T.s.kumarasamy v. The Director General Of Income Tax (Inv),Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry,New

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.01.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.31282 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.36468, 36470 and 36472 of 2018 T.S.Kumarasamy ..Petitioner -vs- 1.The Director General of Income Tax (Inv),Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry,New No.46, Old No.108MG Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai-34. 2.The Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv),Investigation Wing,New No.46, Old No.108MG Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai-34. 3.B.Jayaragavan,The Additional Director of Income Tax Investigation,Unit-3, New No.46, Old No.108MG Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai-34. 4.K.Rohan Raj,The Deputy Director of Income Tax Investigation,Unit-3(2) New No.46, Old No.108MG Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai-34. 5.Press Council of India,Soochna Bhavan,8-C.G.O. Complex,Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003...Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, restrainingthe respondents, their men and agents from in any mannerdisclosing to any media including press, TV Channels and printand electronic media any information relating to the search and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seizure and other consequential proceedings concerning thepetitioner, except in a manner permissible under the CentralCivil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and directives issuedthereunder and conduct an enquiry and identify and takeappropriate departmental action against the Income tax officialswho have made the statements reported in the 'The Hindu' dated24.11.2018 under the headline 'Politicians, officials figure inT.N.Noon meal scam-S.Vijay Kumar. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking a directionrestraining the respondents from in any manner disclosing to anymedia including press, TV Channels and print and electronicmedia any information relating to the search and seizure andother consequential proceedings except in a manner permissibleunder the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 anddirectives issued thereunder and to conduct an enquiry andidentify and take appropriate departmental action against theIncome tax officials. 2.Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner submitted that since the respondents in their counteraffidavit have taken a stand that they were not responsible forany information relating to the investigation conducted in thepetitioner's premises with regard to search and seizure, theinterim order dated 27.11.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.31282 and 31291 of 2018 may be made absolute and the writpetition may be disposed of. 3.Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing forthe respondents 1 to 4, reiterating the stand taken in thecounter affidavit filed by the second respondent, would submitthat the petitioner cannot make any false allegation statingthat the respondents were responsible for leaking out anyinformation relating to search and seizure to the media. Acounter affidavit filed by the second respondent shows that noneof the respondents have divulged any information to the mediaand it is relevant to extract page 5 as under: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 'It is brought to notice of this Hon'ble Court that avery shocking allegation has been made against therespondents by the petitioner by stating that therespondents have leaked the details of investigation tothe media. It is painstakingly and emphaticallyreiterated that none of the respondents have divulgedany information to the media, let alone the 'The Hindu'newspaper. ...' 4.At the time of entertaining the writ petition, whileconsidering the claims and the counter claims, the interim orderdated 27.11.2018 was passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.31282 and31291 of 2018 which is reproduced as under: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 'It is brought to notice of this Hon'ble Court that avery shocking allegation has been made against therespondents by the petitioner by stating that therespondents have leaked the details of investigation tothe media. It is painstakingly and emphaticallyreiterated that none of the respondents have divulgedany information to the media, let alone the 'The Hindu'newspaper. ...' 4.At the time of entertaining the writ petition, whileconsidering the claims and the counter claims, the interim orderdated 27.11.2018 was passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.31282 and31291 of 2018 which is reproduced as under: '5. It is necessary to refer to Rule 11 of the CentralCivil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as well as therelevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court inthe judgment in Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v.State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1, which areextracted hereunder:- “Rule 11. Provided that no government servantshall, except in accordance with any generalor special order of the government or inperformance in good faith of the dutiesassigned to him, communicate directly orindirectly, any official document or any partthereof or classified information to anygovernment servant or any other person towhom he is not authorised to communicate suchdocument or classified information.” “Role of the media and press 297. There is danger of serious risk ofprejudice if the media exercises anunrestricted and unregulated freedom such thatit publishes photographs of the suspects orthe accused before the identification paradesare constituted or if the media publishesstatements which outrightly hold the suspector the accused guilty even before such anorder has been passed by the court. 298. Despite the significance of the printand electronic media in the present day, it isnot only desirable but the least that isexpected of the persons at the helm of affairs in the field, to ensure that trial by mediadoes not hamper fair investigation by theinvestigating agency and more importantly doesnot prejudice the right of defence of theaccused in any manner whatsoever. It willamount to travesty of justice if either ofthis causes impediments in the acceptedjudicious and fair investigation and trial. 299. In the present case, certain articlesand news items appearing in the newspapersimmediately after the date of occurrence, didcause certain confusion in the mind of publicas to the description and number of the actualassailants/suspects. It is unfortunate thattrial by media did, though to a very limitedextent, affect the accused, but not tantamountto a prejudice which should weigh with thecourt in taking any different view. Thefreedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution has to be carefullyand cautiously used, so as to avoidinterference with the administration ofjustice and leading to undesirable results inthe matters sub judice before the courts. 302. In the present case, various articlesin the print media had appeared even duringthe pendency of the matter before the HighCourt which again gave rise to unnecessarycontroversies and apparently, had an effect ofinterfering with the administration ofcriminal justice. We would certainly cautionall modes of media to extend their cooperationto ensure fair investigation, trial, defenceof the accused and non-interference with theadministration of justice in matters subjudice.” 302. In the present case, various articlesin the print media had appeared even duringthe pendency of the matter before the HighCourt which again gave rise to unnecessarycontroversies and apparently, had an effect ofinterfering with the administration ofcriminal justice. We would certainly cautionall modes of media to extend their cooperationto ensure fair investigation, trial, defenceof the accused and non-interference with theadministration of justice in matters subjudice.” 6.In the light of the aforesaid observations made bythe Apex Court as well as Rule 11 of the Central CivilServices (Conduct) Rules, since the respondent-Department cannot directly or indirectly communicateand provide any information on the pending enquiry toany government servant or any person more particularly,in sub judice matters, the respondents are directed notto divulge any information or undertake media trialwith regard to the investigation and the enquiry beingconducted against the petitioner, till further orders.Post after three weeks for filing counter affidavit.' 5.After passing the interim order, the respondents havefiled counter affidavit denying the allegation made by thepetitioner and they have also stated that they have not divulgedany information relating to search and seizure to the media.Since the respondents have taken a stand in their counteraffidavit that none of the respondents have divulged anyinformation to the media, the interim order dated 27.11.2018passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.31282 and 31291 of 2018 is madeabsolute and the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarvgaTo1.The Director General of Income Tax (Inv),Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry, New No.46, Old No.108,MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.2.The Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv),Investigation Wing, New No.46, Old No.108MG Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai-34.3.The Additional Director of Income Tax Investigation,Unit-3, New No.46, Old No.108MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.4.The Deputy Director of Income Tax Investigation,Unit-3(2) New No.46, Old No.108MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.5.The Press Council of India,Soochna Bhavan, 8-C.G.O. Complex,Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.+2cc to Mr.R.Parthasarathy, Advocate, S.R.No.5017+1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No.4981W.P.No.31282 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.36468,36470 and 36472 of 2018 GP(CO)CS/29/01/2019