The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, observed that ToI had misrepresented the situation to the Supreme Court, claiming that contempt proceedings had been initiated against it by the High Court.
Gujarat: The Gujarat High Court on Thursday (5th Sept) stayed proceedings against the Times of India (ToI) and Indian Express, following a Supreme Court order that stayed its directive for the two newspapers and Divya Bhaskar to issue a new apology for inaccurately reporting on court proceedings.
However, the Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, observed that ToI had misrepresented the situation to the Supreme Court, claiming that contempt proceedings had been initiated against it by the High Court.
In its order, the Court stated, “From the order passed by the Supreme Court, it appears that the appellant has given a misleading impression by claiming that contempt proceedings were initiated, which is factually incorrect. This should be brought to the attention of the Supreme Court.”
The Court further remarked, “You have created a false impression that a contempt proceeding was underway, which is how you obtained the order from the Supreme Court. There was no contempt case against the Times of India. This is how you secure orders from the apex court.”
Additionally, the Court was informed that Indian Express was preparing to file an appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.
The Court dropped contempt proceedings against the editor of Divya Bhaskar after noting that the newspaper had complied with its directives by publishing an unconditional apology.
“The apology submitted by the Chief Editor of Divya Bhaskar satisfies the Court. However, the editor is warned to exercise caution in reporting court proceedings to avoid misrepresenting the Court’s observations on the legal issues being discussed,”
the order stated.
Senior Advocate Devang Nanvati, along with Advocate SP Majmudar, represented Indian Express, while Senior Advocate Prakash Jani and Advocate Garima Malhotra appeared for Times of India. Advocate Maulik G Nanavati represented Divya Bhaskar.
Earlier, on September 2, the Gujarat High Court had rejected the apologies issued by the three newspapers, citing that the apologies published on August 23 were neither in bold type nor prominently placed, as required.
The Court had given the publications until September 5 to issue a new apology, prompting Times of India to appeal to the Supreme Court, which stayed the proceedings through a Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and KV Viswanathan.
Background
On August 13, the High Court issued notices to the regional editors of three newspapers, asking them to explain their “false and distorted” reporting of court proceedings in a case concerning the rights of aided minority institutions.
Although the newspapers submitted apologies in their affidavits, the Court found them unsatisfactory.
On August 22, the High Court ordered the newspapers to publish apologies in a manner that clearly acknowledged the reporter and editor’s errors in reporting the Court’s statements. The newspapers complied with this directive on August 23.
The order also noted that The Indian Express published a similar news article on its local page titled, “Minority and majority schools that get aid must comply with the norms: HC,” with another similar report appearing in Divya Bhaskar.
The order further stated,
“The sensational manner in which the Court’s observations were reported created the impression among the public that the Court had already formed a definitive opinion, which amounts to a misrepresentation of the proceedings. This practice of sensationalizing ongoing court hearings must be curbed immediately.”
As a result, the Court issued notices to the editors of the three newspapers, asking them to explain whether they had obtained official verification from any Court officer before publishing these sensationalized news items or if they had simply relied on ‘YouTube’ live streaming videos to create news from nothing.
However, during a hearing on Monday, the Bench observed that the published apologies were too small and directed the newspapers to republish them in bold letters on their front pages.
