1997 INSC 0187
                                                 Sadhvi Ritumbhara

                                                           Vs

                                           Digvijay Singh and Another

       Contempt Petition (CRL) No. 1 of 1997 (D. No. 7847) In Crl.As. Nos. 1085-86 of 1995

                                       (G. T. Nanavati, K. Ramaswamy JJ)

                                                     17.02.1997.

                                                        ORDER

1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13-1-1997, M. Gopal Reddy, IAS, the then Director
of Public Relations & Information and Mangal Prasad Misra, the then Assistant Director, Public
Relations & Information appeared in person. They have filed their affidavits. This Court by order
dated 9-9-1995 had disposed of the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh on the basis of the
consent of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State, Shri P. P. Rao and Shri D. D. Thakur,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court had stated that in view of the respective stands
taken by the counsel on either side, the courts below were directed to dispose of all the pending or
connected matters between the parties on their merits, without being influenced by any of the
findings and observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment under appeal. The
appeal was accordingly disposed of. On 9-9-1995, after the receipt of the order passed by this Court,
M. P. Misra, the then Assistant Director, Public Relations & Information in the Directorate of the
Government of Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal had the news published conveying to the public that the
order of the High Court was reversed by this Court. Thereby, the detention of the petitioner herein
by implication stood upheld and the stand of the Government also stood fortified. As a consequence,
the State was directed to proceed with the matter in the courts below. The above statement is a clear
distortion of the order passed by this Court. Thereby, the respondents have committed wilful
distortion of the judgment which amounts to contempt of this Court.

2. M. Gopal Reddy, the then Director, states that the press release was prepared and issued by M. P.
Misra, who was not conversant with the legal terminology and, therefore, he committed that act of
publishing as a news without knowing the correct implication of the order passed by this Court. M.
P. Misra has stated that :

                  "I joined the Department as a daily wager in the year 1980, and after about 6 months,
                  I was appointed as LDC. Later, I was appointed as Scrutiniser and Assistant Public
                  Relations Officer. I was promoted as Assistant Director (Advertisement) in the year
                  1990 and in 1991, I was shifted to the News Section. I do not possess any
                  qualification in law. I submit that as a person working under the Government, I am
                  not acquainted with legal terminology. I never had any opportunity of preparing a
                  press release covering the judgment/order passed by this Hon'ble Court."

Thereby, he admits that :

                  "I own up my mistake in not understanding the order dated 8-9-1995 correctly. I
                  misunderstood the words 'leave granted' as accepting the case of the State
                  Government on merits. I was under the impression that by permitting the proceedings
                  in the trial court to continue uninfluenced by the findings and observations of the
                  High Court, the petitions of the Government were accepted."

Thus, he admits that he cannot understand the legal terminology and has no capacity to understand
the order to the implications or effect of it since he was not acquainted with the legal terminology
and he did not have any opportunity to prepare the press release on an earlier occasion covering the
judgment and order of a court. Shri P. P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for him, repeatedly
stated that as soon as the order was received, he released it. Since he admits that he is incapable of
understanding the court order, is it not his duty to consult the Law Department or the Director
before issuing the distorted statement ?

3. It would, thus, be seen that he has lack of knowledge or experience in the publication of the press
release of the judgment or order of the Court. This also would show that he did not even care to take
necessary instructions from the persons who had an experience or sought guidance from the Law
Department before releasing distorted version of the judgment. Thereby, it is admitted that what the
Assistant Director has done was distortion of the contents of the judgment with a view to convey to
the public that the petitioner's detention order was upheld by this Court as this Court did not go into
that question and directed the courts below to decide the controversy without being influence by any
of the findings and observations made by the High Court including of this Court. Thus, M. P. Misra
has deliberately done the act of misleading the public by making misstatement of the contents of the
order and, thereby, committed contempt of this Court. We do not think that he has done so
deliberately with a view to undermine the order of this Court. We accept his unconditional apology
and close this matter as against him. Equally, M. Gopal Reddy, being the Director, it is his duty to
see that the Directorate functions property, particularly when it relates to the issuance of the public
information of contents of an order of this Court; unfortunately, he has not done it. It is not clear
from the record whether it was brought to his notice before publishing or matters are passing
without his knowledge from his Directorate sidetracking him. Even then the Director himself as
Director ultimately bears responsibility for the acts done by the Directorate. Under these
circumstances, we accept his unconditional apology and close the matter.

4. The contempt petition is ordered accordingly.