Division Bench dismisses contempt charges alleged by HC judge's son in MiD DAY report relating to alleged favouritism by the university
Division Bench dismisses contempt charges alleged by HC judge's son in MiD DAY report relating to alleged favouritism by the universityDismissing a contempt case filed by the family members of a High Court judge against MiD DAY and Deccan Herald, the Karnataka High Court observed yesterday that investigative journalism is necessary for the functioning of a democracy.
Probed : MiD DAY had pointed out how the Bangalore University had
miraculously re-evaluated 3,000 answer scripts in less than a week to
cover up the irregularity of reassessing the lone paper of a VIP's sonCommenting that MiD DAY had done the right thing by exposing irregularities in the Bangalore University's functioning, the Bench said administrative lacunae could only be highlighted with the active involvement of the fourth estate and the judiciary.
BackgroundIn a series of articles in May last year, MiD DAY had pointed out how the Bangalore University had miraculously re-evaluated 3,000 answer scripts in less than a week to cover up the irregularity of reassessing the lone paper of a VIP's son.
Of the 3,000 law students who had applied for the re-evaluation, only Phaniraj Kashyap's answer script was reassessed. LLB student Kashyap, the son of High Court Justice K Sridhar Rao, scored 18 marks in a paper but it went up to 65 after the re-evaluation.
With the media exposing the irregularity, the varsity tried to cover up its tracks by re-evaluating the remaining answer sheets in a hurry.
When the issue had come to light, a custodian for re-evaluation had not even been appointed. Vice-Chancellor
Dr Prabhudeva had said, "The process has just begun" and that he was unaware of the pending re-evaluation results.
JudgmentWhile dismissing the contempt case, the divisional bench, comprising Justice N Kumar and Justice Arali Nagraj pulled up Bangalore University for flouting the norms of the evaluation while dealing with Kashyap's case.
Justice Kumar said that the news report published by MiD DAY held no contempt but only highlighted the irregularities carried out by the university, which had failed to adhere to the rules and regulations. The bench observed that the evaluation was not satisfactory and caused inconvenience to many students.
"In fact, the re-evaluation was done on May 5, 2009, before the appointment of a re-evaluation coordinator. The mandatory appointment of the coordinator was made on May 14, based on the Vice-Chancellor's order on May 13," advocate Sriranga, who represented both MiD DAY and Deccan Herald, said, referring to the HC's observation.
ContentionThe complainant, Phaniraj Kashyap, had earlier contended that the university had picked up just his answer script for re-evaluation using special powers vested with the Vice-Chancellor under Section 15 of the Karnataka University Act.
However, information accessed from the university under the Right to Information (RTI) Act revealed that no such power had been exercised by the Vice-Chancellor then or at anytime in the last five years.
"If such a facility has been extended to one particular student, why should the university not extend it to everybody?" asked Justice Kumar, adding that MiD DAY had performed its duty by highlighting this.
"This is not an attack on a judge, nor does it undermine the judiciary, but is an attack on the functioning of the university," he said, adding that the fact that the beneficiary was the son of a judge was only incidental.
| On contempt of court |
| >>Referring to a Supreme Court directive, Justice Kumar said that powers with regards to contempt of court should not be used unnecessarily.
>>"Contempt is not a tool to safeguard judges when they are acting personally. Contempt powers should be exercised verily and this should not stiffen the freedom of expression," he observed.
>>"It is high time that not only judges but their family members and relatives (too) should conduct themselves and make sacrifices to uphold the majesty of the institutions," he added.
>>While dismissing the case, the bench said the publication did not target the judge in any way and thus it did not count as contempt. |
| BU's take |
| Bangalore University Vice-Chancellor Dr N Prabhudeva said, "Bangalore University has not indulged in favoritism or any irregularities in the case of Phaniraj Kashyap. Everything was done on schedule and as per the rules. The university has not indulged in any such act till date and will not do so in the future either." |
| Scribe's view |
| >>The Karnataka High Court has done signal service to the people by underlining the need for investigative journalism.
>>Coming on the heels of the Delhi High Court judgment in favour of sting journalism if there is public interest involved, this marks a double victory for journalism against cynicism.
>>Hopefully, journalists will be emboldened by these rulings to speak the truth instead of being intimidated by the corrupt and the crooked.
--u00a0Krishna Prasad, editor, Outlook Magazine |
