Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
VINEET SARAN, B.R. SARANGI, JJ.
The High Court Bar Association, Odisha and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Odisha and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 2711 of 2017, Misc. Case No. 2356 of 2017 and W.P. (C) No. 2712 of 2017, Misc. Case No. 2307 of 2017
Decided On : 17-02-2017
For the Appellant :Ashok Mohanty, Ashok Parija, Sr. Advocates, Karunakar Das, A.A. Das, K.P. Mishra and S.P. Sarangi
For the Respondents:R.K. Mohapatra, Government Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the freedom of Press is not absolute and comes with restraints, and the Court is duty bound to issue necessary directions to save the reputation of any institution or class of persons affected by exaggerated or incorrect reporting.
Headnote:
Freedom of Press - Reporting Restrictions - [Press, Electronic Media, Reporting] - [S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149; In Re: Harijai Singh and another and In Re: Vijay Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 73; M.P. Lohia, v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2005 SC 790; Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 2352; Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, AIR 2012 SC 3829] - The court issued necessary directions to restrain the Press and Electronic Media from further publishing or highlighting the allegations against the lawyers as a whole, or the Advocates against whom allegations have been made in the complaint, or the informant, or the High Court as an institution, in any form without disclosing in the headlines of the article that they are mere allegations against such party in their write up or telecast. The court also restrained the publishing and telecasting of the names and photographs of the accused persons or the informant, which may suggest the actions of the advocates relating to the said allegations made by the informant. The interim directions are for postponement of publication which shall remain in force till the next date of hearing and are temporary in nature as per the Sahara's case (supra) and shall be subject to further monitoring by this Court from time to time. The observations made in this order are prima facie in nature, and will not preclude the opposite parties to report the Court cases and happenings of facts which are covered within the ambit of fair reporting on the basis of true, correct and verified information.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions were filed in relation to an incident alleged to have occurred in the premises of the High Court. The petitioners sought the constitution of a Judicial Commission to inquire into the incident and requested a direction to the Press and Electronic Media not to publish or telecast colorable, exaggerated, unverified, and unnecessary news on the issue. The petitioners argued that such reporting tarnished the image of the lawyers community and the High Court as an institution, affecting the right to privacy and fair trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reporting of the incident by the Press and Electronic Media tarnished the image of the lawyers community and the High Court as an institution, affecting the administration of justice and the right of the concerned lawyers for fair trial. The court held that the freedom of Press is not absolute and comes with restraints, and it is duty bound to issue necessary directions to save the reputation of any institution or class of persons affected by exaggerated or incorrect reporting.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the impact of Press and Electronic Media reporting on the reputation of the lawyers community and the High Court as an institution, the right to privacy and fair trial, and the duty of the Court to issue necessary directions to restrain such reporting.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal principles established in various cases such as S.P. Gupta v. President of India, In Re: Harijai Singh and another and In Re: Vijay Kumar, M.P. Lohia, v. State of West Bengal, Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi), and Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, which emphasized the need for responsible reporting by the Press and Electronic Media, and the court's power to issue prior restraint orders or proceedings in exceptional circumstances to protect the administration of justice and the fairness of trial.
Final Decision: The court issued necessary directions to restrain the Press and Electronic Media from further publishing or highlighting the allegations against the lawyers as a whole, or the Advocates against whom allegations have been made in the complaint, or the informant, or the High Court as an institution, in any form without disclosing in the headlines of the article that they are mere allegations against such party in their write up or telecast. The court also restrained the publishing and telecasting of the names and photographs of the accused persons or the informant, which may suggest the actions of the advocates relating to the said allegations made by the informant. The interim directions are for postponement of publication which shall remain in force till the next date of hearing and are temporary in nature as per the Sahara's case (supra) and shall be subject to further monitoring by this Court from time to time.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that freedom of the press is not absolute and may be restrained to protect administration of justice and reputation of institutions or persons when reporting is exaggerated or incorrect (!) (!) . - The court issued interim directions restraining print and electronic media from publishing or highlighting allegations against lawyers, the informant, or the High Court as an institution without clear indication that these are mere allegations, including banning names/photographs that may imply criminal conduct, with publication postponed until the next hearing date (!) (!) (!) . - The restraints are described as temporary, interim, and subject to court monitoring, to be used as a neutralizing device balancing right to fair trial with Article 19 rights (freedom of press) in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice to justice (!) (!) . - The opinion emphasizes that reporting should not pre-judge pending investigations or trials, and that courts may restrict reporting of sub judice matters to safeguard fair investigation and defense rights (!) (!) (!) . - The decision cites and relies on established precedents (S.P. Gupta, M.P. Lohia, Sidhartha Vashisht, Sahara Real Estate, Mirajkar) supporting the power of courts to issue prior restraints or postponements in exceptional circumstances to protect administration of justice (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court notes that even while restraining, reporting within the ambit of fair, true, verified information is allowed and not precluded (!) .
