HIGH COURT OF KERALA Vs. PRITISH NANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Illustrated Weekly of India has a pride of place, so we understand, in the journalistic world. It cannot afford to fish for trouble. And "Troubled Times", an article published in its issue dated July 7-13, 1985, seems to be a "trouble-maker" Vilification of a Judge of a High Court naturally transcends the permissible limits of journalistic discretion, and rightly forfeits constitutional protection. Press has freedom; necessarily it is powerful; but this freedom cannot be mortgaged to cheap publicity; nor is it assured by any aggressive posture against the judiciary. Justice is not so blind as to invite its own destruction. So, the publisher and author of the article "Troubled Times" have thus landed themselves in trouble.

(2.) Courts initiate proceedings suo motu under the Contempt of Courts Act sparingly, as a compelling obligation in very exceptional circumstances of urgency and imperative need. Newspapers the Illustrated Weekly can be broadly described as belonging to this category, it is said, are "surrogates for the public". When, pandering to sensationalism, forgetting century old traditions and cherished journalistic values, a publication makes a direct attack against the Judges, imputing oblique motives in the dispensation of justice, the moment of compulsion for suo motu action arises. A single statement in the press is sometimes sufficient to inflict irreparable injury to the judiciary. The article "Troubled Times" has unfortunately aroused revolting curiosity in the minds of its readership. Let us remember Lord Denning, when he says:

(3.) Judicial magnanimity cannot be so elastic as to encourage speech and action which damage the confidence of the public in our judicial system and which demoralise Judges, in the discharge of their duties without fear or favour. We recognise the constitutional values of free criticism and the importance of the role assigned to the Fourth Estate. However, this power could not be so abused as to destroy the very edifice of judiciary. The majesty of law cannot be allowed to be maligned by contemners, whether it be the press or a member of the public. Independent judiciary is the hallmark of a civilized society. It is the duty of every one who adheres to the principles of liberty, democracy and rule of law to see that the institutions of democracy are not devalued before the public and the democratic institutions are not denuded of the public confidence. The constitutional guarantee under Art.19(1)(a) of freedom of speech and expression certainly entitles the Fourth Estate, to act as a living instrument to strengthen the forces of democracy, as an indispensable intermediary between the State and the people, but within responsible reasonable limits of public accountability. It is useful to remember the observations of Frankfurter J., in Pennekamp v. Florida ( 328 US 331 ):