On Monday(2nd September), The Gujarat High Court rejected apologies from three major newspapers for inaccurately reporting court proceedings, finding the apologies non-compliant with earlier directions. This incident highlights ongoing concerns about media accuracy and responsibility in legal reporting.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
GUJARAT: On Monday(2nd September), the Gujarat High Court rejected the apologies tendered by three prominent newspapers—The Times of India (ToI), Indian Express, and Divya Bhaskar—for inaccurately reporting court proceedings. The decision came after the Court found that the apologies published by these newspapers were not in compliance with its earlier directions. This incident has raised concerns over the accuracy and responsibility of media reporting in legal matters.
Court’s Dissatisfaction with Apologies
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed that the apologies published by the newspapers on August 23 were not prominently displayed or presented in bold letters, as instructed by the Court in its order dated August 22. Expressing dissatisfaction, the Chief Justice questioned the counsel representing the newspapers, stating-
“Why have you not published these apologies in bold letter?”
In response, the counsel clarified that the apologies were indeed printed in black, bold letters. However, this explanation did not satisfy the Court. The Chief Justice remarked-
“Nobody can read it,”
indicating that the apology’s size and placement were inadequate to convey the gravity of the error.
Lack of Clarity in Apology Headlines
The Court emphasized that the apologies lacked clarity and context, which could leave readers unaware of the reason behind them.
“You should have provided a full headline specifying the reason for the apology. Without that context, it’s unclear what the apology is for. It should explicitly state that it’s an apology for the incorrect report. Including the report alongside the apology would clarify the situation.”
-the Chief Justice stated, underscoring the importance of transparency in such matters.
Rejection of Apology Affidavits
Given the unsatisfactory nature of the apologies, the Court formally rejected the affidavits submitted by the editors of the three newspapers.
The Court’s order stated-
“The affidavits submitted by the editors of The Indian Express, The Times of India, and Divya Bhaskar were presented in court today. These affidavits included public apologies regarding the reports published on August 13, 2024, about the ongoing hearings in this group of petitions. The court found these apologies unsatisfactory, and all three affidavits have been rejected.”
Grant of Additional Time for Fresh Apologies
Despite rejecting the initial apologies, the Court granted the newspapers an additional three days to publish fresh apologies. The new apologies must be in bold letters, placed prominently on the front page, and clearly state the errors made in the reporting of the August 13, 2024, court proceedings. The Court directed-
“We are granting them an additional three days to issue a public apology in their newspapers. The apology must be printed in bold letters on the first page and clearly inform the public about the incorrect reporting in their publications from August 13, 2024, regarding the hearing of this matter.”
Background: The Inaccurate Reporting Incident
The incident in question occurred on August 13, 2024, when the Gujarat High Court issued notices to the regional editors of The Times of India, Indian Express, and Divya Bhaskar. The Court sought explanations from these newspapers for what it described as a “false and distorted narration” of court proceedings in a case concerning the rights of aided minority institutions.
The inaccurate reports allegedly created the misleading impression that the Gujarat High Court had already made a decision on the complex issues related to the rights of minority institutions in appointing teachers and regulating educational activities. This misreporting could have significant implications for the public’s understanding of the ongoing legal battle.
Court’s Stern Warning and Subsequent Actions
The Gujarat High Court, in a stern warning on August 22, directed the newspapers to publish apologies in a manner that clearly reflected the errors in their reporting. The Court emphasized the need for the apologies to be transparent and easily noticeable by the public. However, when the matter was revisited on Monday, the Bench found the apologies inadequate.
The Chief Justice highlighted the inconsistency in how news items are reported versus how apologies are made.
She remarked-
“When creating sensational news, it is published in large, bold letters with catchy words and phrases. The editor should show remorse for publishing such a news item. Where is the expression of remorse?”
The counsel representing the newspapers attempted to explain that the apologies were unconditional, to which the Chief Justice responded-
“No, this is not an unconditional apology; it is merely a superficial gesture. Both editors have offered apologies using the same language. We do not accept this type of apology.”
Potential Contempt of Court and Fresh Apology Instructions
During the proceedings, the Court also warned that it might issue contempt of court notices against the editors if their counsel continued to insist that the published apologies complied with the Court’s order. The counsel assured the Court that fresh apologies would be published, saying-
“I will take instructions and publish fresh apologies.”
The Chief Justice expressed her frustration, stating-
“This is not a joke. You are jeopardizing the reputation of the court and interfering with court proceedings. This conduct is unacceptable. We strongly object to how the newspapers are reporting the court proceedings.”
The counsel for Divya Bhaskar argued that the reporters may have misconstrued the interactions between the court and the legal representatives during their reporting.
However, the Court responded firmly-
“They are reporters, not ordinary individuals. If they do not grasp the importance of maintaining the sanctity of court proceedings, they could be prohibited from reporting on any court matters.”
Costs and Additional Directives
The Chief Justice further asked who would bear the costs of the notices issued by the Court and the judicial time wasted in addressing this issue. The counsel suggested that instead of imposing monetary costs, the newspapers could be directed to give wide publicity to the next Lok Adalat session of the Court by carrying news articles on the same. The Court agreed to this proposal and directed the newspapers to obtain details from the appropriate official and begin publishing the information.
The Court concluded by granting the newspapers three additional days to publish a fresh apology. The apology must be prominently displayed on the front page, with the Chief Justice clarifying-
“There should be no news item but the public apology.”
In this case, Senior Advocate Devang Nanvati represented both the Indian Express and the Times of India, while Advocate SP Majmudar also appeared for the Indian Express, and Advocate Garima Malhotra represented the Times of India. Advocate Maulik G Nanavati appeared on behalf of Divya Bhaskar.
