1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1683/2011
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4876 of 2011)
SANJOY NARAYAN EDITOR IN CHIEF HINDUSTAN & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
HON. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD THR. R.G. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
04.04.2011 passed by the Allahabad High Court.
3. The appellants being aggrieved by the aforesaid order
had filed this appeal on which we issued notice. On service
of the notice, the respondent has also entered appearance
through counsel.
4. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties.
The appellants have now filed an affidavit which is on record
tendering unqualified apology for the publication of article
in question in Hindustan Times on 20.09.2010 out of which
contempt proceedings arise.
5. The media, be it electronic or print media, is
2
generally called the fourth pillar of democracy. The media,
in all its forms, whether electronic or print, discharges a
very onerous duty of keeping the people knowledgeable and
informed.
6. The impact of media is far-reaching as it reaches not
only the people physically but also influences them mentally.
It creates opinions, broadcasts different points of view,
brings to the fore wrongs and lapses of the Government and all
other governing bodies and is an important tool in restraining
corruption and other ill-effects of society. The media
ensures that the individual actively participates in the
decision-making process. The right to information is
fundamental in encouraging the individual to be a part of the
governing process. The enactment of the Right to Information
Act is the most empowering step in this direction. The role
of people in a democracy and that of active debate is
essential for the functioning of a vibrant democracy.
7. With this immense power, comes the burden of
responsibility. With the huge amount of information that they
process, it is the responsibility of the media to ensure that
they are not providing the public with information that is
factually wrong, biased or simply unverified information. The
right to freedom of speech is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of
3
the Constitution. However, this right is restricted by
Article 19(2) in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity
of India, security of the State, public order, decency and
morality and also Contempt of Courts Act and defamation.
8. The unbridled power of the media can become dangerous
if check and balance is not inherent in it. The role of the
media is to provide to the readers and the public in general
with information and views tested and found as true and
correct. This power must be carefully regulated and must
reconcile with a person’s fundamental right to privacy. Any
wrong or biased information that is put forth can potentially
damage the otherwise clean and good reputation of the person
or institution against whom something adverse is reported.
Pre-judging the issues and rushing to conclusions must be
avoided.
9. This is exactly what has happened in the present case.
The then Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court who has
otherwise proved himself to be a competent and good Judge
wherever he was posted during his career was brought under a
cloud by the reporting which is the subject matter of this
petition. His image was sought to be tarnished by a newspaper
report which was apparently based on surmises and conjectures
and not based on facts and figures. The dignity of the courts
4
and the people’s faith in administration must not be tarnished
because of biased and unverified reporting. In order to avoid
such biased reporting, one must be careful to verify the facts
and do some research on the subject being reported before a
publication is brought out.
10. We are glad that the persons against whom contempt
proceedings were initiated for a wrong and incorrect reporting
about the then Chief Justice as aforesaid have understood
their mistake and have expressed their repentance through
their advocate and also themselves by filing an unqualified
apology before us for the wrong done.
11. On going through the impugned order also we find that
apology tendered before the Allahabad High Court was not
accepted only because it was felt that the same was not
unqualified. Now, by filing an affidavit they have tendered
unconditional apology.
12. The judiciary also must be magnanimous in accepting an
apology when filed through an affidavit duly sworn, conveying
remorse for such publication. This indicates that they have
accepted their mistake and fault. This Court has also time
and again reiterated that this Court is not hypersensitive in
matter relating to Contempt of Courts Act and has always shown
5
magnanimity in accepting the apology. Therefore, we accept
the aforesaid unqualified apology submitted by them and drop
the proceeding.
13. With the aforesaid observations, we order for closure
of the proceedings initiated against the appellants herein
under the Contempt of Courts Act by keeping the affidavit
filed by the appellants on record with a direction to the
appellants to publish the apology as stated in the affidavit
in the first page of Lucknow edition of Hindustan Times to be
published on 01.09.2011 and also at such other place, wherever
there was any such publication, in a daily issue of the
newspaper at some prominent place of the newspaper.
14. We appreciate the gesture of the counsel appearing for
the parties and also for the fact they endorse the same view
as expressed in this order.
15. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
directions and observations.
…………………..J
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
………………….J
(ANIL R. DAVE)
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 30, 2011
6
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.11 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4876/2011
(From the judgement and order dated 04/04/2011 in CACRL
No.20/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)
SANJOY NARAYAN EDITOR IN CHIEF HINDUSTAN & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
HON. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD THR. R.G. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for stay and office report)
Date: 30/08/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. Sharan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv.
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ravi P. Mehrotra, Adv.
Mr. Vibhu Tiwari, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed
reportable order.
(NAVEEN KUMAR) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)
7
