2011 JTR(SC) 828
2011 AIR(SC)(Cri) 2253 ; 2011 AIR(SCW) 5761 ; 2012 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 639 ; 2012 76 AllCriC 928 ; 2012 1 AllLJ 373 ; 2011 CriLR 371 ; 2011 9 JT 74 ; 2011 3 KLT 882 ; 2012 1 RCR(Civ) 525 ; 2011 7 RCR(Cri) 2414 ; 2012 1 RCR(Cri) 361 ; 2011 9 Scale 532 ; 2011 13 SCC 155 ; 2011 10 SCR 781 ; 2011 9 SLT 153 ; 2011 KHC 4752 ; 2011 8 Supreme 486
2011 (8) Supreme 486
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Sanjoy Narayan Editor In Chief Hindustan & Ors. — Appellant(s)
versus
Hon. High Court of Allahabad Thr. R.G. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 1683/2011
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4876 of 2011)
Decided on : 30-8-2011
IMPORTANT POINT
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, one must be careful to verify the facts and do some research on the subject being reported before a publication is brought out.
Act Referred :CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT : .
(A) The Contempt of Courts Act governs the regulation of media to ensure that the press, as a fourth pillar of democracy, exercises its immense power responsibly, balancing the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) with reasonable restrictions imposed by Article 19(2) in the interest of maintaining the dignity of the judiciary, public order, and the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Act provides the legal framework for initiating and resolving contempt proceedings against publications that undermine the authority of the court through biased, unverified, or incorrect reporting, while also recognizing the judiciary's obligation to act magnanimously in accepting genuine and unqualified apologies that demonstrate sincere remorse and an acceptance of fault.
(B) Media serves as an essential instrument for informing the public and fostering democratic participation, but this role entails a correlative duty to verify facts and avoid publishing information that is inaccurate or prejudicial to the reputation of judicial institutions. The law mandates a balance between the right to free speech and the need to protect the judiciary from contemptuous publications, and courts are not hypersensitive in accepting apologies tendered in good faith through proper affidavits, provided they are unconditional and convey genuine remorse.
Facts of the case:
A newspaper published an article on 20.09.2010 that was reportedly based on surmises and conjectures, which brought a then Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court under public cloud and tarnished the image of the judiciary. Contempt proceedings were initiated against the publication, and although an initial apology was not accepted as unqualified, the appellants later filed an unqualified apology through an affidavit expressing repentance for the erroneous publication.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the subsequent unqualified apology was sincere and demonstrated acceptance of mistake and fault. It held that the judiciary must be magnanimous in accepting such apologies when filed through duly sworn affidavits, and noted that the earlier apology was not accepted only because it was not deemed unqualified at that time. The court therefore accepted the apology and deemed it appropriate to close the contempt proceedings.
Issues:
Whether the publication constituted contempt of court, whether an apology tendered through an affidavit could be considered unqualified, and whether the court should accept the apology and discontinue the contempt proceedings in the interest of justice and magnanimity.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court balances the media's duty to publish responsibly under the restrictions of Article 19(2) and the Contempt of Courts Act with the judiciary's obligation to accept genuine, unqualified apologies that express remorse, thereby using its discretion to end contempt proceedings in order to uphold both institutional dignity and the principle of forgiveness.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of by accepting the unqualified apology, closing the contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, and directing the publication of the apology in the specified newspaper editions.
(A) The Contempt of Courts Act governs the regulation of media to ensure that the press, as a fourth pillar of democracy, exercises its immense power responsibly, balancing the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) with reasonable restrictions imposed by Article 19(2) in the interest of maintaining the dignity of the judiciary, public order, and the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Act provides the legal framework for initiating and resolving contempt proceedings against publications that undermine the authority of the court through biased, unverified, or incorrect reporting, while also recognizing the judiciary's obligation to act magnanimously in accepting genuine and unqualified apologies that demonstrate sincere remorse and an acceptance of fault.
(B) Media serves as an essential instrument for informing the public and fostering democratic participation, but this role entails a correlative duty to verify facts and avoid publishing information that is inaccurate or prejudicial to the reputation of judicial institutions. The law mandates a balance between the right to free speech and the need to protect the judiciary from contemptuous publications, and courts are not hypersensitive in accepting apologies tendered in good faith through proper affidavits, provided they are unconditional and convey genuine remorse.
