oppn parties CJI N V Ramana Warns Electronic Media Against Running Kangaroo Courts

News Snippets

  • Maharashtra cabinet is likely to bee expanded today with the Shiv Sena and the BJP equally sharing the new berths
  • Kapil Sibal says there is 'no hope left' in Supreme Court, slammed by law minister Kiren Rijiju
  • Centre tells Rajya Sabha that Bengal got zero MGNREGS payout this fiscal for not complying with Central directives
  • Monsoon session of Parliament ends 4 days early
  • Chess Olympiad: India A, comprising Tania Sachdev, Koneru Humoy and Bhakti, among others, look set to win gold
  • CWG: India's best ever perrformance with 22 golds, 16 silvers and 23 bronze medals and 4th position on the table
  • CWG: Sharath Kamal wins gold in men's singles in table tennis
  • CWG: Satwik-Chirag win gold in men's doubles in badminton
  • CWG: PV Sindhu wins gold in women's singles in badminton
  • CWG: Lakshya Sen wins gold in men's singles in badminton
  • Mamata Banerjee says states should not be forced to implement the NEP
  • PM Modi asks states to raise farm output
  • Differences between JD(U) and BJP in Bihar came to fore again as JD(U) chief Lalan Singh accused the BJP of repeating the Chirag Paswan model with RCP Singh
  • CWG: Lakhsya Sen and PV Sindhu enter finals in badminton while Sharath Kamal enters TT finals
  • CWG: Indian women lose to Australia by 9 runs in cricket to settle for silver
Nitish Kumar resigns as Bihar chief minister, breaks alliance with the BJP /////// Most likely will form the government in alliance with RJD, Congress and Left parties
oppn parties
CJI N V Ramana Warns Electronic Media Against Running Kangaroo Courts

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2022-07-24 11:50:11

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

CJI N V Ramana tore into the electronic and social media for "overstepping and breaching" their responsibility and asked them to self-regulate and not test "the patience of the judges" in "inviting external regulations of their activities."

Justice Ramana was concerned that a section of the electronic media was running "kangaroo courts" and discussing issues which "even experienced judges find difficult to decide." He called these debates "ill-informed and agenda-driven" and said that such debates "on issues involving justice delivery are proving to be detrimental to the health of democracy. Biased views being propagated by the media are affecting the people, weakening democracy and harming the system."

There is no doubt that the judgments delivered by Supreme Court judges are open to analysis by experts. There is also no doubt that the experts can differ from the interpretation of the judges. But the difference between these expert analysis and the so-called debates on electronic media is that while the former is backed by points of law, the latter is not and worse, it seeks to impute motives to judges.

Any judge who delivers an order does so by applying the law on the basis on facts, evidence and arguments presented before the bench. The judgment is purely according to his or her reading of the law and its applicability in the case at hand. That is why some judges on a large bench issue dissenting judgments. But that does not mean that a judge is right or wrong on the same matter but just that his or her reading of the law is different. Of course, as in most other things, in the judiciary too, the rule of the majority prevails.

It is wrong on part of the electronic media to call 'experts' with questionable credentials to 'debate' on important judgments. The way these debates are conducted, it seems that a section of the media is bent on projecting some judges as biased. Yes some judges are guilty of making unwarranted oral observations in some cases and the Supreme Court must also tackle this issue but their judgments are always as per law. If someone is aggrieved with any judgment, he or she can seek further legal remedy but rubbishing a judgment or imputing motives to a judge, without backing it up with facts, is not the right way. The electronic media should heed CJI Ramana's warning, exercise restraint and self-regulate, failing which the judges might intervene and issue orders imposing restrictions. Why should media as a whole suffer for the wrongdoings of some agenda-driven channels?