Delhi HC judge slaps crim contempt on legal mag for son, nightclub & cops story [READ ORDER]

Night clubbing, somewhere (image for representational purposes only)
Night clubbing, somewhere (image for representational purposes only)
”)

A Delhi high court judge initiated contempt proceedings and ordered injunction against legal news magazine India Legal for a report that stated that the judge’s son had an interest in the Delhi nightclub Hype, which was allowed by police to allegedly remain open late beyond the licensed closing time, reported the Times of India.

In his 10 October order serving notice on India Legal’s publishers, editors and photographer, the judge stated that his son had informed him that he held no stake in Hype.

The order stated [view order]:

“[…] under a separate heading ‘Connections help’ the article records as follows

‘According to police and excise sources [the judge’ son’s] connections makes them jittery when it comes to strictly enforcing their own directives. However, other pubs and hotels are not so lucky as there are so many “clauses” within the license issued to them that the police could always invoke to make them close in time. However, “greasing” palms is a way out of any sticky situation’.

The article ends with the following lines

‘It’s obvious that while the rules are the same for everyone, their implementation, sadly, isn’t.’

The write-up is totally mischievous and contains outrageous allegations concerning me and my son […]”

“What is even more shocking is the misplaced courage, daredevilness and audacity of the author and publishers of the article to drag my name in the write-up and to make it further worst my large size photograph has been published on page no. 49 of the magazine to give an impression to the public at large, particularly to the legal community as if the said bar Hype is owned by my son […] and I have some interest in it. Unfortunately it does not stop here. On the cover page of the magazine the stories which the magazine contain are given as highlights and one of such highlight for the edition is referred to as “Judge’s 24x7 tippling joint”. Further on page 7 under the heading contents in a separate highlighted portion the title of the story at page 48 has been described as ” A night club in Delhi owned by senior judge that flouts all norms…”

“It is beyond my comprehension to gage as to with what objectives and at whose motivation and agenda such a scandalous, defamatory article has been published, but that there is no doubt in my mind that one of the objective appears to be to damage, discredit me and my family and above all to bring into disrepute the judiciary as a whole for some ulterior motives. Such an irresponsible, reckless and contemptuous article is bound to shatter the faith of the common man in the administration of justice.”

The judge served the publishing house, EN Communications, and the entire publishing and editorial staff with contempt notices returnable on 17 October, and added in the order: “Separate contempt notices shall be later issued against all those, who were part of the Indian Legal Team, who have contributed the said write up on the disclosure of their names by the other notices.”:

“In the meanwhile with a view to prevent any further onslaught on my image and the image of the judiciary, I direct the Respondents to stop publishing and circulating the said edition forthwith. I also direct the Commissioner of Delhi Police through concerned DCP New Delhi District to immediately seize and confiscate the entire stock of this edition from all offices of the aforesaid publishing house whether located in Delhi or elsewhere as per the information given in the magazine itself and from the printing press of Cirrus Graphics Pvt. Ltd. publishers on behalf of E.N. Communications Pvt. Ltd.

I also direct that no news concerning this matter shall be published, appear, transmitted, communicated or aired in any manner or whatsoever in the print media or the electronic media or world wide web/internet, emails, blogs and etc.”

The next hearing is on 18 November 2014.

Read full order

Comments

HC guy 31 Oct 2014, 13:56
+1 -2
Link to the order not working.
kianganz 31 Oct 2014, 14:01
+1 -1
Thanks - can you please refresh the page and try again?
Pedantic 31 Oct 2014, 13:58
+1 -1
Violative of the legal principles enunciated in Bonham. But who cares?
Deaf 31 Oct 2014, 17:49
+4 -0
But this would only be defamation of that judge and his son and not a contempt of Court.
anon 31 Oct 2014, 19:09
+1 -1
Link to order not working, download also not working. Please fix this.
anon 31 Oct 2014, 19:15
+4 -0
read the order, if it is accurately typed, then I have serious concerns about the Judge's grasp of language, syntax and grammar
Conflicted isnt he 1 Nov 2014, 07:02
+4 -1
Isn't this judge conflicted, given that the allegations are pointed at his own son?? What's the legal-position on such situations? Kian?
H 1 Nov 2014, 11:25
+8 -0
"I also direct that no news concerning this matter shall be published, appear, transmitted, communicated or aired in any manner or whatsoever in the print media or the electronic media or world wide web/internet, emails, blogs and etc.”

Haven't you just committed contempt?
anon 2 Nov 2014, 04:36
+2 -0
It can never be contempt to accurately report on a public judicial proceeding, as such reporting amounts to exercise of the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of expression and the right to information.

Any restriction on such right amounts to a constitutional violation not only of article 19 but of the basic structure.

Public judicial proceedings are part of the basic structure of our constitution and are as much required for upholding the stature of the judiciary as is the principle of contempt.

Any abrogation of the right to report judicial proceedings is a wrong to be contested in the same way in which the emergency was fought.

This secrecy is what is wrong with the order. It is possible that the facts support the judge. It is possible that the magazine was wrong in focusing on the judge in an issue involving his son.

But these facts need to be established.

The order appears to be hushing up the whole matter. What about the rights of the alleged contemnors.

The judge has recourse, once the judicial process is followed, the truth will emerge and he may be vindicated

But how can the judge keep his name and this news out of the press. He cannot.
Wannabe AOR 1 Nov 2014, 12:21
+14 -1
The judge in question seems to have ignored the principle of Nemo iudex in causa sua meaning no man can be a judge of his own cause. How could he issue an injunction order against the respondents asking them not to publish article about himself???
anon 1 Nov 2014, 13:11
+0 -0
No man can be a judge in his own cause & a single judge cannot pass injunction/ order to destroy property exercising criminal contempt jurisdiction, Does the law not apply to judges?
AAP 1 Nov 2014, 13:58
+3 -0
Anyone can find following details on MCA website

[url][url]TIRUPATI BUILDINGS AND OFFICES PRIVATE LIMITED
[/url][/url]
Director

DIN/DPIN/PAN

GAURAV GAMBHIR[url]http://www.mca.gov.in/DCAPortalWeb/dca/AuthorizedSignDtls.do?method=getdtls[/url]

Present residential address

B-7,, DR. ZAKIR HUSSAIN MARG, NEW DELHI, 110001, Delhi, INDIA
anon 2 Nov 2014, 08:16
+0 -0
Seems that criminal/ CBI proceedings are ongoing against a director/promoter of this company Tirupati, in the Delhi High Court and in Patiala House
Baba 3 Nov 2014, 13:57
+4 -0
This order will not stand one day in the Supreme Court.
P M Ravindran 5 Nov 2014, 01:02
+0 -2
While some of the observations in the judgement are factually correct, it is equally true that some of the opinions in the media report are also very much believable. For example even when the judge may not own the night club the police and excise staff being wary of enforcing the rules on this club is absolutely believable. Now may I ask, how did the media and the club managers come to know that one of their customers is this judge's son unless this son himself had disclosed it either to simply throw weight or may be even to gain some favours? After all the media cannot be faulted for being curious why a particular night club was functioning as if the rules never applied to them! Personally I find the judge more guilty of over reaching than the media is guilty of sensationalizing their report!