On Tuesday, the Karnataka High Court accepted the unconditional apology of the Deccan Herald, and three local Kannada, new channels, BTV, TV5, and Digvijay and had quashed the criminal contempt proceedings against them.
The Court has asked them to pay a cost of ₹73 lakh as compensation to which they have agreed.
The Court quoted saying while dropping the charges:
"We hope and trust that this order acts as a lesson to those who think of making a scandalous attack on the judiciary. We are following the highest traditions of higher courts, following majestic liberalism. Considering what has happened silence was not an option before us. Act of showing leniency, mercy be not treated as an act of weakness."
What was the whole matter?
Earlier Deccan Herald had earlier published a report titled as "Rupees 9 crores was seized from the residence of a City Civil Court (Bengaluru) Judge" when vigilance wing of the Karnataka High Court raided the same.
This was then followed by the three news channels, BTV who even showed a video clip of alleged seized notes being counted. The bench in its order said:
"We are showing leniency reluctantly also because we do not have the heart to send anybody to jail."
The respondents, in this case, have been told to deposit the amount of cost with the High Court, Registrar General, within eight weeks, of the order being made available.
Who will pay how much?
In the case of BTV, which has been imposed a cost of ₹ 20 lakh, a Court has directed it to pay ₹ 10 lakh, within 8 weeks and the remaining amount within 16 weeks of the order made available. The cost imposed on Deccan Herald is ₹30 lakh. On TV5, ₹8 lakh, Digvijay TV, ₹10 lakh.
Moral Suasion by Court
Deccan Herald had been asked to carry out an internal disciplinary inquiry against the reporter, which is to be conducted by a retired Judicial Officer. Apart from this, every organization has also assured of taking steps for regulating news flow and putting up a check for publishing judicial news.
The Court held:
"The report published by Deccan Herald is nothing but scandalizing the court, when no material available to the newspaper, to print the news as headline which has a circulation of 2.2 lakh. The reports show the High Court in poor light, as it suggests that the administration is bypassing all laws and conduction investigation, against judicial officers which are bound by a set of rules."
The bench further stated:
"The news item must have been seen by family members, relatives, and friends of judges. Judicial officers have no protection. Rule of self constraint requires, not to respond to incorrect reports. The report not only scandalizes the institution but lowers the status of the institution in the mind of citizens and litigants. We as judges of the constitutional court have abundant powers, to protect the rights of citizens. But when it comes to such frivolous allegations we are hardly able to protect it."
The Court accepted the state's suggestion to deposit the amount with the registrar general which can be used for repairs and renovation of judicial officer's quarters, at National Games Village, Koramangala.
The Court also directed that the guidelines suggestions made by Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi would be considered by the High Court on the administrative level.
What were the suggestions?
*Each of the Television and print media houses that have correspondents covering legal proceedings both at the high courts a well as the trial courts must ensure that correspondents are well trained in reporting on legal proceedings and must preferably have basic legal education.
* The Designated court reporters must be registered with the registrar of the high court.
* Each of the reporters must at all times wear an identification badge to be issued after due registration with the Registrar of the High Court.
* As a matter of self-regulation, the media must exercise caution and restraint while reporting on everyday court proceedings, since observations are often made in the courts that are tentative in nature and do not form the final opinion of the court. Reporters must show restraint while reporting such observations since the wrong message is often portrayed to the public that the court has already formed an opinion on a case that is sub-judice. This causes great prejudice both to the parties and to the administration of justice
The judgement has been passed by Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar on 28-01-2020.
