MEDIA

1. CONTEMPT OF COURT
2. DEFAMATION
 MEDIA AND CONTEMPT OF COURT
• Contempt of court is defined as an act or omission calculated to
interfere with the due administration of justice.
• Willful disobedience or disrespect
• Lack of respect/reverence for something
• Contempt jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very
nature of court itself.
• It touches the right to personal liberty/right to freedom of expression
 MEANING
• Tendency to lower the images of the judiciary.
• Consisting of words spoken or written which obstruct or tend to
obstruct the administration of justice.
• Publishing words which tend to bring the administration of Justice into
contempt, to prejudice the fair trial of any cause or matter which is the
subject of Civil or Criminal proceeding or in anyway to obstruct the
cause of Justice.
 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
• Art. 129- Supreme Court to be a court of record
• The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court
including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Art. 215- High Courts to be courts of record
• Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court
including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Art.144- Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court
• All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme
Court.
• Art.141- Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts
• The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory
of India.
• Art.142- Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and
orders as to discovery, etc.
• (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree
or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or
matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be
enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be
prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that
behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.
• Art.261- Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of
India to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and
of every State.
 CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT
• Sec.3- Innocent publication and distribution of matter
• Not contempt.
• Sec. 4- Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding
• Not contempt.
• Sec. 5- Fair criticism of judicial act
• Not contempt.
• Sec. 6- Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not
contempt- in respect of any statement made by him in good faith
• Sec. 7- Publication of information relating to proceedings in chambers or in
camera
• Not contempt except in certain cases.
• Sec.11- Punishment for contempt of court
• (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of
court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
• Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be
remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.
• Sec.15- Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases
• (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14,
the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a
motion made by
• (a) the Advocate-General, or
• (b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate General
• (2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may
take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by
the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the
Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this
behalf.
 CASE LAWS
• M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court Of Punjab And Haryana [AIR 1991 SC
1834:1991(3) SCC 600]
• Unable to secure an ad-interim stay in favour of his client, the appellant, a practicing
Advocate, uttered certain words imputing motives to the Sub-Judge in refusing to
grant the stay.
• R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC106
• Private Channel-NDTV
• BMW hit-and-run case- sting operation
• Defence counsel and Special Public Prosecutor
• Suo moto contempt proceedings initiated by Delhi High Court
• Guilty of Contempt and debarring from Delhi High Court
• Public Interest
• Sting operation during a pending trial is not contempt.
• Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of UP (AIR 1954 SC 10)
• The object of contempt jurisdiction is to safeguard the interest of the public which would be
adversely affected, if the authority of the court is denigrated and public confidence in the
administration of justice is weakened.
• C. Ravichandran Iyer v. A.M.Bhattacharjee [(1995) 5 SCC 457]
• The power to punish the contemner is granted to the court not because Judges need the
protection but because the citizens need an impartial and strong judiciary.
• Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1991 SC 2176)
• The court has the duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due administration of
justice and so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not to protect
the dignity of the court against insult or injury, but to protect and vindicate the right of the
public so that the administration of justice is not prevented, prejudiced or obstructed or
interfered with.
• Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Assn. (AIR 2005 SC 2473)
• The judgements of courts are public documents and can be commented upon, analyzed and
criticised, but in a dignified manner without attributing motive.
• Before placing before public, whether on print or electronic media, all concerned have to see
whether any such criticism has crossed the limits as aforesaid and if it has, then resist every
temptation to make it public.
• Court On Its Own Motion v. M.K.Tayal (Mid Day) [(2007) 98 DRJ 41]
• Delhi High Court convicted the editors, publishers and a cartoonist from Mid Day for
contempt of court.
• It was a cartoon depicting the former CJI, Y.K. Sabarwal, in his court robes holding a bag
with currency notes flowing out of it.
• The opportunity of establishing the truthfulness of the news reports and proceeded to
summarily hold them guilty of contempt of court.
• In re S.K.Sundaram, (AIR 2001 SC 2374)
• Suo moto contempt
• Sundaram, a chennai based advocate sent a telegram to the then Chief Justice of India, Dr.
A.S. Anand, demanding his resignation on the ground that he had exceeded the age of
superannuation.
• Filed criminal complaint.
• Viswanath v. E.S.Venkatramaih (1990 Cri LJ 2179)
• CJI at the time of his retirement
• The Judiciary in India has deteriorated in its standards because such judges are appointed as
are willing to be influenced by lavish parties and whisky bottles.
• There were at least four or five judges who were out every evening, wining or dining either at
a lawyers house or foreign embassy.
• E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar (AIR 1970 SC 2015)
• In this case the then Chief Minister of Kerala had made scandalous utterances against the
judiciairy, describing it as an instrument of oppression dominated by class hatred and prejudices
and favouring the rich over the poor.
• Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (AIR 2007 SC 2688)
• The contemnor made some sweeping allegations in an application before the Supreme Court.
• Incapable, corrupt and worthless is the present Chief Justice of Supreme Court.
• Inefficient, incompetent and bribe-takers
• There is guarantee of the Constitution of India that there will be freedom of speech and wrinting
but reasonable restrictions can be imposed.