What is the extent of permissible restraints on press reporting in relation to ongoing court cases to protect the administration of justice and the reputation of institutions?
What are the circumstances under which a court may issue interim/postponement restraining orders against press reporting, and how must such orders be framed and monitored?
What is the relationship between freedom of the press and the right to fair trial and privacy, and how do courts balance these rights in cases involving sub judice matters?
JUDGMENT
Vineet Saran, J.
1. These two writ petitions have been filed with regard to an incident which is alleged to be occurred in the premises of the High Court on 07.02.2017.
2. The first writ petition is filed by the High Court Bar Association, Odisha, on behalf of the lawyers of Orissa High Court praying that a Judicial Commission be constituted to enquire into the alleged incident which had occurred on 07.02.2017 and also for issue of a direction to the Press as well as Electronic Media not to publish or telecast colourable, exaggerated, unverified and unnecessary news on the issue involved in the matter, as it will not only worsen the situation, but completely tarnish and damage the reputation of the institution.
3. The second writ petition has been filed by a practicing advocate of Orissa High Court with similar prayers. For the present, the prayer which is pressed by the petitioners is for an interim direction to the Print and Electronic Media not to publish any news with regard to the alleged incident, as the same is tarnishing the image of the High Court as an institution, and lawyers in general.
4. We shall treat the writ petition No. 2711 of 2017 as the leading petition. In the said writ petition, the State of Odisha; Director General and Inspector General of Police; and the informant of the incident; are arrayed as opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Various Print and Electronic Media Publishers/Channels have also been arrayed as opposite parties No. 4 to 16. The Registrar General of Orissa High Court has been arrayed as proforma opposite party No. 17.
5. We have heard Sri Ashok Mohanty and Sri Ashok Parija, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Asim Amitav Das, Sri K.P. Mishra and Sri Karunakar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the first writ petition; as well as Sri Shivshankar Mohanty- petitioner, a practicing advocate, in the second writ petition. We have also heard Sri R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-opposite parties. Sri S.P. Mishra, learned Advocate General, was also requested to address the Court on the issues involved in these writ petitions.
6. The case of the petitioner in the first writ petition is that the petitioner is a Registered Society consisting of practicing lawyers of the High Court of Orissa, which has filed this writ petition on behalf of the lawyers' community as a whole. The facts, as borne out from the record, are that on 7.2.2017, opposite party No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'informant') who is an Inspector of Police, working in CID, Crime Branch, had visited the High Court for some official work and that while she was coming down from the Lift No. 5 in the premises of the High Court, it is alleged by the informant that certain advocates had misbehaved with her by leaning against her body. It is stated that the said incident was reported by the informant to the Superintendent of Police, CID, Crime Branch, who in turn vide letter dated 08.02.2017 intimated the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cuttack to take necessary legal action on the grievance petition of opposite party No. 3, on the basis of which First Information Report was registered on 9.2.2017, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the petition, it is stated that even before the First Information Report could be registered, there was a press report in the daily Oriya newspaper "Sambad" on 8.2.2017 with the headline (as translated in English) as "Even the Lady Police Inspector was not spared". In the body of the said article, it was mentioned that certain persons in the Lift No. 5 of the High Court premises had misbehaved with the informant.
7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Mohanty has submitted that not only the above report had been published in the newspaper on 08.02.2017 even prior to any case being registered, on 9.2.2017 in the same newspaper, there was another article with the heading (as translated in English) as "
