Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: The Court, on its own motion, took cognizance of a report published by The Hindu and ETV Bharat, which alleged that the roster alteration by the then Acting Chief Justice was intended to disable a particular Bench from hearing National Investigation Agency (‘NIA’) and habeas corpus matters.
The Division Bench of Sanjeev Kumar* and Rahul Bharti, JJ., accepted the unconditional apology tendered by The Hindu and ETV Bharat, and closed the contempt proceedings while cautioning them to keep in mind the due diligence when reporting about the Court proceedings and its functioning.
Background:
The proceedings arose from a report published by The Hindu and republished by ETV Bharat, suggesting that the alterations in the High Court’s case Roster were made to shift sensitive NIA and habeas corpus cases away from a particular Bench.
The Division Bench of the Court passed an order dated 03-09-2024, directing placing of the initiation of contempt proceedings with respect to publication of the objectionable news item, for consideration before the then Acting Chief Justice, who felt satisfied and directed to take up the criminal contempt proceedings against the publishers of the newspapers and listed the matter for further proceeding before this Bench.
This Bench, on 05-09-2024, finding that the material requisite for effectively proceeding in the case had not been made available on the file posted, directed the Registry to place on record copy of the news item published in ‘The Hindu’ newspaper along with the particulars of its Managing Editor, Editor, Regional Editor, Printer and Publisher(s) and also that of ‘ETV Bharat English TV’, which had published and carried the news item in the newspaper/portal. Upon the report of the Registrar, seven people were made party respondents out of which Respondents 1 to 5 were related to ‘The Hindu’ and Respondents 6 and 7 were from ‘ETV Bharat English TV’.
Initially, The Hindu wanted to contest the contempt proceedings but later, it tendered an unconditional apology in writing supported by an affidavit on 03-02-2025. Similarly, Respondents 6 and 7 also filed two separate unconditional apologies.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court went through the respondents’ unconditional apologies and felt convinced that the repentance and regret shown by the respondents was bona fide as they had realized the seriousness of their mistake while distortional reporting with respect to setting and fixation of Roster by the then Acting Chief Justice. The Court acknowledged that it welcomed without any reservation an accurate and critical reporting not only of its order or judgment, but also of its working, provided it was made in good faith, with a mindset to highlight the deficiencies and also to contribute in furthering the improvements in the judicial system and its working.
The Court emphasized that the Courts were open to public discourse, and the journalists were there to act as a bridge between the judiciary and society. The freedom of press, implicit in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, was subject inter alia to caveat of non-interference in the administration of justice and law of contempt of Courts. It was, thus, an imperative for the journalists to ensure that they did not print and publish inaccurate, false, misleading or self-fancied information. The Court highlighted that it was the bounden duty and responsibility of the media to avoid the temptation of scandalization and attributing motives by innuendoes with respect to judiciary and judges, relying on sources that were not reliable.
The Court opined that any news, in respect of Courts and its working, made with a motive and potentiality, latent or patent, of degrading the judicial institution or lowering its prestige in the eyes of general public, shook and eroded the public trust in the Courts of law and therefore, must be viewed as nothing less than an ill-motivated interference in the administration of justice rendering such a publication to fall within the purview of criminal contempt, as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Court noted that the publication of information in respect of alteration of Roster seemed to be an innocuous publication for information dissemination, if done in good faith. However, in the present case, the publication suggested an underlying intent to bring the High Court as an institution to disrepute and distrust. The Court pointed out that the preparation of Roster on the directions of the Chief Justice and its alteration was published by the Registrar General of High Court and was also available on the High Court’s official website. Therefore, there was hardly any need for any newspaper or news portal to add any angle of information regarding it.
The Court further observed that no such news item, carried by any online or offline mode of newspaper publication, about the fixation of Roster in the High Court by the Chief Justice, was ever published and that the publication of the offending information while lacking good faith was counted as an attempt to scandalize the High Court’s functioning and to erode the faith of general public in the justice delivery system with respect to the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
The Court opined that the fixation of Roster was an administrative side domain and function performed by the Chief Justice but the same was directly concerned with the dispensation of justice by the High Court and observed that the Court was, thus, fully justified in taking serious cognizance of the matter and in initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. But considering that Respondents 1 to 5 promptly realised their misconduct under the colour of journalistic liberty and withdrew the impugned publication from the website and likewise Respondent 6 and 7 also removed it from their portal within two hours, the Court accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents and dropped the contempt proceedings initiated against them.
Further, the Court cautioned the respondents to remain extra careful in future while reporting about the Court proceedings and its functioning.
[Court on its own motion v. Suresh Nambath, CCP No.19 of 2024, decided on 22-08-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sanjeev Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Respondents: Abid Hamid vice Salih Peerzada, Advocates.