Facts of the case:
A newspaper published an article on 20.09.2010 that was reportedly based on surmises and conjectures, which brought a then Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court under public cloud and tarnished the image of the judiciary. Contempt proceedings were initiated against the publication, and although an initial apology was not accepted as unqualified, the appellants later filed an unqualified apology through an affidavit expressing repentance for the erroneous publication.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the subsequent unqualified apology was sincere and demonstrated acceptance of mistake and fault. It held that the judiciary must be magnanimous in accepting such apologies when filed through duly sworn affidavits, and noted that the earlier apology was not accepted only because it was not deemed unqualified at that time. The court therefore accepted the apology and deemed it appropriate to close the contempt proceedings.
Issues:
Whether the publication constituted contempt of court, whether an apology tendered through an affidavit could be considered unqualified, and whether the court should accept the apology and discontinue the contempt proceedings in the interest of justice and magnanimity.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court balances the media's duty to publish responsibly under the restrictions of Article 19(2) and the Contempt of Courts Act with the judiciary's obligation to accept genuine, unqualified apologies that express remorse, thereby using its discretion to end contempt proceedings in order to uphold both institutional dignity and the principle of forgiveness.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of by accepting the unqualified apology, closing the contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, and directing the publication of the apology in the specified newspaper editions.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.04.2011 passed by the Allahabad High Court.
3. The appellants being aggrieved by the aforesaid order had filed this appeal on which we issued notice. On service of the notice, the respondent has also entered appearance through counsel.
4. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties. The appellants have now filed an affidavit which is on record tendering unqualified apology for the publication of article in question in Hindustan Times on 20.09.2010 out of which contempt proceedings arise.
5. 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.
6. The impact of media is far-reaching as it reaches not only 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 corruption and other ill-effects of society. The media ensures that the individual actively participates in the decision-making process. The right to information is fundamental in encouraging the individual to be a part of the governing process. The enactment of the Right to Information Act is the most empowering step in this direction. The role of people in a democracy and that of active debate is essential for the functioning of a vibrant democracy.
7. With this immense power, comes the burden of responsibility. With the 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. 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.
8. The unbridled power of the media can become dangerous if check and balance is not inherent in it. The role of the media is to provide to the readers and the public in general with information and views tested and found as true and correct. This power must be carefully regulated and must reconcile with a person’s fundamental right to privacy. Any wrong or biased information that is put forth can potentially damage the otherwise clean and good reputation of the person or institution against whom something adverse is reported. Pre-judging the issues and rushing to conclusions must be avoided.
9. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. The then Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court who has otherwise proved himself to be a competent and good Judge wherever he was posted during his career was brought under a cloud by the reporting which is the subject matter of this petition. His image was sought to be tarnished by a newspaper report which was apparently based on surmises and conjectures and not based on facts and figures. 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, one must be careful to verify the facts and do some research on the subject being reported before a publication is brought out.
10. We are glad that the persons against whom contempt proceedings were initiated for a wrong and incorrect reporting about the then Chief Justice as aforesaid have understood their mistake and have expressed their repentance through their advocate and also themselves by filing an unqualified apology before us for the wrong done.
11. On going through the impugned order also we find that 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 they have tendered unconditional apology.
12. The judiciary also must be magnanimous in accepting an apology when filed through an affidavit duly sworn, conveying remorse for such publication. This indicates that they have accepted their mistake and fault. This Court has also time and again reiterated that this Court is not hypersensitive in matter relating to Contempt of Courts Act and has always shown magnanimity in accepting the apology. Therefore, we accept the aforesaid unqualified apology submitted by them and drop the proceeding.
13. With the aforesaid observations, we order for closure of the proceedings initiated against the appellants herein under the Contempt of Courts Act by keeping the affidavit filed by the appellants on record with a direction to the appellants to publish the apology as stated in the affidavit 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.
14. We appreciate the gesture of the counsel appearing for the parties and also for the fact they endorse the same view as expressed in this order.
15. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions and observations.
***********