NEW DELHI: Favouring a robust debate in the media on issues pending in court, Supreme Court on Friday said the judiciary and the press must supplement each other as foundational pillars of democracy and held that a court should not tell the media to take down a report if it was not contemptuous.
The court quashed Delhi high court 's order directing taking down of a Wikipedia page on proceedings on a defamation case filed against it by news agency ANI. It said healthy criticism and scrutiny by the media in sub judice cases would keep judicial caprice or vagaries in check.
"Courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism... However, those who offer criticism should remember that judges cannot respond to such criticism, but if a publication scandalises the court or a judge or judges and if a case of contempt is made out, as highlighted by Justice Iyer in the sixth principle, certainly courts should take action. But it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down," SC said.
Referring to SC's earlier verdicts, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said public scrutiny and gaze serve as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice.
"Definitely, if a member of the public or a litigant or, for that matter, even the media tries to scandalise the court by making sweeping unfounded allegations against the court or the judge(s) or by imputing motives against the judge or judges who had passed a judicial order or had conducted the court proceedings, certainly the courts would be justified to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against such contemnors. This would also be a ground to direct postponement of publication as contempt of court is a reasonable restriction enumerated under Article 19(2) on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)," the court said.
"For the improvement of any system, and that includes the judiciary, introspection is the key. That can happen only if there is a robust debate even on issues which are before the court. Both the judiciary and the media are foundational pillars of democracy, which is a basic feature of our Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other," the bench said.
The court also relied on the recent verdict in the Imran Pratapgarhi case which highlighted the importance of freedom of expression and the duty of courts to uphold such freedom. "This court observed that sometimes, judges may not like spoken or written words but still it is the duty of the courts to uphold the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). Except the courts, there is no other institution which can uphold the fundamental rights of citizens. The courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle freedom of speech," it said.
The court quashed Delhi high court 's order directing taking down of a Wikipedia page on proceedings on a defamation case filed against it by news agency ANI. It said healthy criticism and scrutiny by the media in sub judice cases would keep judicial caprice or vagaries in check.
"Courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism... However, those who offer criticism should remember that judges cannot respond to such criticism, but if a publication scandalises the court or a judge or judges and if a case of contempt is made out, as highlighted by Justice Iyer in the sixth principle, certainly courts should take action. But it is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down," SC said.
Referring to SC's earlier verdicts, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said public scrutiny and gaze serve as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice.
"Definitely, if a member of the public or a litigant or, for that matter, even the media tries to scandalise the court by making sweeping unfounded allegations against the court or the judge(s) or by imputing motives against the judge or judges who had passed a judicial order or had conducted the court proceedings, certainly the courts would be justified to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against such contemnors. This would also be a ground to direct postponement of publication as contempt of court is a reasonable restriction enumerated under Article 19(2) on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)," the court said.
"For the improvement of any system, and that includes the judiciary, introspection is the key. That can happen only if there is a robust debate even on issues which are before the court. Both the judiciary and the media are foundational pillars of democracy, which is a basic feature of our Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other," the bench said.
The court also relied on the recent verdict in the Imran Pratapgarhi case which highlighted the importance of freedom of expression and the duty of courts to uphold such freedom. "This court observed that sometimes, judges may not like spoken or written words but still it is the duty of the courts to uphold the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). Except the courts, there is no other institution which can uphold the fundamental rights of citizens. The courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle freedom of speech," it said.
You may also like
Savarkar kin says seize Rahul's bail bond in criminal defamation case
Bombay HC Orders Status Quo On Savarkar Sadan, Seeks Maharashtra Govt Response On Heritage Status
Unusual method cleans dishwasher filters 'in seconds'
Special trains to run in border states
Mumbai Airport Customs Bust Gold Smuggling Syndicate, Arrest CISF Personnel And Byculla Resident; Seize Gold Worth ₹57 Lakh
