Lawyers Forum For Civil Liberties ... vs K.P.S. Gill And 5 Ors.
1994 Latest Caselaw 416 Del

JUDGMENT

A.B. Saharya, J.

(1) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, professed to have been filed in public interest, seeking a writ for directing respondents 2 to 6 to register against respondent No.1 and other officers of the Punjab Police a case under sections 307, 340, 362, 363, 120B and 365 1.P.C. for alleged kidnapping, wrongful confinement and murderous attack on two Journalists Sh.Rahul Banerjee and Sh. Abhijeet Dass of daily newspaper Statesman on 1st of July 1994 at Delhi, for directing arrest of respondent Crl.W-511/94 No. 1 and other accused persons, and for transferring investigation of the case to the C.B.I.

(2) Petitioner No.1,the Lawyers' Forum for Civil Liberties (LFCL), is stated to be a voluntary organisation of lawyers, law teachers and law students, dedicated to the ideals of protecting civil liberties and providing free legal aid to the poor and needy. Petitioner No. 2 Mr. O.P. Saxena is stated to be the President of petit

(3) It is stated that the petitioners felt perturbed after reading in News Papers about the alleged assault on the said two media persons at Meridian Hotel in a Press Conference, addressed by respondent No. I in New Delhi on 1st of July 1994. A cutting of the newspaper report about the said incident, published in the Hindustan Times on 2nd of July 1994, is annexed to the it petition and marked Annexure 'A'.

(4) In the writ petition, it is alleged that the attack on the media persons was preplanned and motivated and that too in the presence of the highest functionary of a State i.e. respondent No. 1, who was a party to the conspiracy and who instigated the crime. It is also alleged that none of the respondents 2 to 6 is acting on the complaint of the News Editor of Statesman and the concerned Journalists as respondent No. 1 enjoys the confidence of Union Home Minister and Pun jab Chief Minister. Further, it is stated that the Delhi police has reluctantly registered only a minor case under sections 324/323 Indian Penal Code and that the Police is not registering a proper case but is trying to hush up the matter. It is claimed that the Delhi police is under obligation to register an appropriate case and the petitioners have a right to enforce this obligation to ensure proper investigation and arrest of the guilty persons, and that the petitioners are "aggrieved by deliberate non- action of the police in the matter.".

(5) It would be useful to read Annexure A, which is the only document filed with the writ petition. It is reproduced below:- "K.P.S.GILL'S Men Assault 2 Newsmen New Delhi, July 1(HTC) Two sports reporters of The Statesman were allegedly beaten up by some Supporters of Punjab Police Director-General K. P. S.Gill in a fivestar hotel in New Delhi this afternoon. The supporters included some Punjab Police officers in plainclothes,it was learnt. The incident took place after the Press conference addressed by Mr. Gill got over this afternoon. The Press conference was called in connection with Mr. Gill's election as president of Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) yesterday. The Press conference lasted about 45 minutes and then lunch was served. Mr. Ashok Hari, Station House Officer (SHO) of the Parliament Street Police Station said the two reporters Rahul Banerjee and Abhijit Dasgupta had an argument when they asked some questions from Mr. Gill. His supporters, including some Punjab Police offiers, reportedly did not like the reporters asking such questions and an argument ensued. Tempers were cooled down for sometime when some senior journalists and other officials present there intervened. However, the two reporters and the supporters of Mr. Gill again had an argument and the supporters allegedly dragged out the reporters from the hall into the hotel aisle. The reporters were then beaten up. Mr. Hari said the injuries were not serious but the reporters were made to undergo medical examination. The reporters said Mr. Gill's supporters then went to the Parliament Street police station. The reporters were sent for medical examination and investigations were on to find out the cause of the incident and take action against the guilty, Mr. Hari said."

