Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6905 (ORI)

Kanak Vardhan Singh Deo v. Saroj Kumar Meher

2025-07-31

Ananda Chandra Behera

body2025
J UDGMENT : Ananda Chandra Behera, J. 1. This interlocutory application No.30 of 2025 has arisen out of Election Petition No.20 of 2024. 2. The Petitioner and the Opposite Party in this I.A. are the respondent and Petitioner respectively in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024. 3. The Petitioner in this I.A. (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) has filed this I.A. against the Opposite Party (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) praying for injuncting the Election Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024 (Opposite Party in this I.A.) from giving any statement before any type of media with regard to the ongoing proceedings of Election Petition No.20 of 2024 till the disposal of the Election Petition stating that, as per the Order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Election Petition No.20 of 2024, the written statement of the respondent (Petitioner in this I.A.) was accepted subject to deposit of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) before the High Court Bar Association, Odisha for the expenditure of the same in welfare purpose i.e. for public benefit with a direction to the learned counsel for the respondent (Petitioner in this I.A.) to submit the receipt regarding the compliance of the said order concerning the deposit of money i.e. Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only)before the High Court Bar Association, Odisha fixing the Election Petition No.20 of 2024 to 21.02.2025 for hearing on the point of framing issues. Though this Court directed the respondent (Petitioner in this I.A.) to deposit Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) before the High Court Bar Association for acceptance of his written statement and accordingly the said amount was deposited in High Court Bar Association with proper receipt, but, the Election Petitioner (Opposite Party in this I.A.) intentionally made a colourable story and wrongly interpreted the above wordings of this Court reflected in the order dated 30.01.2025 of Election Petition No.20 of 2024 and gave statements before the media that, the respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024 (Petitioner in this I.A.) has been saddled with a cost of Rs.2000/- for acceptance of his written statement in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 and the said statements of the Election Petitioner (Opposite Party in this I.A.) were published on dated 31.01.2025 in Odia daily “Sambad” and “Prameya” newspapers reflecting the name of the learned counsel of the Election Petitioner as the counsel of the Election Petitioner. The paper cuttings of “Sambad” and “Prameya” containing the above news items published on dated 31.01.2025 are Annexure-2 series. The above statements were given by the Opposite Party (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) before the print media is a clear violation of the order of the High Court. Because, direction was given by the High Court to deposit Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in High Court Bar Association to spend the same for welfare purpose i.e. for public benefit, but, the Election Petitioner (Opposite Party in this I.A.) has coloured it as cost. For which, the aforesaid wrong statements given by the Election Petitioner (Opposite Party in this I.A.) in media is completely derogatory and the same has tarnished the fair and unblemished image of the Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024 (Petitioner in this I.A.). So, the Petitioner in this I.A. (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) has filed this I.A. against the Opposite Party (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) in order to injunct the Opposite Party (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) from publishing any order of ongoing proceedings of Election Petition No.20 of 2024 in any media and to injunct the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) from giving any statement before any type of media with regard to the ongoing proceedings of the Election Petition No.20 of 2024 till the disposal of the Election Petition No.20 of 2024. 4 . The Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in Election Petition No.20 of 2024) filed written objection objecting the I.A. No.30 of 2025 filed by respondent in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 stating that, the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in Election Petition No.20 of 2024) has neither approached any print or electric media including T.V. channels, media houses nor has given any statement for publication of any order including the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Election Petition No.20 of 2024. Nowhere, in the Paper cuttings of daily “Sambad” and “Prameya” newspaper dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure-2 series) reveal about any request of the Election Petitioner (Opposite Party in this I.A.) for publication of the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 by this Court. Nowhere, in the Paper cuttings of daily “Sambad” and “Prameya” newspaper dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure-2 series) reveal about any request of the Election Petitioner (Opposite Party in this I.A.) for publication of the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 by this Court. In that Annexure-2 Series, the name of the counsel of Election Petitioner has been indicated that, the learned counsel for the Election Petitioner had argued in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 on dated 30.01.2025 on behalf of the Election Petitioner. As such, nowhere, it has been mentioned in the paper cuttings dated 31.01.2025 about the appearance of the Election Petitioner before any media to give any statement about the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 for publication of the same as a news on dated 31.01.2025 in any newspaper including daily “Sambad” and “Prameya”. For which, the allegations alleged by the Petitioner in this I.A. (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) against the Election Petitioner (Opposite Party in this I.A.) in Para Nos.5 and 6 of the I.A. are false, baseless and without any merit. The I.A. No.30 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) for no other reason, but, only in order to delay the hearing of Election Petition No.20 of 2024. That apart, the publication of the Court’s Order is the freedom of the Press and Electric Media provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950. Therefore, the I.A. filed by the Petitioner (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) deserves no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed/rejected. 