent can be use fully extracted ?

The Tribune, dt. 241083 ""The judgement given one the impression that the High Court Judges are always like Caesar's wife, above suspicion,

while Members of the Commission are ordinary mortals likely to commit any sin.

The Patriot, dt. 241083 ""He said that the High Court judgement gives the impression that if the Judges are always above suspicion while members

of the Commission were ordinary mortals likely to commit any sin. This impression is wrong

The Hindustan Times, dt. 231083 ""The judgement tries to give the impression that High Court Judges are always like leaders wife, above

suspicion, while Members of the Commission are ordinary mortals likely to commit any sin''.

The Times of India, dt. 241083 ""The judgement tries to give the impression that High Court Judges are always like Caesar's wife, above suspicion

while members of the Commission are ordinary mortals likely to commit any sin"".

According to the petitioner the above statements of the first respondent contain sarcestic remarks relating to the High Court Judges which would

tend to lower the minds of the public. By these remarks, the first committed contempt of court. By publishing his dent Nos. 2 to 8 have also

committed contempt. The that the alleged contemners may be dealt with according to law.

I may at once state that this is not a complaint for defamation: Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 cannot be said to have commit offence by publishing the

first respondent's statement members of the Fourth Estate. Their duty is to publish are important. They felt, that the statements made by the first

respondent had to be published and they did so. They never intended and could never be deemed to have intended to bring down the judiciary by

publishing this statement. I have, therefore, no hesitation to discharge respondent Nos. 2 to 8 from the complaint

I am satisfied prima facie that the first respondent has made the above statements because the papers have uniformly published the same and

because the papers refer to the statement as a signed statement by the first respondent. However, I do not want to close my eyes to another part

of the first respondent statement also uniformly published by all the papers which is as follows:

Mr. Chowdhry said he had serious reservations about the judgement but had decided to resign to up hold the honour of the High Court as an

institution"".

I do not dismiss the petitioner's anxiety exhibited in this petition as an exercise in futility. The extracts from the statements referred above contain,

though indirectly, unhappy reference to High Court Judges, which should have been avoided, but the last portion extracted above, shows that the

first respondent is at the same time anxious the up hold the dignity of the judiciary at an institution.

Judges cannot live in ivory towers. Their judgements are always open to criticisms.Criticism is always welcome Judges should not be unduly

sensitive or touchy to criticism of their judgements?.It is only when a calculatate and deliberate attempt is discernible from the objectionable

statements or pronouncements of the contemner to bring down the judiciary in the estimates of the public that courts will bestir themselves to

uphold their dignity and show that their writs run within their jurisdiction.Courts as well as citizens should always avoid sensationalism.

The petition is seen dated 11183 while I appreciate the anxiety of the petitioner to up hold the dignity of the judiciary and in particular that of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court I do not feel persuaded to take any action against the first respondent for the signed statement which he is alleged

to have made.

The petition disposed of as above.