"Deliberately Made Comments Upon A Particular Judge & His Judgment": Madhya Pradesh HC Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs On Editor Of Dainik Chambal Vani

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held Suman Singh Sikarwar, the editor of Dainik Chambal Vani, guilty of contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act. This verdict comes in response to a news report published by the newspaper in 2011 targeting one of the sitting judges of the High Court.

"The respondent being Editor of the daily newspaper had deliberately made comments upon a particular judge, other judges and their judgments and looking to the comments it cannot be said that they are in the nature of mere dispassionate criticism of the judges, their working and their judgments, but are couched in intemperate language and use of undesirable expletives, thus, it appears that it was an intentional attempt made by the respondent-contemnor to scandalise the image of a Judge of this Court as well as other Judges which clearly falls within the definition of section 2 (c) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971," the Court observed.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke imposed a hefty cost of Rs. 1 lakh on Sikarwar and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. Sikarwar has been directed to deposit the cost with the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association, Gwalior, within one month.

The Court's decision stemmed from a news item published by Dainik Chambal Vani, titled "Sarvoch Nayalaya Aaj Ki Tarah Nishpakch ho jai to Judge Shri Mody Ji Ko Jail Mein Hona Tha," which appeared on the front page of the newspaper in 2011. The publication prompted suo motu contempt of court proceedings against Sikarwar.

The Bench observed that the news report contained intemperate language and undesirable expletives, aiming to scandalize the image of the concerned judge and other judges of the High Court. It emphasized that the report was not merely critical but constituted a deliberate attempt to tarnish the reputation of the judiciary, falling within the purview of Section 2(c) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

"From the bare reading of the aforesaid section, it could be observed that any act or tendency to scandalize the Court or tendency to lower the authority of the Court or tendency to interfere with or tendency to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner or to challenge the authority or majesty of a Court would amount to criminal contempt of Court if the news item with headline “Sarvoch Nayalaya Aaj Ki Tarah Nishpakch ho jai to Judge Shri Mody Ji Ko Jail Mein Hona Tha” is analyzed in the above context, to this court it virtually appears to scandalize the image of the then sitting Judge Shri Mody and functioning of this Court," the Division Bench said.

Despite Sikarwar's attempt to retract his previous pleadings and offer an unconditional apology, the Court found his remorse insincere. It noted that Sikarwar had failed to demonstrate genuine repentance and had instead maintained his stance against the judge in question. The Court highlighted Sikarwar's initial refusal to apologize and his subsequent attempts to justify the publication's content, including levelling allegations against the Judge and demanding action.

The Bench noted, "From the very appearance of the respondent-contemnor before this court, it appears from his attitude that there is no repentance of any kind on his face and just for the sake of apology he had made a regretful acknowledgment of the offence, which appears to this court not bona fide."

"Act of seeking apology appears to be just for the sake of it, as he had glued himself with the allegations leveled against the then sitting judge/judges of the High Court and had tried to justify his stand, the regret which respondent-contemnor had shown are just in words and not imbibed in his deeds," it said.

Rejecting Sikarwar's oral offer of apology, the Court deemed it appropriate to impose a monetary penalty rather than imprisonment. It stated, "We are of the considered view that imposing fine and cost on the respondent Contemnor instead of sending him to jail would be a just and appropriate punishment.."

Consequently, the Bench ordered Sikarwar to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 and bear the cost of Rs. 1 lakh. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition was disposed of finally.

Cause Title: In Reference v. Suman Singh Sikarwar

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Additional Advocate General (AAG) Vivek Khedkar

Click here to read/download the Order