9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prehension in the mind the people of Tamil Nadu that he would dismiss the Government and that he is identifying himself as a politician and has got affinity to the Congress-I and acting at the instance of the leaders of the Congress-I and the leaders of the Congress-I are making use of the Office of the Governor to dismiss the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is further stated in para. 6 of his affidavit as follows: I submit that during his latest speech by the respondent herein namely the Governor of Tamil Nadu at Salem published in Hindu under the caption 'Action at proper time: Governor' dated 6th February, 1994 he has openly stated 'I do not know where the recent University Bill, re-structuring of the Legislative Assembly business Rules, were all heading to. He further stated T am aware of the people and will take action against injustice before damage is done. No wrong, nor person, who has done it, can get away. All these things would go to show that in a function where he has attended as a chief guest made all these speeches without any provocation whatsoever from the Government, diverting from his usual speech of the social function, made the abovesaid comments and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those duties. 6. Hardwari Lal v. Bhajan Lal , was cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to show that the petitioner has locus standi to maintain the writ petition when information conveyed by the Governor is such as justly requiring the court to exercise jurisdiction to pro tea rights and liberties of citizens. 7. To my query as to the basis or foundation of the present writ petition, Mr. T.K. Sampath, would submit that it is based only on the news item published in the English daily 'The Hindu'. He also invites my attention to para.6 of the affidavit wherein the petitioner has referred to the latest speechg of the respondent at Salem and published in The Hindu' under the caption 'Action at proper time-Governor' dated 6th February, 1994. In view of the above submission, it becomes necessary for this Court to consider whether a newspaper report by itself is admissible in evidence. It is settled principle of law that news-items published in the newspapers are only hear-say evidence and no judicial notice can be taken of the news-items which are in the nature of hear-say secondary ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... News, an Urdu newspaper, published from Gulbarga and it was contended that the advertisements issued and published therein were aimd at furthering the election prospects of the appellant. Reliance was also placed on the alleged speeches delivered by the appellant and his election agent and other agents with his consent, seeking votes on ground of religion etc., as published in the newspapers. The High Court of Karnataka dealt with issues 1 to 4 and decided in the affirmative and held that the appellant had committed corrupt practices attracting provisions of the Representation of People Act. It was argued on behalf of the appellant among other things the newspapers referred to and relied upon by the election petitioner had not been filed alongwith the petition and the copies of the newspapers and some other documents have been filed subsequently and that those documents were filed after the evidence is commenced. The returned candidate, viz., the appellant raised objection to the production of those documents at that last stage. Amongst the documents which the election petitioner sought to produce at that late stage were some advertisements allegedly issued by the luml and Myl in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the advertisements or the messages were not produced at the trial. No witness came forward to prove the receipt of the manuscript or any of the advertisements or the messages or the publication of the same in accordance with the manuscript. There is no satisfactory and reliable evidence on the record to even establish that the same were actually issued by Iuml or Myl ignoring the time being, whether or not the appellant had any connection with Iuml or Myl or that the same were published by him or with his consent by any other person or by any other person with the consent of his election agent. 11. Again at page 474 it has been observed as follows: In the present case, we find that no legally admissible evidence has been led by the respondent election petitioner, in proof of the facts contained in the newspaper reports (news items), messages and advertisements. The appellant, returned candidate, denied the making of the offending statements. The various newspaper reports, advertisements and messages as published in Bahmani Newspaper cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated therein and cannot be used against the appellant in the absence of any evidence aliunde. 12. In the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en made as against the Governor that he has acted mala fide. It is not necessary for us to go into the question whether the allegations would amount to acts of mala fide on the part of the petitioner. But we are of the view that even in case in mala fide no writ petition can be maintained as against the Governor and no relief can be sought against him. He will not be subjected to the process of court. Article 361(1) of the Constitution of India is absolute in terms and does not make a distinction between the bona fide act and mala fide act and in fact the article applies even if the Governor purports to have done something in the performance of the powers and duties of the office. The Full Bench of this Court in K.A. Mathialagan v. The Governor (F.B.). Has considered the position and taken the view that even if the Governor acts mala fide he will be entitled to the protection under Article 261 of the Constitution of India. The relevant passage reads as follows: Neither the Supreme Court in this case, nor the other cases we referred to of the High Courts, was held that the personal immunity afforded by Article 361(1) to the Governor did not avail where his bona fides were questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
