oppn parties The Shillong Times Case: Contempt Of Court Or Highhandedness?

News Snippets

  • For the first time in history, Darjeeling loses first flush tea due to suspension of garden work for Covid-19 outbreak
  • Supreme Court asks journalists to be responsible and publish only the official version of news after it was brought to its notice that migrant exodus started after the 'fake' news that the lockdown will be extended to three months
  • Small saving rates slashed by the government by 140 basis points
  • The Centre says that the exodus of the migrants was stopped to save villages and prevent community transmission
  • The Centre says March 31 will remain the closing date for FY 2019-2020 and no change will be made for Covid-19 disruption
  • Tablighi Jamaat fiasco puts several states on high alert, attendees and their contacts being traced
  • Stock markets recover on the last day of the financial year, but the sentiment remains weak
  • The government says Covid-19 is still in local transmission stage in India
  • Government scotches rumours of extending the lockdown beyond April14. Says no such plan
  • Centre asks states to give shelter and food to migrant workers to stop them from taking to the streets
  • RBI cuts repo rate by 75 bps, the steepest in 10 years
  • Centre writes to states regarding laxity in monitoring people who had arrived from abroad between January and March
  • Kerala reports a spurt in new cases
  • With 124 fresh cases on Friday, the number of reported cases in India stand at 854
  • Five of a family, including a 9-month-old-baby test positive for Covid-19 in Nadia district in West Bengal on Friday
Total count stands ar 3082 as India records 16 Covid-19 deaths, the highest in a single day
oppn parties
The Shillong Times Case: Contempt Of Court Or Highhandedness?

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2019-03-16 12:14:15

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.
Should a publication comment on issues involving perks being paid to retired judges? The Mehgalaya High Court thinks it should not. It has hauled up Patricia Mukhim, the editor of Shillong Times and the publisher of the paper for contempt of court, ordered them to sit in a corner of the court till the court rose for the day and imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh each, failing which they could face arrest. The court also issued a veiled warning for closing down the newspaper.

The issue at hand was the unilateral decision of the Meghalaya government to withdraw certain perks given to retired judges without consulting the administrative side of the high court. The matter was not resolved for two months despite discussions between the government and the administrative wing of the court. Then the High Court took suo motu cognizance and issued some directions. Shillong Times published the news along with a commentary on the subject which was critical of the fact that the judges were judging themselves. The court thought it was a contemptuous remark.

But is it really so? Doesn’t a publication have the right to point out to its readers that the judges were passing orders that would benefit their own despite the elected government having withdrawn the facilities? It did not indulge in character assassination or implied any wrongdoing on part of the judges. It just questioned the propriety of judges passing orders that would benefit their retired co-workers, and down the line them too when they retired. The Supreme Court had, in the case of BCCI, clearly said that conflict of interest is a huge issue and should be avoided. Didn’t conflict apply in this case?

The Meghalaya High Court chose to declare that the publication was always working against judges and the judicial system. It also made sweeping remarks that the newspaper attacked institutions and individuals and published propaganda calling for bandhs. In short, it tried to portray Shillong Times as an insidious pamphlet instead of a venerable newspaper that it is. It was highhandedness on its part. The Supreme Court has already stayed the order. The high court should now be lenient and reconsider and withdraw the order. While it is no one’s case that people should be allowed to criticize the judiciary without reason or publish self-serving commentaries against court orders, there is also a case not to stifle free speech and freedom of press by using the contempt law indiscriminately. A balance needs to be struck.