http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SADHVI RITUMBHARA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DIGVIJAY SINGH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Pursuant to  the order  passed by this Court on January 13, 1997,  M. Gopal  Reddy, IAS, the then Director of Public Relation  &   Information  and  Mangal  Prasad  Misra,  then Assistant Director,  Public Relation  & Information appeared in person.  They have  filed their affidavits. This court by order date  September 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 or.  On September 9,  1995, after the receipt of the order passed by this Court, M.P. Mishra, the them 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 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 court below,  the above  statement is  a clear distortion of the order  passed by this court. There, the respondents have committed wilful distortion of the judgment which amounts to contempt of this Court.      M. Gopal  Reddy, the  then Director,  States  that  the Press release  was prepared  and issued  by M.P. Mishra, 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.  Mishra has  stated that  "I joined the Department as a daily wager in the  year 1980, after about 6 months, I  was appointed as L.D.C. Later, I was appointed as Scrutiniser and  assistant Public  Relation Officer.  I  was promoted as  Assistant Director  (Advertisement) in the year

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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  and  opportunity  of preparing a press release covering the judgment/order passed by this  Hon’ble Court."  Thereby, he admits that "In own up my mistake  in not  understanding the  order dated  8.9.1995 correctly. I  misunderstood the  worlds "leave  granted:" as accepting the  case of the State Government on merits. I was under the  impressing that  by permitted  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  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.      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 instruction  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 influenced by  any of  the findings and observations made by the High  Court including  of this  Court. Thus, M.P. Mishra has deliberated  done the  act of  misleading the  public by making mis-statement  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 function  properly, 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 clearly from the record whether it was brought to his notice before  publishing or matters are passing without his knowledge from  his Directorate side tracking him. Even then Director himself as Director ultimately bears responsibility for  that  acts  done  by  the  Directorate,  Under    these circumstances, we accept his unconditional apology and close the matter.      The Contempt Petition is ordered accordingly.