Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court found the editor of a Hindi newspaper in Gwalior culpable under the Contempt of Courts Act. They levied a hefty fine of ₹1 lakh on him for publishing a news report against one of its sitting judges in 2011.
Additionally, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke issued a directive to Suman Singh Sikarwar, the editor of Dainik Chambal Vani, to pay an additional fine of ₹2,000 and exercise caution in the future.
Here’s what happened:
- The court stated that the respondent-contemnor must pay costs of ₹1,00,000 with the MP High Court Bar Association, Gwalior within one month, as ordered by the Court.
- The Court determined that the news item contained intemperate language and undesirable expletives, rather than being mere dispassionate criticism of judges, their work, and their judgments.
- It was concluded by the Court that the publication was an intentional attempt to scandalize the image of a judge of the Court, falling within the definition of section 2(c) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Suo motu contempt of court proceedings were initiated against Sikarwar in 2011 after ‘Dainik Chambal Vani’ published a front-page report titled “Sarvoch Nayalaya Aaj Ki Tarah Nishpakch ho jai to Judge Shri Mody Ji Ko Jail Mein Hona Tha”.
- The case was admitted for hearing in 2014 after transfer from Jabalpur to Gwalior Bench and finally heard on March 14, 2024, and reserved for decision.
- In the judgment pronounced on May 6, the Court noted that Sikarwar attempted to retract the pleadings regarding the merits of his earlier filed reply and urged for an unconditional apology to be accepted instead.
- The Court found no repentance on Sikarwar’s part, deeming his apology insincere, as he remained aligned with the allegations against the then-sitting judge/judges and attempted to justify his position.
- From the reply filed by Sikarwar in 2011, the Court observed that he had levied allegations against Judge Mody and other judges of the Court in a curt language.
- Sikarwar initially demanded action against the judge and justified the news item, without seeking any apology in his reply.
- The Court rejected Sikarwar’s oral offer of unconditional apology, proceeding to pass an order of punishment against him.
- Imposing a fine and cost on the respondent-contemnor instead of imprisonment was deemed a just and appropriate punishment by the Court.
- Hence, the Court directed Sikarwar to pay a fine of ₹2,000 and costs of ₹1 lakh as part of the punishment.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International