5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner in this I.A. (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) and learned Senior Advocate for the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024). 6. The same is liable to be dismissed/rejected. 5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner in this I.A. (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) and learned Senior Advocate for the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024). 6. According to the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, on the basis of the petition of the Petitioner (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) and objection of the Opposite Party (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024), the crux of this I.A. is that, (i) Whether publication of the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 in the daily newspaper i.e. “Sambad” and “Prameya” on dated 31.01.2025 as per Annexure-2 series were made on the basis of the statements or instructions of the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024)? (ii) Whether the Petitioner in this I.A. (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) is entitled for a temporary injunction against the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) injuncting him (Petitioner in Election Petition No.20 of 2024) from giving any sort of statements before any type of media with regard to the ongoing proceedings of the Election Petition No.20 of 2024 till the final disposal of the Election Petition No.20 of 2024? 7. When, the final findings/result of this I.A. is based upon the above two questions/points, then, the above two questions/points are required to be discussed and analyzed serially and chronologically in order to ascertain the sustainability and justifiability of the prayers made by the Petitioner in this I.A. (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024). 8 . 7. When, the final findings/result of this I.A. is based upon the above two questions/points, then, the above two questions/points are required to be discussed and analyzed serially and chronologically in order to ascertain the sustainability and justifiability of the prayers made by the Petitioner in this I.A. (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024). 8 . So far as, the first point i.e. whether publication of the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 in the daily newspaper i.e. “Sambad” and “Prameya” on dated 31.01.2025 as per Annexure-2 series were made on the basis of the statements or instructions of the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) is concerned; When, the Petitioner in this I.A. has alleged allegations against the Opposite Party stating in Para No.5 of the I.A. that, the publication of the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 was made on dated 31.01.2025 in daily “Sambad” and “Prameya” at the behest of the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) supported with an affidavit, to which, the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) has denied in his objection supported with an affidavit. Accordingly, there is affidavit and counter affidavit against each other relating to the assertions and denial to the statements in the I.A. There is no material or document in the record to show on behalf of the Petitioner in this I.A. (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) that, the Opposite Party (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) had either given any manuscript or any instruction or statement before the publisher and editor, news reporter or agent of the daily “Sambad” and “Prameya” for publication of the order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Election Petition No.20 of 2024. For which, it cannot be held that, order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 was published on dated 31.01.2025 in daily newspaper i.e. “Sambad” and “Prameya” as per Annexure-2 series at the behest of the Opposite Party of the I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024). 9. For which, it cannot be held that, order dated 30.01.2025 passed in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 was published on dated 31.01.2025 in daily newspaper i.e. “Sambad” and “Prameya” as per Annexure-2 series at the behest of the Opposite Party of the I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024). 9. So far as the 2nd question/point i.e. whether the Petitioner in this I.A. (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) is entitled for a temporary injunction against the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) injuncting him (Petitioner in Election Petition No.20 of 2024) from giving any sort of statements before any type of media with regard to the ongoing proceedings of the Election Petition No.20 of 2024 till the final disposal of the Election Petition No.20 of 2024 is concerned; On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others Vrs. State of Maharashtra & another reported in AIR 1967 (S.C.) 1 (decided on 03.03.1966 by 9 Judges Bench) in para Nos.141 and 142 that, a Court of justice is a public forum. It is through publicity that, the citizens are convinced that, the Court renders evenhanded justice and it is therefore necessary that, the trial should be open to the public and there should be no restraint on the publication of the report of the Court proceedings. The publicity generates public confidence in the administration of justice. In rare and exceptional cases only, the Court may hold the trial behind closed doors or may forbid the publication of the report of its proceedings during the pendency of the litigation. Long ago, Plato observed in his laws that, the citizen should attend and listen attentively to the trials. Hegel in his Philosophy of right maintained that judicial