Back
Kerala HC Accepts Deepika Apology, Rebukes Misquoting Lawyer
In a significant assertion of judicial authority over media reporting and litigant conduct, a Division Bench of the
on Friday accepted an unconditional apology from the editors of the
Deepika
newspaper for publishing a misleading report that falsely claimed the court had directed a probe into alleged irregularities in the purchase of equipment for Kerala's state-wide digital land re-survey project. While closing proceedings against the newspaper upon assurances of a published correction, the court issued a sharp rebuke to the petitioner—a practicing lawyer—for deliberately misquoting the judicial order and submitting a "cleverly drafted" affidavit that omitted key evidence. Chief Justice Soumen Sen warned,
"You (the petitioner) are misquoting the order of the court deliberately."
This episode underscores the high court's intolerance for inaccuracies in court reporting and manipulations by lawyer-litigants, serving as a cautionary tale for legal professionals and journalists alike amid growing concerns over "media trials" and strategic use of press releases in litigation.
Background on the Dispute
The controversy stems from a or filed by the petitioner, highlighting purported irregularities in the procurement process for equipment used in Kerala's ambitious digital land re-survey project. This initiative, aimed at modernizing land records through digitization, has been a priority for the state government to enhance transparency and reduce disputes over property titles. Allegations of procedural lapses, overpricing, or favoritism in vendor selection reportedly formed the crux of the petition.
Following the court's hearing on the matter last week, the petitioner issued a press release and held a press meet, claiming that the Division Bench—comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM—had ordered an investigation into these irregularities. Deepika , a prominent Malayalam daily, published a report based solely on these sources, without cross-verifying the actual court order available on the high court's e-filing portal or through official channels.
However, no such directive was issued. The court had merely sought responses from respondents or noted the petition for further consideration, a routine interlocutory step. The erroneous report not only misrepresented the judicial stance but risked undermining public trust in the court's proceedings and the land re-survey project itself.
Court's Initial Response and Proceedings
Alerted to the discrepancy, the Division Bench took last week, issuing notice to Deepika for an explanation. Such actions are not uncommon in Indian high courts, invoking inherent powers under , which declares high courts as with to safeguard their dignity and ensure accurate portrayal.
On Friday, the editor of
Deepika
appeared in person before the Bench, tendering an unqualified apology. It was submitted that
"the report was based on a press release issued by the petitioner in the case as well as a press meet conducted by him. The newspaper did not cross check with the actual court order and published the report based on the press release."
The editor assured the court that steps were underway to publish a prominent correction, a standard remedial measure under
norms.
The Bench recorded these submissions and graciously accepted the apology, closing the matter against the newspaper. This leniency reflects a judicial preference for contrition over punitive action when media errors arise from negligence rather than malice, aligning with precedents like where courts emphasize correction over suppression.
Sharp Rebuke to the Petitioner Lawyer
Contrastingly, the court took a "dim view" of the petitioner's conduct. Despite submitting an affidavit on the day, he conspicuously failed to attach the press release he had issued—the very document fueling the misinformation. Justice Syam Kumar VM remarked orally,
"The petitioner himself is a lawyer. He should have at least attached the press release to his affidavit. He has purposefully avoided it. And the affidavit has been drafted in a very clever way."
Chief Justice Sen went further, warning of dismissal of the petition itself due to this "deliberate" misquoting. The Bench ultimately accepted an undertaking from the petitioner's counsel that an apology for misrepresenting the court's order would be published in Deepika . This resolution highlights the dual accountability: media for unchecked reporting, lawyers for candor.
Legal Analysis: Media Accountability and Lawyer Ethics
From a media law perspective, this case reiterates the duties under the
, particularly
, which penalizes publications that
"
"
the court. While mere inaccuracy may not always constitute contempt (as clarified in
E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar
, AIR 1970 SC 2015), repeated or reckless misreporting erodes public confidence. The PCI's Norms of Journalistic Conduct (2022 edition) mandate verification from primary sources, especially court orders, now easily accessible via NJDG/e-Courts portals.
For lawyers, the rebuke invokes core ethical imperatives. Under Rules, Chapter II, Part VI, advocates must uphold the dignity of the court and not mislead it. requires affidavits to be true and based on personal knowledge, with Annexures for referenced documents. The petitioner's omission smacks of , akin to the principles in Saibal Kumar Gupta v. B.K. Sen (AIR 1961 SC 633), where clever drafting led to adverse inferences.
Precedents abound: In In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995), the Supreme Court suspended a senior advocate for contemptuous conduct. More recently, high courts have imposed costs on lawyers for media manipulations in PILs, as in the 's 2022 orders against strategic leaks.
Broader Implications for Legal Practice
This ruling has ripple effects. For journalists covering courts, it mandates robust fact-checking protocols—perhaps integrating API pulls from e-Courts or official transcripts. Legal correspondents must prioritize verbatim orders over press handouts, especially from self-interested litigants.
Lawyers, particularly those doubling as petitioners, face heightened scrutiny. The "lawyer privilege" does not extend to obfuscation; courts may now routinely demand Annexures for referenced media. This could deter "forum shopping" via media pressure but raises free speech concerns under .
In Kerala's context, with PILs surging on governance issues like land reforms, this fortifies judicial firewalls against hype. Nationally, amid debates on fake news ( ), it bolsters calls for a dedicated court-reporting code.
Empirical data from the shows thousands of daily orders; misreporting risks are amplified by social media amplification. Tools like AI fact-checkers or blockchain-verified orders could mitigate, but human diligence remains paramount.
Conclusion
The 's handling of the Deepika episode exemplifies balanced justice: mercy for repentant media, firmness against manipulative advocates. By mandating corrections and apologies, it restores accuracy while educating stakeholders. For legal professionals, it's a clarion call: integrity in reporting and pleading is non-negotiable. As digital litigation evolves, such interventions ensure the scales of justice remain unclouded by misrepresentation, preserving public faith in the third branch of government.
(Word count: approximately 1420)
