Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Courts on its own motion - Petitioner
Versus
Publisher, Times of India, Chandigarh & others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 7160 of 2013
Decided On : 04.04.2013
MEDIA COVERAGE OF PENDING CASES - COURT'S POWER TO REGULATE - CONTEMPT OF COURT - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION - REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS - JOURNALISTIC NORMS - PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA - AMENDMENTS TO PRESS COUNCIL ACT AND PRESS & REGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT - TRIAL BY MEDIA - FAIR TRIAL - SUBCONSCIOUS INFLUENCE ON JUDGES - PRIOR RESTRAINT ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:
Newspapers published opinionated news items about a pending case listed before the High Court, which were considered to be capable of interfering with the administration of justice. The High Court took suo motu notice and issued show-cause notices to the newspapers. The Press Council of India and the Union of India were also impleaded as parties.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court held that the publications had a tendency to interfere with the course of justice and amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. The court observed that the right to free speech in India is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. 3. The court noted that the Press Council of India has issued Norms of Journalistic Conduct, which are declaratory in nature but morally binding on journalists. 4. The court expressed concern over the lack of compliance and enforceability of the norms due to the absence of effective statutory powers and mechanism. 5. The court urged the Government to consider introducing amendments to the Press Council Act and the Press & Registration of Books Act to provide teeth to the Press Council of India and ensure adherence to the norms.
Issues: 1. Whether the publications by the newspapers interfered with the administration of justice and amounted to criminal contempt. 2. Whether the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is absolute or subject to reasonable restrictions. 3. The role of the Press Council of India in regulating media coverage of court proceedings. 4. The need for amendments to the Press Council Act and the Press & Registration of Books Act to ensure compliance and enforceability of journalistic norms.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the publications had a tendency to interfere with the course of justice and amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as they were capable of influencing the Judge subconsciously. 2. The court observed that the right to free speech in India is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which includes the restriction on publications that tend to interfere with the administration of justice. 3. The court noted that the Press Council of India has issued Norms of Journalistic Conduct, which are declaratory in nature but morally binding on journalists, and that these norms provide guidelines for fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings. 4. The court expressed concern over the lack of compliance and enforceability of the norms due to the absence of effective statutory powers and mechanism, and urged the Government to consider introducing amendments to the Press Council Act and the Press & Registration of Books Act to provide teeth to the Press Council of India and ensure adherence to the norms.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by expressing its concern over the interference in the cause of justice due to unfair and unjust coverage of court proceedings, and urged the Government to seriously consider introducing the amendments proposed in the Press Council Act and the Press & Registration of Books Act to check such interference.
Ranjit Singh, J.
Much of the sheen relating to norms of covering court proceedings in a pending case by Media is taken away in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent decision titled Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India & Anr., 2012(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 801. Considering that still there may be some scope left in this regard, I have decided to express myself in this case where this court by taking suo-motu notice had put some of the Newspapers in the region to respond.
2. The issue primarily arose from a news item covered by Times of India dated March 2, 2009, where opinionated news was regularly seen in a case which was listed before this Court. It was noticed that such news item appeared a day prior to the date fixed for hearing of the case listed before the Bench. This case was to come up before this court on 2.3.2009 and on the same day the news appeared in the Times of India, Chandigarh Edition under the heading "Haryana for mine auction, but its plea admits pitfalls". In this News item, the stand of the Haryana Government was reflected and commented upon. News item starts by mentioning that "Haryana Government may be sticking to its decision to auction the mines of Khori Jamalpur and Sirohi on March 3, but the petition it has submitted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday is littered with reasons for not doing so". Then the News item has gone on to state its opinion on various issues, which were pending before the Court. Noticing the same, this court issued notice to the Times of India on 2.3.2009 by recording the following observations:-
"C.M.Nos.2438 & 3676 of 2009 (O&M)
Civil Writ Petition No.1300 of 2009
Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State
***
C.M. No. 3676 of 2009
Prayer for interim relief is rejected.
C.W.P. No. 1300 of 2009
Main case is adjourned to 27.3.2009.
Even since this case has been listed for hearing, the local edition of `The Times of India' has been extensively covering this case in an opinionated manner. The news paper is aware of the fact that the case is sub-judice as even the dates of the case were also mentioned in some of the news items. Even in today's Time of India newspaper, the entire stand, as projected on behalf of the State, is reflected in the news with comments thereon. This act is apparently aimed at interfering with the administration of justice. A just decision may be a casualty in such like eventuality. This may even be at the instance of some interested person or organisation. In fact, a fresh writ petition is filed today to challenge the auction fixed for 3.3.2009.
Lastly the newspapers have been going over-board and to the extent of even quoting verbal observations of the Court. They are required to faithfully report the proceedings, which take place in the Court, but perhaps are not doing so with some purpose. Time has come when parameters may have to be laid down as to what extent the Press Reporters can go while reporting the proceedings which take place in the Court.
Let notice issue to the Editor, Times of India, Chandigarh Edition, its Publisher and all the Correspondents of the newspaper, who have covered this news item for the adjourned date i.e. 27.3.2009 to show cause as to why action be not initiated to see if there has been any aim to interfere in the administration of justice.
A copy of the news item dt.2.3.2009 is kept on record."
3. The counsel appeared to represent various functionaries in the newspapers. The names of the correspondents, who had covered this news item, were also supplied. On 20.5.2009, the Court considered appropriate to appoint a counsel to assist in this case. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate readily accepted the task and was appointed as Amicus Curiae.
4. Subsequently, on 28.7.2009, the court took notice of another news paper report published in Hindustan Times
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