• Hari Singh Nagra v. Kapil Sibal [(2010) 7 SCC 502]
• It arouse out of a publication that appeared in the souvenir of Mehfil-e-Wukala , a cultural
association of advocates practicing in the Supreme Court.
• He expressed concern over falling standards of the legal fraternity and of the judiciary.
• It seems that judges have started disciplining lawyers. Judges themselves needs disciplining.
• The Judiciary has failed in its efforts to eradicate the phenomenon of corruption.
• The court held that Mr Sibal’s message read as a whole could not be construed as contempt
because it merely expresses his concern about the state of things and suggests corrective measures.
 MEDIA AND DEFAMATION
• The law of defamation is a recognition of the inherent right of every
individual to the preservation of his honour and the esteem in which
he is held by society.
• Every individual shall have the right.
• Right to reputation is a facet of the right to life.
• Reputation is an integral and important aspect of the dignity of an
individual.
• Reputation is acknowledged as a right in rem.
DEFAMATION- Meaning
• Defamatory statements
• Libel
• Written or printing-criminal offence-civil wrong
• Slander
• Oral or by gestures-civil wrong
• Under Indian Law
• Section 499 of IPC
• In India, publication is an essential condition for a criminal offence under
section.499 as in an action for damages.
• Civil action
• Intention is not necessary
 Media and Defamation
Slander may be actionable per se in certain situations:
1. Imputation of Criminal Conduct
2. Imputation of Unchastity
3. Imputation of certain contagious diseases
4. Imputation of unfitness in business
 Media and Defamation
• The statement must be read as whole in its particular context.
• What may be defamatory of one person may not be necessarily be
defamatory of another.
• Lady had given birth to a child, it would become so where a
newspaper publishes such information about a women who had
married only a month before the publication of the news.
 TEST
1. Reasonable Man
2. Right thinking man
• T.V. Ramasubba Iyer v. A.M. Ahmed Mohideen [AIR 1972 Mad 398]
• It was held that since the publisher, when he published the news item, did not
know of the existence of the plaintiff and had later published a correction in
his paper, he was not liable for defamation.
• In re S.K. Sundaram (AIR 2001 SC 2374)
• A case concerning defamatory allegations made by an advocate against the
then CJI contained in a telegram sent to the CJ, it was held that sending a
telegram amounts to publication.
 CASES
• Noor Mohammed v. Mohd. Jiajddin (AIR 1992 MP 244)
• Hybrid type of defamation
• Bridegroom and his father refused to take the bride to their home after
marriage in full view of guests.
• Damages could be awarded for loss of reputation.
• Morrison v. Ritchie & Co (1902) 4 F 645.
• Plaintiff had given birth to twins whereas in fact she had been married only a
month before.
• News paper- Liable for Carelessness
 DEFENCES TO DEFAMATION
• Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia (AIR 1981 SC 1514)
• The Supreme Court considered a defence under the 9th Exception to
Section 499 of IPC.
• A Weekly magazine had published a report to the effect that a female
detenue had got pregnant during her detention in the Bhopal Central
Jail through the appellant, a Politician.
• It seems that the news report had been correctly made from a
government enquiry report.
• A Public Institution- Good faith for the Public Good
1. TRUTH
• A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, and the burden of
proving that it is true lies on the defendant.
• Defendant must be able to show that he was right in holding the
opinion.
• It is not sufficient justification to show that there was a rumour, it
must be proved that it was true.
• MJ Akbar’s case.
2. FAIR COMMENT
• The defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest is, like
justification, a complete defence to an action for defamation.
• The defence is based on:
1. Public policy,
2. Affairs of state,
3. The administration of justice,
4. public institutions and
5. local authorities.
 DEFENCE TO DEFAMATION- cases
• Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi (AIR 2002 Del 58)
• It arose out of the suit filed by Maneka Gandhi to restrain the publication of Khushwant
Singh’s autobiography, Truth, Love and a Little Malice, which she alleged, defamed her and
violated her privacy.
• The court held that an auto-biographer need not confine his story to himself but is free to
write about other people.
• Purshottam Lal v. Prem Shankar (AIR 1966 All 377)
• No action of libel or slander lies against judges.
• In India, the Judicial Officers Protection Act,1850 confers immunity on judicial officers for act
done judicially.
• No action lies against judges, counsels, witnesses or parties for words written or spoken in the
course of proceedings any court recognised by law.
• It is applicable to tribunals also.
3. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
• Art.105(2)- No Members of Parliament shall be liable to any
proceedings in any court in respect of anything said by him in
parliament or in any parliamentary committee.
• Article 194(2)- No privilege attracts under these articles in respect of a
publication not under the authority of Parliament or State Legislature.
4. MILITARY AND NAVAL PROCEEDINGS
• Military and Naval proceedings are absolutely privileged.
• Statements made before a naval or military court of enquiry by
military man are protected.
• Adverse opinion expressed by one officer about the conduct of
another, even if made maliciously and without reasonable or probable
cause.