Date:23/01/2003 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2003/01/23/stories/2003012301991300.htm

National

'Newspapers acted in good faith'

By Our Staff Reporter

BANGALORE JAN. 22. The publications facing suo motu criminal contempt proceedings in the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday said that the news reports on the alleged "Mysore episode" did not amount to contempt of court, while submitting that the proceedings had the effect of curtailing the freedom of the press.

Submitting their reply to the showcause notice issued by the court, the publications argued that they had published these reports with good intention, seeking an inquiry into the alleged incident. They did not have any malice and held the judiciary in high esteem.

A full bench, comprising the judges, T.S. Thakur, H.L. Dattu and V.G. Sabhahit, posted the case to February 6 to consider the replies and to decide whether or not to frame charges against the publications. The court appointed the senior advocate, K. Kasturi, and the advocate, Pramod Nair, as amicus curiae to assist the court considering the significance of the proceedings.

The court directed the publications to furnish a compilation of the reports related to the alleged episode published from November 5.

Appearing for The Hindu and Vijay Karnataka, Anil Diwan, senior counsel, submitted that there was need to define the parameters for the proceedings as the issue involved was very vast. It was better if the court specified which portion/s of the report/s amounted to contempt for a better focus on the case. Otherwise, the respondents had a defence that the charges were too vague.

He noted that some former Chief Justices of India themselves had admitted that there was corruption in the judiciary and that everything was not well with it. He questioned whether contempt proceedings could be initiated against them also, while stating that here was a case where newspapers published reports with an intention to cleanse the system. He pleaded that the reports were not intended to malign the image of the judiciary.

When the court asked whether the newspapers had any clear evidence, Mr. Diwan submitted that news reports were not written on substantive proof as was done by police. He said reports were written based on the information revealed by a reliable source, confirmed or unconfirmed at times. He said reporters usually got the view of the other party before publishing any article on persons/issues having public importance.

At this point, the court asked Mr. Diwan whether the newspapers sought the views of the judges in the present case. Counsel replied that initially the names were not known and, if the newspapers had sought the views of the other parties at that time, they would have had to contact all the judges which would have led to another set of contempt proceedings.