HC tells scribes not to comment on judicial proceedings

By Our Staff Reporter

KOCHI, MAY 24. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Wednesday called upon journalists to take necessary precaution to ensure that articles that will tend to prejudice the trial of a case or issue are not written.

The Bench comprising Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan and Mr. Justice C.S. Rajan made the observation while dismissing a contempt of court petition filed against the Kerala Kaumudi.

The Bench said that "after all, responsible journalism means adherence to the ethics of journalism and that will certainly include taking necessary precaution to ensure that nothing is said in the publication which would tend to prejudice the trial of an issue".

Though the Bench found that it was not a fit case to frame contempt charges against Kerala Kaumudi, the court cautioned against making comments on the proceedings pending in court which may tend to influence the conclusion that may be arrived at by the court.

The contempt petition was filed by Mr. T.N. Muraleedharan of Ernakulam. According to him, a report appearing in the issue of the paper on November 7, 1998 had interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings pending before the court.

The report had made certain comments on the handling of the Payyavur contempt case by the office of the Advocate General. The Payyavur contempt case was filed, alleging that the police had refused to provide protection to the Congress(I) members of the Payyavur panchayat in Kannur, despite a High Court direction. The case was later closed.

The Bench said that it did not see anything in the article which could be said to scandalise the court or judges who were dealing with the contempt of court case.

The court agreed with the contention of the paper that the report was merely a comment on the functioning of the Advocate General office and, therefore, it could not be considered a criticism on the court.

However, the Bench said that strictly speaking, it had to be noted that the article was purported to be a defence of the failure of the Chief Secretary to implement the directions of the court.

"To that extend, it does tend to affect the adjudication of any of the issues involved in the case", that is, whether there was a willful disobedience of the directions of the court.

Certainly, the newspaper should have adopted more cautious attitude in commenting the proceedings that had taken place in the court. At the same time, it was too much to believe that two judges of this court exercising the jurisdiction of the contempt case would in any way be influenced by the publication of the article, the Bench added.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Ombudsman should be apolitical: Antony
Next     : CPI to review party programme