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 3, in which, apart from making several assertions, he demanded a sum of Rs.10 crores as damages for the mental agony, humiliation and torture suffered by him.

He contended that he had to undergo the trauma of facing an inquiry only because of the wrongful action taken by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the matter of initiation of disciplinary inquiry against him.

On 01.08.2014, the petitioner issued legal notice to the Newspaper, its editors and its reporters, calling upon them to pay a compensation of Rs.10 crores. On 19.12.2014, the petitioner instituted a suit in O.S.No.25/2015 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru against the respondents herein, claiming damages of Rs.50 lakhs with the assertion that he had been defamed. Thereafter, on 01.04.2015, he filed the present petition.

Findings:

During the pendency, the petitioner moved an application seeking to implead the then Hon'ble Chief Justices J.S.Khehar and Vikramjit Sen, who subsequently served as Judges of the Supreme Court, as respondent Nos.14 and 15.

However, the court dismissed the same holding it to be untenable. It was held that the decision taken by the Administrative Committee or by the Chief Justice to initiate an inquiry against a Judicial Officer was always an administrative decision and not a personal one.

Moreover, it was stated that the grievance of the petitioner was only against the High Court for having been subjected to a departmental inquiry and since the High Court was already arrayed as respondent No.1, it was open for the High Court to defend its decision, and the lis could be decided without impleading the aforementioned Judges.

The court, relying on Karnataka (Vigilance Cell Functions) Rules, 1971 and Rule 8 of Chapter 18 of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 upheld its decision of turning down the request of the petitioner for certain documents.

Noting that the summary of contents of the inquiry Report dated 30.05.2013 was published in the New Indian Express Newspaper on 20.12.2013, it was observed that the contents of the inquiry Report were made known to the reporter and the Newspaper.

Observing the fact that the inquiry Authority and the Registrar General had not furnished the Report to the Newspaper, it was found that the report has, nevertheless, landed in the hands of the Newspaper and it is asserted that the article only mentions the contents stated in the Report.

The bench opined that the proceeding between an employer and an employee cannot be considered to be a public proceeding.

It stated that if it is borne in mind that the inquiry was in relation to an allegation relating to an immoral behaviour of a Judicial Officer and contained allegations of illicit relationships, there was an inherent responsibility vested with the Newspaper to ensure that the entire proceedings were kept out of public domain.

It added that the publication of an inquiry report arising out of a proceeding in which there are allegations of illegal intimacy, which was yet to be accepted, would not only impinge upon the character of the allegedly delinquent Officer but would also cause immense damage to the character and privacy of innocent people who were unconnected with the inquiry.”

It was stated that in a disciplinary proceeding wherein grave allegations are made against Judicial Officers, there is a solemn responsibility cast upon all concerned to ensure that attempts made to sensationalise any issues arising therein are thwarted.

The ultimate conclusion of an inquiry would be expressed in clear terms, but any attempt made during the course of the proceedings to pre-empt the conclusion would have a detrimental effect on the entire process of the inquiry, it was held.

Thus it held that since the entire inquiry initiated against the petitioner stood concluded by the decision of the Full Court to not accept the inquiry Report, the decision to initiate the disciplinary inquiry was unjustified and also rejected the prayer of the petitioner seeking compensation from the High Court.

Before parting it said, “In the event, and in the future, if similar complaints of infidelity are received and an inquiry is undertaken, care should be taken to ensure that the names of the persons involved in or connected with the matter are not mentioned.”

Appearance: Veeranna G Tigadi party in person.

Senior Advocate Udaya Holla for Advocate Vivek Holla for R-1, R-4 & R-6.

Senior Advocate G.KRISHNAMURTHY, for Advocate G K Bhavana FOR R-2 & R-3.

Advocate M N Umashankar for R-5.

Advocate K Govindaraj for R-7 TO R-11 & 13.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 146

Case Title: Veeranna G Tigadi AND High Court of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14053 OF 2015

Click Here To Read/Download Order