Bounden Duty Of Media To Avoid Scandalizing Judiciary: J&K High Court Drops Contempt Case Against The Hindu, ETV Bharat
The Court accepted the unconditional apologies tendered by The Hindu and ETV Bharat editors and correspondents while emphasising the media’s “bounden duty” to exercise restraint, verify facts, and avoid speculative reporting that could erode public confidence in the judiciary.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dropped suo motu contempt proceedings against The Hindu and ETV Bharat over reports concerning alleged manipulation of case rosters linked to Justice Atul Sreedharan.
While accepting the unconditional apologies of the respondents, the Court issued strong observations regarding the responsibility of the media when reporting on matters concerning judicial functioning.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rahul Bharti remarked: “It is a bounden duty and responsibility of the Press/Media to avoid temptation of scandalization and attribute motives by innuendoes with respect to judiciary and judges; relying on sources that are not reliable and have no direct access to the information, should be avoided in carrying out court-related news in public domain.”
Advocate Abid Hamid, vice Advocate Salih Peerzada appeared for the respondents.
Background
The proceedings arose from a report published by The Hindu and republished by ETV Bharat, suggesting that alterations in the High Court’s case roster were designed to shift sensitive National Investigation Agency (NIA) and habeas corpus cases away from a particular Bench.
The matter arose after Justice Sreedharan took suo motu cognisance of the publication and referred it to the then Acting Chief Justice for consideration of criminal contempt, observing that the framing of the report implied mala fide intent behind the roster changes.
Notices were issued to seven respondents, including editors and correspondents of both publications. Initially, the respondents expressed their intention to contest the proceedings, but subsequently tendered unconditional written apologies, removed the impugned reports, and acknowledged lapses in their verification process.
Court’s Observations
The Bench delivered extensive observations on the obligations of the press, emphasising that journalists act as a bridge between the judiciary and society and highlighting their duty to inform the public responsibly.
Examining the relationship between the Judiciary and the media, the Court observed that: “Courts are always open to Public’s discourse and discussion and in that regard the journalists/news reporters are there to act as a bridge between the institution of judiciary and the Society. Mining and bringing information with regard to the functioning of the Courts and even the shortcomings and drawbacks therein in the public domain in good faith definitely contributes in enhancing the transparency and establishing accountability.”
However, the Bench stressed that such freedom comes with significant responsibilities. It reiterated that the freedom of the press, though implicit in Article 19(1)(a), is not absolute and is subject to non-interference with the administration of justice and the law of contempt. Journalists must therefore avoid printing or publishing inaccurate, misleading, or self-fancied reports.
Emphasising the importance of due diligence, the Bench advised that news reporters engaged and connected with reporting of court matters must not rely on casual or unverified sources. The judgment explicitly stated: “It is always advisable for them not to rely upon a casual source of information and further to ensure that before rushing with such casual information intended to be published, same is verified from the authoritative sources.”
The Bench underscored that failure to verify information before publication, particularly in sensitive matters such as administrative decisions like roster changes, could lead to misleading implications and erode public confidence in the judiciary.
Regarding the impugned publications, the Court found that the reports carried an implied suggestion that the roster alteration by the then Acting Chief Justice was intended to “disable” a particular Bench from hearing NIA and habeas corpus matters.
The Court noted that this impression was factually incorrect since the preparation and alteration of the roster are administrative functions conducted under the Chief Justice’s directions and published officially on the High Court’s website, making any additional interpretation unnecessary.
The Bench concluded that the impugned publication lacked good faith, observing that it was “lurking with bad faith and definitely counted as an attempt to scandalize the functioning of the High Court which had infliction of necessary effect of eroding the faith of General Public in the justice delivery system with respect to the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.”
Nonetheless, the Court acknowledged the respondents’ corrective steps, noting that the editors and correspondents promptly withdrew the reports, issued unconditional apologies, and admitted their mistakes. In light of this conduct, the Court exercised its discretion to drop the contempt proceedings while issuing a stern caution for the future.
Conclusion
Accepting the unconditional apologies, the High Court dropped the contempt case against all respondents. However, the Bench warned that any future lapses involving inaccurate or unverified reports on the judiciary could invite strict action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Cause Title: Court on Its Own Motion v. Suresh Nambath & Ors.
Appearances
Respondents: Advocate Abid Hamid, vice Advocate Salih Peerzada