The Kerala High Court recently issued a scathing critique of the media's involvement in legal matters and urged for responsible conduct. The court's remarks came while upholding the appointment of Priya Varghese, the wife of KK Ragesh, a prominent leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's private secretary, as an associate professor. Earlier, a single bench had invalidated Varghese's appointment to the Malayalam Department at Kannur University, sparking a controversy between Governor Arif Mohammed Khan and the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government. The governor suspended the appointment, alleging political favoritism and rule violations.
Brief Facts:
In the writ petition, Dr. Joseph Skariah, an Assistant Professor at St. Berchman's College, Changanassery, challenges the validity of the Kannur University's notification (Ext.P4) that published the provisional rank list for the selection of Associate Professor in the Department of Malayalam. The petitioner contended that the top-ranked candidate, the appellant in the writ petition, lacks the minimum required experience and was favored in the selection process. Earlier the Single Judge focused on whether the appellant's experience qualified as teaching/research experience for eligibility purposes. The Single Judge concluded that the appellant's experience during deputation under the Faculty Development Programme and as the Director of Student Services at Kannur University could not be considered as teaching/research experience under the UGC Regulations, 2018. The Single Judge also ruled that the absence of the University as a party did not affect the petitioner's case, as the Registrar had not raised any objection. Varghese challenged the decision through a writ filed with the High Court, arguing that her credentials should be reevaluated.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant's counsel argued that the writ petition was defective due to the non-inclusion of Kannur University as a necessary party. They contended that the University's actions and compliance with the directions issued by the Single Judge could not be determined without its participation. The counsel also asserted that the appellant's deputation under the Faculty Development Programme should be considered as research experience concurrent with teaching experience. Additionally, they claimed that the appellant's experience as the Director of Student Services should be recognized as teaching/research experience, citing reports and policies that emphasize the importance of new teaching approaches and the recognition of outstanding contributions in the educational system.
Observations by the Court:
In response, the division bench of the High Court overturned the single bench's decision and upheld her appointment. However, the court did not shy away from criticizing the media for its role in the matter. It condemned the unjustified comments and remarks, stating that such reporting harms the litigant's dignity and reputation. The court stressed the importance of responsible journalistic conduct and urged the media to exercise restraint in discussing pending cases to avoid obstructing the course of justice.
The Court acknowledged that the media should exercise caution when reporting on court proceedings, as not all statements made by a judge during a hearing necessarily reflect their final views on the case. The Court emphasized that the media should be mindful of the potential harm caused to a litigant's reputation and dignity by unjustified comments and remarks, particularly when based on oral remarks made by a judge during the adjudication process. Even if a litigant ultimately succeeds in their case, the media should be aware that the Chief Justice of India himself recently stated that not everything said by a judge during interactions with counsel in court should be taken as indicative of the judge's opinion on the case's merits.
In a separate incident, the Kerala High Court reprimanded the media for its inappropriate reporting of a court proceeding. Justice Ubaid expressed disappointment with false media reports that claimed the court had directed the change of the state vigilance director. The court clarified that it had merely questioned the government's actions and did not issue any such directive.
The court also criticized the attempts by some journalists and advocates to link the pending proceeding to other matters under the Prevention of Corruption Act, deeming it dishonest and contemptuous. It emphasized that the court can only speak through judicial orders and expressed concern over the unhealthy instances of investigative excess related to the state's Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau.
In both cases, the Kerala High Court called on the media to respect the right to privacy and the reputation of litigants. It highlighted the recently recognized fundamental right to privacy and its application against not only the state but also private entities like the media. The court expressed hope that the media would take note of these observations and adopt a code of responsible journalistic conduct in their news reporting.
The decision of the Court:
The writ petition was allowed.
Case Name: Priya Varghese V Dr. Joseph Skariah
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammed Nias C P
Case No.: W.A.No. 27 OF 2023
Advocates of the Appellant: Senior Advocate Ranjith Thampan and Adv. Sri.K.S.Arun Kumar
Advocates of the Respondent: Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, Adv. Sri.Santharam P., Senior Advocate P Ravindran, Adv. I. V. Pramod, Senior Advocate Dr S Gopakumaran Nair, Adv S Krishnamoorthy, Adv. TB Hood.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
