Sk. Saidullah vs Registrar General
2022 Latest Caselaw 6712 Cal

19.09.2022
S.L. Item No.1
PA(SS)

                                       WPA(P) 478 of 2022

                                      Sk. Saidullah
                                           Vs.
                    Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta
                                       and Another


                          Mr.   Achinta Kr. Bannerjee,
                          Mr.   Swapan Bannerjee,
                          Mr.   Amit Das,
                          Mr.   Suman Ghosh,
                          Mr.   Tarun Chatterjee, Advocates
                                             ... for the petitioner

                          Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Advocate
                          Mr. Arunabha Deb,
                          Mr. Soumabha Ghose,
                          Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar,
                          Ms. Ashika Daga,
                          Ms. Tiana Bhattacharya,
                          Ms. Deepti Priya, Advocates
                                           ... for the respondent No. 2

Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, ld. Advocate General

In this public interest petition the plea of the writ

petitioner is that Bengali news channel "ABP Adanda" a

unit of the respondent No. 2 is going to

telecast/broadcast interview of one of the sitting Judge

of this Hon'ble Court. The source of information is stated

to be certain tweets of one Mr. Suman De. The prayer in

the writ petition is to stop the telecast/broadcast of any

interview of sitting Judge on any channel, website, web

application or any other form of print, electronic or social

media.

Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner

is that such an interview is contrary to the Restatement

of Values of Judicial Life filed as annexure 'P2' and the

Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, therefore,

immediate restrain order should be issued to prohibit

the respondent No. 2 to telecast any such interview.

Learned Advocate General has also submitted that

nothing should be permitted which can affect the

reputation of the institution and that primary concern is

to protect the institution and in support of his

submission he has place reliance upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant

Bhushan and Another, In Re reported in (2021) 3 SCC

160.

Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has

submitted that that there is no cause of action to file the

petition and that the petition is based on assumptions

and presumptions and that the Hon'ble Judge is aware

of his responsibilities. He submitted that if in such a

petition any restrain order is passed that will affect the

rights of the respondent No. 2 without any justification.

Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also submitted

that the excerpts mentioned in paragraph 11 of the

petition are not fully correct and quoted out of context.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

In the public interest petition though an

apprehension has been expressed that interview of one

sitting Judge of this Hon'ble Court is going to be

telecasted in the local channel of the respondent No. 2

but the writ petition does not disclose the name of that

Hon'ble Judge except that the sheet enclosed with the

petition mentioning 'Points of Law' contains name of one

of the Hon'ble Judge of this Court. That apart, it is also

noticed that there is no material on record to show that

on what issue, if any, the Hon'ble Judge is going to

speak.

So far as the reference to the Restatement of

Values of Judicial Life adopted by Full Court Meeting of

the Supreme Court of India on 7th May, 1997 is

concerned, we have no doubt that it is within the

knowledge of all the Hon'ble Judges of the Court.

Therefore, we have full faith that Hon'ble Judge/Judges

of this Court will have due regard to the same while

making any statement at any occasion. Same is the

position in respect of Bangalore Principles of Judicial

Conduct.

We also expect that respondent No. 2, in the larger

public interest, will not telecast or broadcast anything

which may have adverse effect on the image of the

judiciary.

The judgment in the matter of Prashant Bhushan

and Another, In Re (supra) relied upon by learned

Advocate General, has been rendered on different issue

in respect of the alleged derogatory tweet by a lawyer.

Hence, the same has no application in this case.

Thus, we find that the petition is based upon mere

apprehension with incomplete details. The petitioner has

also failed to disclose his full credentials. Thus, no

ground for granting the prayer in the writ petition is

made out.

Hence, we dispose of the present petition

reiterating the hope and expectation which we have

already recorded in the earlier part of this order.

(Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.)

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)