Case: Indirect Tax Practitioners Association Vs. R.K. Jain


Decision reasoning: 0[ds]11. We have given serious thought to the entire matter. One of the two minor issues which needs our consideration is whether by writing the editorial in question, the respondent has committed breach of the undertaking filed in Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.15/1997. The other issue is whether the editorial is intended to scandalize the functioning of CESTAT or the same amounts to interference in the administration of justice and whether the voice of a citizen who genuinely believes that a public body or institution entrusted with task of deciding lis between the parties or their rights is not functioning well or is passing orders contrary to public interest can be muffled by using the weapon of contempt12. In our view, the respondent cannot be charged with the allegation of having violated the undertaking filed in this Court on 25.8.1998. The respondent is not a novice in the field. For decades, he has been fearlessly using his pen to highlight malfunctioning of CEGAT and its successor CESTAT. Letter dated 26th December, 1991 written by him to the then Chief Justice of India, M.H. Kania, J. complaining that CEGAT is without a President for last over six months and the functioning of the Tribunal was adversely affected because the Benches would sit hardly for two hours or so and further that there was tendency to adjourn the cases, was ordered to be registered as a petition in public interest. After an in depth analysis of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, this Court gave certain suggestions for improving the functioning of CEGAT and other Tribunals constituted under ArticlesR.K. Jain v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119 20. In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether the editorial written by the respondent can be described as an attempt to scandalize the functioning ofA reading of the editorial in its entirety unmistakably shows that while expressing his appreciation for the steps taken by the new President of CESTAT to cleanse the administration, the respondent had highlighted what he perceived as irregularities in the transfer and postings of some members and appointment of one member. He pointed out that Shri T.K. Jayaraman was accommodated at Bangalore by transferring Shri K.C. Mamgain from Bangalore to Delhi in less than one year of his posting and further that the posting of Shri T.K. Jayaraman for a period of 7 years was against all the norms, more so because he had earlier worked as Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. The respondent then made a detailed reference to the orders passed by the particular Bench of CESTAT which were set aside by the High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala with scathing criticism21. Although, the petitioner has tried to project the editorial as a piece of writing intended to demean CESTAT as an institution and scandalize its functioning but we do not find anything in it which can be described as an attempt to lower the authority of CESTAT or ridicule it in the eyes of the public. Rather the object of the editorial was to highlight the irregularities in the appointment, posting and transfer of the members of CESTAT and instances of the abuse of the quasi judicial powers. What was incorporated in the editorial was nothing except the facts relating to manipulative transfer and posting of some members of CESTAT and substance of the orders passed by the particular Bench of CESTAT, which were set aside by the High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala. Even, this Court was constrained to take cognizance of the unusual order passed by CESTAT of which Shri T.K. Jayaraman was a member whereby the appeal of the assessee was decided on merits even though the Tribunal was required to examine the question of limitation only. By writing the editorial which must have caused embarrassment to functionaries of the Central Government and CESTAT and even some members of then but that cannot be dubbed as an attempt to scandalize CESTAT as a body or interfere with the administration of justice. What the respondent projected was nothing but true state of the functioning of CESTAT on administrative side and to some extent on judicial side. By doing so, he had merely discharged the constitutional duty of a citizen enshrined in Article 51A(h). It is not the petitioners case that the facts narrated in the editorial regarding transfer and posting of the members of CESTAT are incorrect or that the respondent had highlighted the same with an oblique motive or that the orders passed by Karnataka and Kerala High Courts to which reference has been made in the editorial were reversed by this Court. Therefore, it is not possible to record a finding that by writing the editorial in question, the respondent has tried to scandalize the functioning of CESTAT or made an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice22. The matter deserves to be examined from another angle. The substituted Section 13 represents an important legislative recognition of one of the fundamentals of our value system i.e. truth. The amended section enables the Court to permit justification by truth as a valid defence in any contempt proceeding if it is satisfied that such defence is in public interest and the request for invoking the defence is bonafide. In our view, if a speech or article, editorial, etc. contains something which appears to be contemptuous and this Court or the High Court is called upon to initiate proceedings under the Act and Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, the truth should ordinarily be allowed as a defence unless the Court finds that it is only a camouflage to escape the consequences of deliberate or malicious attempt to scandalize the court or is an interference with the administration of justice. Since, the petitioner has not even suggested that what has been mentioned in the editorial is incorrect or that the respondent has presented a distorted version of the facts, there is no warrant for discarding the respondents assertion that whatever he has written is based on true facts and the sole object of writing the editorial was to enable the concerned authorities to take corrective/remedial measures23. At this juncture, it will be apposite to notice the growing acceptance of the phenomenon of whistleblower. A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people. Usually this person would be from that same organization. The revealed misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues). Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who report misconduct on a fellow employee or superior within their company. One of the most interesting questions with respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances people will either act on the spot to stop illegal and otherwise unacceptable behavior or report it. There is some reason to believe that people are more likely to take action with respect to unacceptable behavior, within an organization, if there are complaint systems that offer not just options dictated by the planning and controlling organization, but a choice of options for individuals, including an option that offers near absolute confidentiality. However, external whistleblowers report misconduct on outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the informations severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, state, or federal agencies. In our view, a person like the respondent can appropriately be described as a whistleblower for the system who has tried to highlight the malfunctioning of an important institution established for dealing with cases involving revenue of the State and there is no reason to silence such person by invoking Articles 129 or 215 of the Constitution or the provisions of the Act24. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that this petition lacks bonafide and is an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner is a body of professionals who represent the cause of their clients before CESTAT and may be other Tribunals and authorities. They are expected to be vigilant and interested in transparent functioning of CESTAT. However, instead of doing that, they have come forward to denounce the editorial and in the process misled the Attorney General of India in giving consent by suppressing the factum of appointment of Inquiry Committee by the President, CESTAT. We are sorry to observe that a professional body like the petitioner has chosen wrong side of the law.