LexSANJOY NARAYAN EDITOR IN CHIEF HINDUSTAN & ORS. versus HON. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD THR. R.G.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 781 . SANJOY NARAYAN EDITOR IN CHIEF HINDUSTAN & A . •. ORS. v. HON. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD THR. R.G. (Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2011) AUGUST 30, 2011 -l B [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Media: Powers and responsibilities of - Discussed - C Held: The media, be it electronic or print media, is generally · called the fourth pillar of democracy - The media, in all its forms, whether electronic or print, discharges a very onerous duty of keeping the people knowledgeable and informed - The impact of media is far-reaching as it reaches not only D ·the people physically but also influences them mentally - It creates opinions, broadcasts different points of view; brings to the fore wrongs and lapses of the Government and all other governing bodies and is an important tool in restraining co"uption and other ill-effects of society - However, with the E huge amount of information that they process, it is the responsibility of the media to ensure that they are not providing the public with information that is factually wrong, biased or simply unverified information - The right to freedom of speech is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution F - However, this right is restricted by Article 19(2) in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency and morality and also. Contempt of Courts Act and defamation - The unbridled power of the media can become dangerous if check and balance is not inherent in it - This power must be carefully regulated and G must reconcile with a person's fundamental right to privacy - The dignity of the courts. and the people's faith in administration must not be tarnished because of biased and unverified reporting - In order to avoid such biased reporting, 781 H 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R. A one must be careful to verify the facts and do some research on the subject being reported before a publication is brought out - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2). Contempt of Courts Act - Article published in Hindustan 8 Times on 20-09-2C10 caffied adverse information about the then Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court - Contempt proceedings against the appellants - Held: Any wrong or biased information that is put forth can potentially damage the otherwise clean and good reputation of the person or C institution against whom something adverse is reported - Pre-judging the issues and rushing to conclusions must be avoided - This is exactly what has happened in the present case - The newspaper report was apparently based on surmises and conjectures and not based on facts and figures - Article published in Hindustan Times on 20-09-2010 D . famished the image of the then Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court who otherwise proved himself to be a competent and good Judge - The appellants have understood their mistake and have expressed their repentance through their advocate and also themselves by filing an unqualified E apology before the Supreme Court - Apology tendered before the Allahabad High Court was not accepted only because it was felt that the same was not unqualified - Now, by filing an affidavit before Supreme Court they have tendered unconditional apology - The judiciary also must be F magnanimous in accepting an apology when filed through an affidavit duly sworn, conveying remorse for such publication - Therefore, the unqualified apology submitted by the appellants is accepted and the contempt proceedings against them are dropped - Direction to appellants-contemnors to G publish the apology as stated in the affidayit in the first page of Lucknow edition of Hindustan Times to be published on 01- 09-2011 and also at such other place, wherever there was any such publication, in a daily issue of the newspaper at• some prominent place of the newspaper. H SANJOY NARAYAN EDITOR IN CHIEF HINDUSTAN v. 783 HON. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD THR. R.G. . CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal A 1683 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 4.4.2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 20 of 2010. B A. Sharan, Ajay Singh, Amit Anand Tiwari for the Appellants. Ravi P. Mehrotra, Vibhu Tiwari for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered c ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.