The Calcutta High Court, while addressing the issue of media reports concerning Abhishek Banerjee, observed that courts cannot issue gag orders on what appears to be “political propaganda.” Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya emphasized the importance of media freedom in a democratic society, stating,
“Even if we suppose pass such an order (restraining media from reporting), how do you enforce such orders? That would definitely be a gag order in every sense which is not expected in a democracy. Media definitely has the right to speak, they bring information to the people, open justice means access to justice.”
The judge further noted that many of the news items presented in the court seemed to be
“outright defamation.”
He remarked,
“It is political propaganda. Very clearly political propaganda. Courts of law cannot pass orders on political propaganda.”
Advocate Datta, representing the concerned party, argued that the continuous media coverage and sensationalized reports were infringing on the couple’s right to a fair investigation. He contended that the media was depicting the couple as if they were already proven guilty. Highlighting various news reports, Datta pointed out instances where the Banerjee family was indirectly or directly associated with financial transactions currently under the Enforcement Directorate (ED) scrutiny.
Responding to this, Justice Bhattacharyya commented,
“Probably, your family is paying the price of its popularity.”
He further observed that every media house is likely affiliated with someone who funds its operations, and it’s an “open secret” that some media houses might have ties to political parties. He added,
“Thus, there will be some political mud-slinging. But we cannot pass gag orders.”
The court’s stance underscores the delicate balance between media freedom and individual rights, particularly in the context of political narratives.