(6) We are constrained to note, with certain amount of concern, that the writ petition was filed on 4th of July 1994, the registry pointed out certain defects, the petition was refiled on 5th of July 1994, and it was then listed before us for preliminary hearing only on 7th of July 1994. Mean white, on 5th of July 1994, a large number of daily newspapers prominently published details of the case set up in the writ petition. At least two of the newspapers, namely. The Indian Express and The Pioneer, proceeded further and reported that the writ petition had been 'admitted'. Therefore, on 7th of July 1994, we called upon the petitioners to explain whether they were responsible for giving all that advance information about the case to the Press, in view of the averments made in the petition, the petitioners were also called upon to address the court on the maintainability of the writ petition. In response to these questions, Mr. O.P. Saxena has filed his affidavit dated 11th of July 1994. He has admitted that he briefed the Pti and The Hindustan Times about filing the writ petition. He has disowned the reports published by the other newspapers. He has also stated that if the court feels that it was not proper for him to speak to the media prior to the hearing of the case, he expresses his regrets. He has also admitted that some of the newspapers published misleading reports about the case on 5th of July 1994. He has placed on record copies of letters, said to have been written by him to the Editor of the Indian Express and the Editor of the Pioneer newspapers calling upon them to publish a corrigendum so as to clarify the position.

(7) Learned Senior Counsel, who appeared for the pelitioners, has contended that the reported act alleged to have been committed by respondent No. 1 is a crime, which is a harm causing public injury, that the petition moved by the petitioners in public interest is maintainable, and that the court ought to interfere and redress the wrong immediately. He has placed reliance upon judgments of the Supreme Court in P. Rathinam vs. Union of lndia and another, , Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, ,Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association,Chandigarh through its Secretary vs.State of Punjab and others, , and S.P. Gupta and other vs. President of india and others, .

(8) In the case of P. Rathinam (supra), it is pointed out that a crime is a harm brought about by human conduct which the sovereign power in the State desires to prevent, and that protection of society is the basic reason of treating some acts as crime and that indeed is one of the aims of punishment. The need for enforcement of law has been succinctly stated in Kartar Singh (supra) in the following words:- "WHEN Law ends. Tyranny begins.....Law is made not to be broken but to be obeyed and the respect for law is not retained by demonstration of strength but by better appreciation of the reasons, better understanding of its reality and implicit obedience. It goes without saying that the achievements of law in the, past are considerable, its protection in the present is imperative and its potential for the future is immense. It is very unfortunate that on account of lack of respect, lack of proper application in the present day affairs, law sometimes falls in crisis."

The value of what is said above about crime and law is absolute. Here, what we have to consider is the application of these notions in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(9) The law retarding locus stand is equally well established. In the case of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association (supra), the Supreme Court directed the C.B.I, to take up the investigation of the case about the mysterious and tragic abduction and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh Advocate, his wife and his child in certain extra-ordinary circumstances. A few of the facts of that case may be noted. Kulwant Singh Advocate was trying for the release of one Manjit Kaur and her minor son, who were being illegally detained by Ropar Police. Manjit Kaur belonged to the village Budha Bora. Kulwant Singh also belonged to the same village. The panchayat of the said village had requested Kulwant Singh to get Manjit Kaur and her minor son released from illegal custody of the police.On 25th of January 1993, when Kulwant Singh rang up the police station, he was told that Manjit Kaur and her minor son had been released and he should come and take them as the police wanted to hand them over to some responsible person. As a lady was to be brought, Kulwant Singh told his wife to accompany him and since there was no one to look after the child they took him also to the police station. Kulwant Singh and his family left for Police Station Ropar at about 9.30 p.m. in their Maruti Car. They had not been heard of since then. Kulwant Singh's father met the President of the Ropar District Bar Association and informed him about the whole thing. They then contacted the Sho, the Dsp and also met the Ssp Ropar. The advocates practicing at the High Court and the District Courts in the State of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh also took up the cause but in vain. To begin with, the police authorities at all levels in the State expressed ignorance. On 14th of February 1993, the police claimed to have caught hold of two persons, who admitted killing of Kulwant Singh and his family on their way to the police station on the bank of the yamuna canal and throwing away the bodies and the Maruti Car into the canal. The Bar Associations were continuing strike. They were not satisfied with the police investigation. They constituted an Action Committee. The members of the Action Committee made their own independent enquiries and after going deep into the matter came to the conclusion that substantial evidence was there to prove that Ropar Police was responsible for the brutal killing of Kulwant Singh, his wife and his two years old son. It was in these peculiar circumstances that the Supreme Court directed the C.B.I, to take up the investigation of the case.

