Karnataka High Court imposes ₹10 lakh costs on The New Indian Express for report on infidelity of judge

The Karnataka High Court recently imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on The New Indian Express for publishing a story related to an inquiry against a senior judicial officer who was accused of infidelity..The charges against the judge in question were later dropped by the High Court..Justice NS Sanjay Gowda in his order said that the articles of charge against the judge ought not to have been mentioned, and that the identity of the persons alleged to have been in an improper relationship should not have been published, especially since neither person had been heard in the matter."The charges, when read in isolation, would lead to the inference that it was an established fact that they were in an improper relationship. This would infringe upon their privacy and would have a telling effect on their character and they would, in effect, be condemned unheard. In the event and in future, if similar complaints of infidelity are received and an inquiry is undertaken, care should be taken to ensure the names of the persons involved in are not mentioned," the order stated..The petitioner before the High Court, a retired senior judicial officer, was accused of having illicit relations with his staff and of financial impropriety. After an inquiry was conducted, six charges were framed against him. As per the inquiring authority's report, only four of the charges were proved. An Administrative Committee appointed to probe these allegations refused to accept the report. The report of the inquiring authority was published by the New Indian Express. The article, however, did not state the fact that the authority's report was not accepted by the Administrative Committee or the High Court. A day after the article was published, the matter was placed before a full court of the High Court, which dropped the charges against the judge..The Court said that New Indian Express has acted in a manner unbecoming of a responsible newspaper and that their reporters and editors have also acted in an unacceptable matter."They have proceeded to publish the article, which would indicate that the newspaper was already reporting as though the charges against the petitioner had already been established by a report of the High Court that a Judge had unacceptable intimacy with a Stenographer and the newspaper thereafter goes on to state the summary of each charge.".It was noted that nearly six months before the publication of the article in question, a decision was made not to accept the report against the judicial officer. Yet, this crucial aspect was totally missing in the article."This aspect of the refusal of the Administrative Committee to accept the inquiry report obviously had an enormous bearing on the entire issue, but this crucial information was not at all covered by the newspaper. It is incomprehensible that the newspaper would not know of the procedure of the requirement of the inquiry report having to be placed before the Administrative Committee for its decision and thereafter placing the entire material before the Full Court for its final decision."The newspaper cannot disown its responsibility by stating that it was unaware of the decision of the Administrative Committee, the Court said. A responsible newspaper such as the New Indian Express ought not to have published an article with incomplete facts, more so when the matter was of a sensitive nature, the Court went on to say..It thus imposed the costs on the owner of the newspaper, to be paid to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within two months.It also directed the High Court to conduct an inquiry to determine how the inquiry report reached the hands of the newspaper..Advocate K Govindaraj appeared for the New Indian Express Group. Senior Advocate Udaya Holla and Advocate Vivek Holla appeared for the High Court and the Registrar General. Senior Advocate G Krishnamurthy and Advocate GK Bhavana and MN Umashankar appeared for the respondent principal district judges (some of whom are now High Court judges). .[Read Order]