SRINAGAR: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently dropped contempt of court proceedings against the editors, correspondents and publishers of The Hindu and ETV Bharat English [Court on Its Own Motion vs Suresh Nambath and Others].
As per a report by Bar and Bench, the High Court last year had initiated a suo motu case against them over their reportage claiming that Justice Atul Sreedharan – who is presently posted at Madhya Pradesh High Court – had gone on leave after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act cases and Habeas Corpus matters were shifted from the bench headed by him.
A Division Bench headed by Justice Sreedharan himself taken exception to the report and had asked the Registrar Judicial to place the matter before then Acting Chief Justice.
The newspaper report that the roster was changed midway was “false, malicious and contemptuous” and the same amounted to interference with the administration of justice, the bench had then said.
The alleged contemnors later apologized to the Court for the misreporting and sought leniency. A digital version of the news report was taken down by The Hindu after the court order. In the judgement passed on August 22, a Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rahul Bharti found the repentance and regret shown by the alleged contemnors to be bona fide and noted that they have realized the seriousness of the mistake committed by them.
However, the Court also opined that their reporting was clearly suggestive of an underlying intent to bring the High Court as an institution to disrepute and create distrust that the alteration of roster was with a view to disable a particular bench from hearing of NIA and Habeas Corpus matters.
It added that roster changes are regularly published on the official website and therefore, there was hardly any need and scope for any newspaper or news portal to carry and add any angle of information to it.
“We have no reluctance whatsoever to observe that never-ever before the publication of the offending information by the respondents, there was any such like news item carried by any Online or Offline mode of newspaper publication with regard to the fixation of Roster in the High Court by the Hon’ble Chief Justice,” the Court further said.
The Court added that the publication of the information “while lacking good faith was lurking with bad faith and definitely counted as an attempt to scandalize the functioning of the High Court which had infliction of necessary effect of eroding the faith of General Public in the justice delivery system with respect to the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.” However, considering the apologies and takedown of the publications, the Court decided not to proceed with the contempt of court case.
“Before we part with this case, we however, caution the respondents to remain extra careful in future while reporting about the court proceedings and its functioning. They shall stay well advised to keep in mind the due diligence which we have highlighted herein before,” it directed.
Court welcomes critical reporting but advises caution
In the same order, the Court said that it welcomes accurate and critical reporting of its decisions and working, provided that all is made in good faith and actuated with a mindset to highlight the deficiencies and inefficiencies and also to contribute in furthering the improvements in the judicial system and its working.
“Courts are always open to Public’s discourse and discussion and in that regard the journalists/news reporters are there to act as a bridge between the institution of judiciary and the Society. Mining and bringing information with regard to the functioning of the Courts and even the shortcomings and drawbacks therein in the public domain in good faith definitely contributes in enhancing the transparency and establishing accountability,” the Court asserted.
However, the Court added that the freedom of press, which is implicit in the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, is subject to the caveat of non-interference in the administration of justice and law of contempt of courts.
“It is, thus, an imperative for the journalists and news reporters engaged and connected with reporting of court matters and affairs therewith to ensure that they do not print and publish inaccurate, false, misleading or self-fancied information and reports,” the Court said.
The bench further said that it is always advisable for the media not to rely upon casual sources of information and further to ensure that information is verified from the authoritative sources.
“If the information pertains to the courts’ functioning, be it judicial or administrative side, it would be proper and appropriate to seek its verification from the Registrar General of the High Court or from such officer nominated by the High Court for the purposed before venturing to pen, print, publish and publicize it,” the Court suggested.
The Court further remarked that it is a bounden duty and responsibility of the media to avoid temptation of scandalization and attribute motives “by innuendoes with respect to judiciary and judges”.
“Any news publication in respect of Court/s and its working/ functioning made with a motive and potentiality, latent or patent, of degrading and deriding the judicial institution or lowering its prestige in the eyes and estimation of General Public shakes and erodes the public trust in the courts of law and of law of land as an institution and, therefore, is to be viewed nothing less than an ill-motivated interference in the administration of justice rendering such a publication definitely to fall within the purview of criminal contempt, as defined in Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,” it said.