(10) Locus standi of lawyers to file petitions in public interest, where important issues effecting independence of judiciary were involved, was upheld in the famous case of S.P.Gupta (supra). After discussing a number of foreign and Indian decisions, the Supreme Court enunciated the law on the subject in the following terms :- "IT may therefore now be taken as well established that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused tea person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Art. 226 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons in this Court under Art. 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons......But we must hasten to make it clear that the individual who moves the Court for judicial redress in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice and if he is acting for personal gain or private profit or out of political motivation or other oblique consideration, the Court should not allow itself to be activised at the instance of such person and must reject his application at the threshhold, whether it be in the form of a letter addressed to the Court or even in the form of a regular writ petition filed in Court. We may also point out that as a matter of prudence and not as a rule of law, the Court may confine this strategic exercise of jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a determinate class or group of persons or the constitutional or legal right of such determinate class or group of persons is violated and as far as possible, not entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of a third party, where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases."

(11) The news report Annexure A states that on 1st July 1994 the two reporters Sh. Rahul Banerjee and Sh. Abhijeet Dasgupta were allegedly beaten up by some supporters of Punjab Police Director General K.P.S. Gill in a five star hotel in New Delhi, that the supporters included some Punjab Police officials in plain clothes, that the supporters allegedly dragged out the said reporters from the hall into the hotel aisle and that the reporters were then beaten up. Further, it reports that Mr. Ashok Hari,SHO, Parliament Street Police Station had stated that the injuries were not serious. The Sho also said "The reporters were sent for medical examination and investigations were on to find out the cause of the incident and take action against the guilty."

(12) The concerned persons are the two Journalists, belonging to the Statesman. They do not fall in any of the categories of persons under any disability or disadvantageous position, so as to be unable to approach the court for relief, as envisaged in the case of S.P. Gupta (supra). The petitioners are not, and they do not even claim to be, representatives of the said concerned persons, unlike the Bar Associations, who made a thorough enquiry and took up the cause of the mysterious abduction and murder of Kulwant Singh Advocate and his family in the case of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association (supra).

(13) The petitioners have done nothing to find out the basic facts of the case. They have not cared to even contact the concerned persons, who are already pursuing the matter with the concerned authorities, in their own way,through their own representatives, including the Editor of the newspaper Statesman.

(14) The newspaper report Annexure A itself shows that the local Sho had immediately taken up the matter for investigation. Yet, on the 4th of July 1994 the petitioners rushed to file the petition in Court and resorted to wide publicity in the Press, alleging: "That none of the respondents 2 to is acting on the complaint of News Editor of Statesman and concerned Journalists". Admittedly, Delhi Police has registered a Fir, which is under investigation. The grouse of the petitioners is that the police has registered "only a minor case under sections 324/323 Indian Penal Code ." and that the police is "not registering a proper case, but is trying to hush up the matter." All this is alleged in the petition despite the fact that a bare perusal of the news report Annexure A shows that the journalists were sent for medical examination and the injuries were not serious, as stated by the SHO. Whether any offence is committed, the nature and gravity thereof, thr nature and the extent of involvement of any particular person(s) in the commission of the offence(s) can only be ascertained after investigation. To say the least at this stage, some of the allegations made and the particular kind of offences invoked in the writ petition are not even discernable from Annexure 'A'. Without caring to find out what steps have been taken in the investigation, and what material has been collected, the petitioners have chosen to make irresponsible and sweeping alligations in the writ petition.

(15) Prima facie, this is a case of a specific legal injury, alleged to be caused to the said two Journalists. Even assuming that the alleged act fall within the realm of public law, until investigation is complete, it can not be said that an act or omission of the State or a public authority contrary to the law has taken place resulting in public wrong or public injury so as to justify an action in public interest.

(16) In these circumstances, it appears that the petitioners, though professing to be actuated by public interest, are really pursuing the matter, without doing any spade work, in a somewhat irresponsible and rash manner.

(17) We are unable to appreciate why any one, particularly petitioner No. 2, who is himself a law-knowing person, being an advocate and also a law lecturer, should seek to project his case in the Press prior to its preliminary hearing in Court. Likewise, the growing trend of newspapers to publish incorrect and misleading reports suggesting that a case has been 'admitted' or some order has been made, even prior to preliminary hearing of the matter in Court, deserves to be condemned.

(18) It appears that the two concerned journalists are themselves in a position to seek appropriate remedy in respect of the alleged incident, they are pursuing the matter in their own way, and the authorities responsible for enforcement of law are already enquiring into the matter. Whatever be the result of the investigation, it would ultimately be subject to judicial scrutiny by a competent Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(19) In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with investigation of the case at this stage, and that too at the instance of the petitioners, in the exercise of our extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(20) The petition is, therefore dismissed in liming.