As web-based media sites publish a woman's allegations of sexual harassment against CJI Ranjan Gogoi, the Supreme Court Secretariat denies all charges and Justice Gogoi recuses himself from passing orders. He says it is a larger conspiracy to destabilize the judiciary

News Snippets

  • BCCI ombudsman fines Hardik Pandya and KL Rahul Rs 20 lakhs each for misogynistic comments on the chat show Koffee With Karan
  • Buzz around BJP fielding Sunny Deol from Amritsar as Amit Shah meets the actor
  • EC bans web series on Modi and asks the channel to take down all content
  • #MeToo reaches Supreme Court. Former junior research assistant levels sexual harassment charges against CJI Ranjan Gogoi
  • In West Bengal, official in charge of EVMs goes missing but EC says it is for personal reasons
  • Mulayam and Mayawati share the stage at Mainpuri to bury 24-year old enmity
  • After nation-wide outrage, Pragya apologizes and says Karkare was a martyr who was killed by enemy bullets
  • BJP says Pragya's statement are her personal views
  • Pragya Thakur, Malegaon blasts accused and BJP candidate from Bhopal, says police officer Hemant Karkare of anti-terror squad, tortured her in jail and was killed in the 26/11 operations due to her "curse"
  • PM Modi defends choice of Pragya Thakur as BJP's contestant from Bhopal
  • India suspends trade across the Line of Control with Pakistan
  • PM Modi says Pak PM Imran Khan tried to influence Indian elections with "reverse swing" by making comments favouring him
  • 66% voting recorded in phase 2. sporadic violence reported from many places, especially West Bengal
  • Election Commission bans chowkidar chor hai campaign in MP
  • BJP workers' son commits suicide by hanging from a tree in West Bengal
tejasvisurya
Gagging The Media: What is Tejasvi Surya Afraid Of?

By Sunil Garodia

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.

Why do trial courts ignore the stated position of the Supreme Court of India in certain cases? In fact, the question should be how can they do so? The apex court has, as recently as in 2017, clarified that there is no law in India that allows pre-broadcast or pre-publication regulation of content. Yet, lower courts, especially in Karnataka, routinely favour applicants with temporary ex parte injunctions against the media to prevent it from publishing anything that might be considered unfavourable to the applicant. It seems these courts are following their own idea about what comprises a restriction on free speech.

In the latest instance, a Karnataka court has granted Tejasvi Surya, the BJP candidate from Bangalore South Lok Sabha constituency, a temporary ex parte injunction against 49 print, television and digital media entities. The order restrains them from publishing any material that might be “defamatory” against Surya. The order remains in force till May 26 when the media houses will be heard. By that time the results of the elections will be declared and Surya’s purpose will be served. The young candidate from Bangalore is starting his life in electoral politics on the wrong foot and is likely to lose many admirers by choosing this course of action.

In issuing the order, the Karnataka judge cited the Karnataka High Court decision in the case AK Subbaiah vs BN Garudachar in 1986. But it defies logic that the judge limited himself to a high court order and chose to ignore several apex court orders – R Rajagopal vs State of TN (1994), Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras (1950) and Brij Bhushan and Anr. vs State of Delhi (1950), among others – that uphold freedom of speech and discourage ex parte injunction.

The injunction granted to Tejasvi Surya effectively means that no media house can publish or broadcast any material that can be deemed defamatory. This is pre-censorship or prior-restraint, which is the vilest form of gag. An ex parte injunction is defined as “a judicial proceeding, order, or injunction is said to be ex parte when it is taken or granted at the instance and for the benefit of one party only and without notice to or contestation by, any person adversely interested." But this cannot be done without reason. There has to be a prima facie case and strong reasons for granting such orders. Further, in this case, it is not the media that is adversely affected – it is the people of Bangalore South who will be choosing an MP without having the benefit of knowing things about him which the candidate is preventing them from publishing or broadcasting through this injunction order.

Instead of gagging the press, Surya should have presented his point of view if and when anything that he considered defamatory was published against him. He could have moved court against the ‘erring’ media house. That is the way it should be done in a democracy. Restraint orders just on a future assumption of guilt are against the rule of law. When these orders are against the media, they strike at the very foundation of the fourth pillar of democracy. The trend of granting such orders by lower courts in Karnataka is dangerous and the state high court and the Supreme Court must look into the matter and prevent the lower courts from issuing such orders at the drop of a hat.

In Depth

holymenandthecurse

Pragya Thakur, Sakshi Maharaj And The Power Of The Curse

Editor's Pick

chowkidar stay alert

Yes, I Would Like My Children To Be Chowkidars

Election Special - National

EC acts

EC Acts To Ban Yogi, Mayawati, Maneka and Azam Khan From Campaigning

Election Special - States

evms and naidu

Who Is Defeating Chandrababu Naidu – Jagan Reddy Or EVMs?

mobiles