Exceptions in Contempt of Courts Act

The Contempt of Courts Act itself says that “fair and accurate” reports of judicial proceedings are not contemptuous (section 4) and nor is fair criticism/comment on the merits of a case which has been decided (section 5). What this means is that for any court to hold a journalist in contempt of court for their writings, it isn’t sufficient that the journalist was critical of the court, or that what they said wasn’t flattering to the court. There has to be falsehood , there has to be inaccuracy , and when it comes to commentary, there has to be unfairness .

The Articles and Social Media Posts Weren’t False or Defamatory

It is difficult to see how the articles in The Shillong Times fail to meet this standard. The first article, which Justice Sen took exception to, was a factual report of the proceedings, and as constitutional lawyer Gautam Bhatia shows here , the description of the facts is essentially the same as Justice Sen’s version of events. The next article, ‘When judges judge for themselves,’ makes no editorial comment on Justice Sen’s decision to direct the government to provide benefits for retired judges and their families and doesn’t’ claim he did it for himself or his family. It is an incontestable fact that the Justice Sen was set to retire in March 2019, and that he had also passed this order. For judges to pass orders for security or benefits for themselves when they retire is not improper or illegal, and the articles do not make any such claims. The news report also clearly explained that Justice Sen was actually just reinstating an old protocol. Perhaps Justice Sen was displeased with the headline for the second article, in which case the unconditional apology offered by Mukhim and the other accused should have been sufficient, since there was no malice behind it. Justice Sen expressly rejected this apology, which he thinks was extended just as a ploy to avoid punishment, though it is unclear on what basis this has been decided. Of course, Justice Sen and the amicus lawyers might point to the social media posts of Mukhim as proof of the insincerity of her apology, but it is again a stretch to view these as contemptuous.

Worrying Observations by the Court

Justice Sen’s order also makes two other points, which are worrying. First, he disapproves of Mukhim’s comments on how judges are fed gossip by a “coterie (of) lawyers who are selectively called as amicus curiae.” Supposedly, this shows how little respect she has for the “majesty” of the court, but surely this is an overreach of the contempt powers, by extending it to lawyers rather than the judges. Second, he also mentions two other articles in The Shillong Times as being problematic: One which says the “HNCL” has said a high court judge should step down; and another on the Supreme Court staying a Meghalaya High Court judgment – according to the judge, the SC never did this. Both these references have nothing to do with the contempt charges against Mukhim, and should have no bearing whatsoever. Moreover, there was nothing factually inaccurate about the first reference, and even if there were doubts about the second reference, The Shillong Times certainly wasn’t the only organisation which reported it thus. The first reference was to a report on a comment passed by a local militant group on Justice Sen’s controversial judgment in an immigration case, where he had said India should have become a Hindu country, which was reported in other publications as well. Similarly, the second reference, to an SC stay, was also reported by NDTV , The Hindu , Hindustan Times and others on the basis of a PTI report.

ADVERTISEMENTREMOVE AD

Members Only

Contempt Order Against Patricia Mukhim Unjustified on Law & Facts

Articles disapproved of by the Meghalaya HC were factually accurate, and punishment exceeded what the law allows.

Vakasha Sachdev

Published: 12 Mar 2019, 5:41 PM IST

Opinion

Small

Medium

Large

Is any criticism of the courts of India a crime?

That’s the simple question that the Meghalaya High Court’s contempt order against Patricia Mukhim, editor of The Shillong Times, boils down to. The court’s order is an answer to this question and it is one that the entire media fraternity should respectfully disagree with.

BECOME A MEMBER

Contempt Order Against Patricia Mukhim Unjustified on Law & Facts

Articles disapproved of by the Meghalaya HC were factually accurate, and punishment exceeded what the law allows.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion

Topics: Contempt of Court Shillong Times Patricia Mukhim