The Hindu : 'Official denial, warning would have ended reports'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Feb 12, 2003

National

National

'Official denial, warning would have ended reports'

By Our Staff Reporter

BANGALORE FEB. 11. The publications facing suo motu criminal contempt of court action initiated by the Karnataka High Court, on Tuesday submitted before the court that they would have stopped publishing reports on the `Mysore episode', had the court officially denied the news reports and sounded a warning at the initial stage itself.

Making his submission on behalf of Deccan Herald and Prajavani, senior counsel, S. Ramadas, pointed out that the Registrar (Vigilance) had held an inquiry and submitted his report. If the incident had not happened, the court should have warned the publications. The absence of an official denial and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) initiating an inquiry added weight to the news reports, he said.

A similar submission was earlier made by senior counsel, S. Vijayashankar, who appeared for The New Indian Express, Kannada Prabha and Udayavani. He told the full Bench comprising Justice T. S. Thakur, Justice H.L. Dattu and Justice V. G. Sabhahit that neither were the news reports "a figment of the imagination" nor did the press decide to create news. It was not that the newspapers intended to boost circulation by publishing sensational news; they reported an incident which had actually happened, he argued.

Reacting to Mr. Ramadas, the court asked whether it should set up a media centre and every judge issue denials in the evening before presspersons. It said: "You may be in the habit of receiving contradictions from Ministers and MPs."

When Mr. Vijayashankar stated that the publications would have apologised in the event of a denial, the Bench said there were two occasions when they could have done so. The first was after the inquiry by the High Court and the second was after the report by the judges' committee constituted by the Chief Justice of India. However, counsel pointed out that there was no official denial or confirmation of the incident after the reports were submitted.

To that the court said: "Even today you are not apologetic. You have carried on a sustained campaign." It asked: "Have you not destroyed an individual, a family, and peace?"

When the court drew counsel's attention to the reported finding of the committee that there was no evidence about the incident, Mr. Vijayashankar replied that absence of evidence did not indicate that the incident had never happened. Unconfirmed reports on the committee's findings could not be held against the publications.

Senior counsel, B.V. Acharya, appearing for The Hindu, submitted that the newspaper did not publish a single report which amounted to contempt of court. The reports were only reactions and were published to inform the readers of the developments, he stated.

Mr. Acharya made it clear that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defined criminal contempt, unlike the earlier enactment, intended to limit the jurisdiction of courts and the scope of contempt. He argued that only an attack on the judicial conduct of a judge or a court would amount to contempt of court, not criticism of private conduct. However, the court said those acts which scandalised the judiciary would amount to contempt of court.

Mr. Acharya replied that in such an event, every statement on the judiciary would have an effect on the administration of justice, and questioned whether all such statements should be categorised as contempt. The court observed that publications must not publish anything that shakes the confidence of the public in the judiciary and sully the image of the judiciary. The court further observed that such reports would drive the public to other modes of dispute settlement, including resorting to anti-social elements.

Mr. Acharya replied that there might be many reasons that may make the public lose confidence in the judiciary, including a remark by a Chief Justice of India that 20 per cent of the judges were corrupt. However, such statements had not been held to be contempt of court. The hearing was adjourned till February 13.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National