INTRODUCTION

The existence of free and fearless media in a democratic society is eminent. Media not only provides information but also acts as a catalyst in forming opinions of millions of people, thereby, educating the citizenry about the happenings around the globe. It is irrefutable that the pivotal role of media has resulted in greatest gains for the people. Free media is a result of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression available with it.[1]

The media is expected to work within the framework of the Constitution and the other rules and regulations laid down by the Press Council of India. To keep a check on the misuse by it on the freedom provided to it, an independent judiciary is a necessity. The working of both judiciary and media in harmony are important for the working of the democracy and for ensuring maximum justice. However often when media tries to interfere with the administration of justice, the judiciary using its power guaranteed by the Constitution, imposes reasonable restrictions on media’s freedom of speech and expression as specified under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

 One such reasonable restriction specified is Contempt of Court. Contempt of Court is a medium through which the judiciary upholds its dignity. This limitation ensures that no outside force can intrude into the course of justice. Apart from Article 19(2), Article 129[2] and Article 215[3] of the constitution protect the contempt of court proceedings. 

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

          The first legislation was the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 which after several amendments is Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Being courts of record, the Supreme Court and the High Court have inherent power to take the proceedings under contempt of court. Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the said act define civil and criminal contempt respectively. Civil contempt is the disobedience of the orders of the any court. Criminal contempt refers to any publication (whether by words spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations) which scandalizes the court, prejudices the proceedings, interferes with administration of justice.[4] The publications which fails to fulfill the conditions mentioned in section 3 would not lead to contempt of court, as section 3 protects an individual from contempt proceedings if done in ignorance of a pending suit. The defenses available to the contempt proceedings are mentioned in section 4 and 5 of the act. It is to be noted that it won’t amount to contempt of court when the publication is not made during the pendency of the case.[5] Furthermore, the question of pendency won’t occur when the contempt is relating to Sec 2(c) (i), i.e., scandalizing any court. Sub judice means a matter which is under a judge or which is pending, it is further defined by the explanation of section 3(2) of the act.

Interference by the Media

The reason behind initiating contempt proceedings is not to restrict freedom of speech and expression but to stop disruption to administration of justice. Sometimes due to over enthusiasm the media tends to cross the limits by vigilant reporting in matters which are subjudice. This results in media trails, wrong public opinion, giving away of misinformation. The important aspect of public faith in the justice of the country gets affected.

Sometimes extensive coverage during the trail can violate a person’s right to free trail. Right to Free trail essentially means a trail without any extra pressure. In the Kathua gang rape case which happened in January 2018, some media houses revealed the identity of the minor victim. The Delhi High court took suo moto cognizance and ordered those media houses to deposit ₹10 lakhs as penalty. Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 228A make revealing of identity of rape victim a punishable offence.[6]

Another example which is of relevance here is of the accused of 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack. The media channels even before the final judgement held debated and declared by itself that the accused will be hanged to death[7]. Such acts of the media lower the importance of the courts in the eyes of the people. It is thus important for the courts to use contempt of courts proceedings as a shield against the interfering acts of media to avoid violation of the accused and victim’s right to free trail and any serious risk of prejudice.

In the case of R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court[8], the Supreme Court stated that a report relating to a subjudice matter can be published only after the prior consent of the courts or it would amount to consequences. It also stated that due to provoking publications by media, regardless of the result, the public will hold the accused guilty.

Fair and Accurate Report

            According to Section 4 of the act, there can be no contempt of court proceedings against the media when the publication of the report of the judicial proceedings is fair and accurate, subject to section 7.[9] Furthermore Section 5 of the act allows a fair criticism of any case which has been heard and decided. If found guilty of contempt of court, the punishment can be a simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or a fine which may extent to two thousand rupees or both.[10] The reason behind inclusion of fair criticism is that justice should be seen to be done and should be open to scrutiny.

In the landmark case of Ram Dayal v. State of UP[11], the Supreme Court laid the test to judge whether a particular publication is fair and reasonable. It stated that if the criticism is likely to hinder the administration of justice or threaten the confidence of public in the court of justice, the criticism shall not be considered as fair and accurate.

The Press Council of India

The Press Council of India has laid down several guidelines for the functioning of print media. The print media is expected to follow these guidelines and conform to the ethics of journalism. However the interesting point here is that there is no provision which lets the Press Council to enforce compliance of the guidelines and ethics. If such a provision is laid down, it would lead to a shift towards fair and responsible journalism.

CONCLUSION

          The public can be a part of the democracy only when there is transparency in the functioning of every pillar. Thus except for certain cases openness should be the order of the day for the judiciary as its strength lies in the confidence of people. On the other hand the media, also called as the fourth estate, should work with utmost responsibility to march towards the goal of successful democracy. It should keep in mind that its freedom of speech and expression is not only for its own benefit but for the benefit of the whole nation. Rare conflict of interest between the judiciary and the media is common however lack of respect between the two can hamper the administration of justice and truth.