The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a man seeking a gag order against Hindustan Times and Dainik Jagran to conceal his name while circulating news or any article where his name figures.
The high court imposed a post of ₹10,000 on Mr Ajay Kumar to be paid by him to the Armed Forces Battle Casualty Welfare Fund for wasting the judicial time of the Court.
Mr Kumar alleged, in his plea, that an Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), is a close associate of a land mafia in the area of Burari and has an eye on his property. His plea alleged that there is a constant threat to him and his family members from enjoying their property.
Mr Kumar stated that his mother has filed another petition before the high court to “to curb the procedural overreach” of the ACP. He alleged that only with the sole motive to jeopardise his mother’s case, the ACP briefed the two newspaper regarding a third case which is pending adjudication before the Consumer Forum, Lucknow.
Mr Kumar said the publication of such material is likely to have an adverse effect on his mother’s case which is pending before the high court and also on the consumer case pending in the Consumer Forum at Lucknow.
The high court, however, remarked that Mr Kumar has come to the court seeking for a gag order against the newspapers without bringing on record all the relevant facts and materials.
The high court said Mr Kumar has not revealed the details of the petition which has been filed by his mother nor the details of the pending consumer case.
“A reading of newspaper cuttings does not give any indication that it pertains to any consumer complaint in which the Petitioner is involved. A reading of the newspaper cuttings also does not indicate that it is in any way connected to the Writ Petition filed by the mother of the Petitioner,” the high court said.
“This Court is of the opinion that the instant petition is nothing but a complete abuse of the process of law by the petitioner,” it said.
“Merely because a publication pertains to a Court proceeding this Court cannot come to a conclusion that the publication either tends to impair the impartiality of the Court or affects the ability of the Court to determine the true facts,” the high court observed in its January 25 order.
