Today(on 4th September),The Supreme Court of India has stayed a Gujarat High Court order requiring Times of India, Indian Express, and Divya Bhaskar to issue a fresh apology for inaccurate reporting on court proceedings. The decision follows an appeal by the Times of India regarding alleged misrepresentation of judicial observations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 4th September), the Supreme Court of India stayed an order from the Gujarat High Court, which had directed three leading newspapers—Times of India (ToI), Indian Express, and Divya Bhaskar—to issue a fresh apology for their incorrect coverage of court proceedings. The apex court’s decision was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and KV Viswanathan, following an appeal filed by the Times of India.
The case revolves around a High Court order concerning the manner in which the newspapers reported judicial proceedings relating to a case on the rights of aided minority institutions. Allegations were made that the publications had presented a “false and distorted narration” of the court’s observations, prompting the initial legal notice and the call for an apology.
Supreme Court Stays the High Court Order
During the hearing, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the concerned parties, while also staying the impugned Gujarat High Court order.
The Supreme Court’s interim order stated-
“Notice is issued, and the impugned order is stayed. We clarify that the writ proceedings may continue.”
thereby allowing the underlying legal processes to proceed while staying the enforcement of the High Court’s directive regarding the apology.
Gujarat High Court Initial Order
The origins of the case trace back to August 13, when the Gujarat High Court issued a notice to the regional editors of the three prominent newspapers—Times of India, Indian Express, and Divya Bhaskar. The Court demanded an explanation from the media outlets after they allegedly misrepresented the court proceedings in a matter related to the rights of minority-aided educational institutions.
Following this, the three newspapers offered their apologies via affidavits, admitting that their reporting had inaccurately portrayed the court’s discussions and conclusions. However, the High Court found these apologies unsatisfactory.
On August 22, the Gujarat High Court, led by Chief Justice (CJ) Sunita Agarwal, expressed dissatisfaction with the way the apologies had been presented. The court’s order specified that the apologies must be made in a manner that explicitly and clearly acknowledges that the reporter and the editor had misreported the court’s remarks. This was to ensure that the public understood the gravity of the error and the responsibility of the media outlets in misinforming their readers.
The Gujarat High Court noted-
“The reporter and editor were incorrect in their reporting of the Court’s observations.”
and consequently directed that the newspapers publish the apology in a more prominent fashion to correct the misleading narrative.
In response to this directive, the newspapers published apologies on August 23, as instructed. However, the apologies fell short of the High Court’s expectations. When the matter came up for hearing on September 2, the Gujarat High Court criticized the newspapers once again. The Court observed that the published apologies were not in bold letters or displayed prominently enough, as had been required by the earlier order.
The High Court bench remarked that the newspapers’ apologies were too small to draw attention and did not meet the standards set by the court. As a result, the publications were granted a deadline until September 5 to issue a fresh apology that adhered to the court’s guidelines. The High Court wanted the apology to be prominent and clear, ensuring that it corrected the false narrative that had been presented.
The newspapers’ failure to adequately comply with the earlier directive led the Times of India to file an appeal before the Supreme Court, contesting the Gujarat High Court’s ruling for a second round of apologies.
The appeal filed by the Times of India was represented by Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat and Advocate Ashish Verma before the Supreme Court. Advocate Tatini Basu handled the procedural aspects of the appeal, and the case was quickly taken up by the apex court.
