The J&K High Court closed contempt proceedings against The Hindu and ETV Bharat after their apology for a false report on Justice Atul Sreedharan’s roster change. The Court, however, warned media to avoid inaccurate or misleading judicial reporting.
Srinagar: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dropped contempt of court proceedings against the editors, correspondents and publishers of The Hindu newspaper and ETV Bharat English.
The matter started last year when the High Court, on its own, issued contempt notices over a report published by the media outlets.
ALSO READ: Vijay’s TVK moves Supreme Court, demands special law to stop caste-based honour killings
The report had claimed that Justice Atul Sreedharan, who is now posted at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, had gone on leave after cases under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act and Habeas Corpus petitions were taken away from his bench.
A Division Bench headed by Justice Sreedharan had strongly objected to the report, calling it “false, malicious and contemptuous” and holding that it amounted to interference with the administration of justice. The Court had then directed the Registrar Judicial to place the matter before the then Acting Chief Justice.
Later, the alleged contemnors – the editors and reporters – apologised to the Court for the misreporting and requested leniency. The Hindu also took down the digital version of the news article following the court order.
On August 22, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rahul Bharti accepted their apologies, noting that the repentance was genuine. The judges observed that the journalists had realised the seriousness of their mistake.
However, the Court pointed out that the reporting did appear to carry an intention to harm the reputation of the High Court as an institution. The Bench said that the report suggested to readers that the change of roster was meant to prevent a particular bench from hearing sensitive cases.
The Court explained that roster changes are regularly updated on the High Court’s official website, making it unnecessary for any newspaper to “carry and add any angle of information to it.”
The judges made a strong observation:
“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 Bench went on to say that the publication of such 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.”
Even so, because the respondents had apologised and removed the article, the judges decided to close the contempt case. At the same time, the Court issued a strong warning:
“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.”
The Bench also clarified that the judiciary welcomes responsible reporting:
“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.”
At the same time, the judges reminded that press freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute:
“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 also advised the media to check facts from official 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.”
Finally, the Court emphasised that the press must not attempt to scandalise judges or attribute motives:
“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.”
The media organisations in this case were represented by Senior Advocate Z.A. Qureshi and Advocate Salih Peerzada.
Case Title:
Court on Its Own Motion vs Suresh Nambath and Others.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Child Disability
