Media vs Judiciary

By Mannika Chopra

At the heart of the issue is whether the media can be allowed to disregard existing laws and engage in activities forbidden to ordinary citizens. Can a profession that is meant to enforce standards of accountability and probity be allowed to judge the judges?

You could say that this past month has been a humbling one for the Indian media at large and Wah India specifically. In what is clearly a first for the Indian media, the fortnightly magazine-cum-web site known for its spunk and sizzle, printed a report card on Delhi`s High Court judges. In response the court initiated contempt of courts proceedings. At the heart of the issue is whether the media can be allowed to disregard existing laws and engage in activities forbidden to ordinary citizens. Can a profession supposed to enforce standards of accountability and probity be allowed to judge the judges? By doing so does it lower the dignity of the judiciary? Does any such evaluation serve the public interest or is it merely an attempt to lift ratings? And finally should covering the issue by the rest of the media also amount to contempt of court?

In issue dated April 16-30, Wah India in a feature entitled Judged Out! carried a report card of 32 sitting judges of the Delhi High court. The report was based on a questionnaire circulated amongst `50 senior lawyers` designed to evaluate judges on their personal integrity, understanding of law, quality of judgements delivered, knowledge of basic law, receptiveness of arguments delivered and punctuality. The grading for each category was done on a basis of 10 points tallying up to a final figure of 60. Each assessment was accompanied by a photograph of the judge. At the end of the report card, Wah India stated that this evaluation was not intended to slight the judiciary but was a way through which it could hold a mirror up to itself.

Clearly, the judiciary did not think so. In response the Bar Council of India filed a contempt petition against the fortnightly`s editor, Madhu Trehan, publisher Rahul Mishra, reporter Nikunj Garg, sub-editor Sachin Parashar and creative director Manisha Sethi. On April 26, a five judge bench of the Delhi High Court directed that in order to protect and preserve the dignity of the judiciary, DCP (Crime) should seize and confiscate all unsold issues of the magazine and that no one should be allowed to reproduce and circulate the article in any form. In addition, "...no one shall publish any article, news letter or any material which tends to lower the authority, dignity and prestige of the members of the judiciary." And finally the bench directed that "the proceedings of this case including the contents of the aforesaid article shall not be published in any manner whatsoever, " thereby preventing any member of the press from reporting on the case under threat of prosecution.

Reacting to the last injunction Shobana Bharatiya, executive managing editor, Hindustan Times, Dileep Padgoankar, executive managing editor, the Times of India, Shekhar Gupta, editor-in-chief of The Indian Express, Vinod Mehta, editor-in-chief, Outlook, Ashwin Chopra, resident editor of Punjab Kesri and columnist and Rajya Sabha MP Kuldip Nayyar appealed to the court that restrictions on reporting the case infringed their fundamental rights. As an incensed Nayyar said: " I may or may not agree with what a particular publication has written but you cannot take away my right to criticise, comment or report on a judgement that has been passed against it." Responding to the petition the High Court lifted the gag order.

As for Wah India it offered a polite mea culpa. In its affidavit the magazine said that the article was published on the basis of similar articles published abroad and was not meant to cast aspersions on the institution or any judge. However, the bench felt that a justification could not be the basis of any unconditional apology. Attorney General Soli Sorabjee appearing as amicus