proceedings must be public, since the aim of the Court is justice, which is a universal belonging to all. The ancient idea found its echo in the celebrated case of 1913 AC 417. Save in exceptional cases, the proceedings of a Court of justice should be opened to the public. (ii)In a case between Chief Election Commissioner of India Vrs. The ancient idea found its echo in the celebrated case of 1913 AC 417. Save in exceptional cases, the proceedings of a Court of justice should be opened to the public. (ii)In a case between Chief Election Commissioner of India Vrs. M.R. Vijayabhaskar and others reported in 2021 (II) CLR (SC) 106 that, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees media freedom to inform and convey information and to express ideas and opinions of public interest subject to regulatory provisions. Freedom of speech and expression extends to reporting proceedings of judicial institutions as well. Media cannot be restrained from reporting Court proceedings. (iii) In a case between Relax India Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Eastern Book Company reported in Civil Appeal No.10245/2014 at Para No.1 that, basing upon the decision reported in Eastern Book Company and others Vrs. D.B.Modak and another held that, the appellants will be at liberty to publish, sell and distribute the raw judgments of the Supreme Court of India and other Courts obtained from whichever source along with their own head- notes, editorial notes, paraphrasing, explanatory notes, etc as laid down in Eastern Book Company and others Vrs. D.B.Modak and another. (iv) In a case between Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. And others Vrs. Securities & Exchange Board of India and another reported in 2012 (3) CLT 343 (SC) at Para No.43 that, Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 19(2)(a), 19(2), 21, 22, 129, 142(2), 215—Postponement of the offending publication/broadcast—Right to approach High Court/Supreme Court—Anyone, be he an accused or aggrieved person, who genuinely apprehends on basis of content of the publication and its effect, an infringement of his rights under Articles 21 to a fair trial and all that it comprehends, would be entitled to approach appropriate Writ Court and seek order of postponement—Such orders of postponement should be for short duration and should be applied only in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice to proper administration of justice or to be fairness of trial. 10. As per the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it is the settled propositions of law that, “a Court of justice is a public forum. 10. As per the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it is the settled propositions of law that, “a Court of justice is a public forum. It is through publicity, the citizens are to be convinced that, the Court has rendered evenhanded justice, for which, the trial should be open to the public and there should be no restraint on the publication of the report of the Court proceedings. Because, the publicity generates public confidence in the administration of justice. But, in rare and exceptional cases only, the Court may hold the trial behind closed doors or may forbid the publication of the report of its proceedings during the pendency of the litigation. Therefore, the citizens should attend and listen attentively to the trials and Court Proceedings. For which, judicial proceedings must be public, since the aim of the Court is justice, which is a universal belonging to all. Therefore, the proceedings of a Court of justice should be open to the public through publicity in the print and Electric media as well. For which, freedom of speech and expression extend to reporting proceedings of judicial institution as well. So, media cannot be restrained from reporting Court Proceedings. But, any aggrieved person, who genuinely apprehends the infringement of his rights under Article 21 to a fair trial on the basis of the publication of the Court proceedings in the Newspaper, he is entitled to approach the Court for seeking an order of postponement of the publication of the Court proceedings and such order for postponement of Court proceedings should be for short duration and should be applied only in case of real and substantial risk of prejudice to proper administration of justice or to the fairness of trial”. 11. 11. When, the law authorizes/empowers to the citizens for reporting the Court proceedings of the judicial institutions to bring the same to the knowledge of the public, because, the trial should be open to the public and there should be no restraint to the publication of the report of the Court proceedings for generating public confidence in the administration of justice without causing any prejudice to the proper administration of justice and without affecting the fairness of the trial, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, the Opposite Party in this I.A. (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) cannot be injuncted temporarily from giving any statement relating to the orders correctly with exact wordings thereof in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024 before any media without causing any prejudice to the proper administration of the justice and without affecting/infringing the fair trial of the Election Petition No.20 of 2024. 12 . As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is held that, the petitioner in this I.A. (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) is not entitled under law to injunct the Opposite Party (Petitioner in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) from giving any statement relating to the orders passed in Election Petition No.20 of 2024 correctly with its exact wordings for publication of the Court proceedings, then at this juncture, there is no justification under law to allow this I.A. filed by the petitioner (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024). For which, this I.A. filed by the Petitioner (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) must fail. 13. In result, the I.A. filed by the petitioner (Respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) is dismissed on contest, but, without cost. 14 . Accordingly, the I.A. No.30 of 2025 filed by the Petitioner (respondent in the Election Petition No.20 of 2024) is disposed of finally.