remarks of judges - to exercise restraint by deferring discussions on matters pending before the court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2023/1ST ASHADHA, 1945
W.A.NO.27 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2022 IN WP(C).NO.26918/2022 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C).NO.26918/2022:
PRIYA VARGHESE
AGED 43 YEARS
D/O.K.C VARGHESE, PRAXIS, KANJIROD, KOODALI PO,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670592
BY ADV.SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)(K/276/1990)
BY ADV.SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
BY ADV.SMT.AMRUTHA P S
BY ADV.SRI.VIJAY SANKAR V.H.
BY ADV.SMT.SRUTHY UNNIKRISHNAN
BY ADV.SRI.SAQIB RIZWAN
BY ADV.SRI.JERIN JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4, 6 & 7 IN W.P.
(C).NO.26918/2022:
1 DR. JOSEPH SKARIAH
AGED 52 YEARS, CHIRAKUZHY, THURUTHY P.O,
CHANGANASSETY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686535
2 CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES IN KERALA
KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KERALA RAJ BHAVAN,
KERALA GOVERNER'S CAMP PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695099
3 VICE CHANCELLOR (SELECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN)
KANNUR UNIVERSITY, CIVIL STATION,
THAVAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002
Neutral Citation Number :2023:KER:34337
W.A.NO.27 OF 2023 :: 2 ::
4 SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, ANNEX 11, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
5 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR, (MALAYALAM)
KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS CONVENOR,
KANNUR UNIVERSITY, CIVIL STATION, THAVAKKARA,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002
6 THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY
CIVIL STATION, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670002
7 THE CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC),
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110000
34.
...
courts have time and again exhorted the print and
electronic media to exercise restraint by deferring discussions on matters
pending before the court so that the rule of law can be better served by
avoiding an obstruction of the course of justice.
...
35. On its part, the media cannot be unmindful of the harm that is
caused to a litigants dignity and reputation through unjustified comments
and remarks, often based on the oral remarks made by a judge during the
adjudication proceedings, notwithstanding that the litigant ultimately
succeeds in those proceedings. They must note that no less a constitutional
functionary than the Chief Justice of India, had recently observed that not everything that is said by a judge during the course of interaction with
counsel in court can be taken as revealing the judges views on the merits of
the cause that is being adjudicated. While the right to a fair trial has long
been recognised as forming part of the fundamental right of a citizen under
Article 21 of the Constitution, in recent times, the right to privacy has also
been recognised as forming part of the said right through the judgment of
the Supreme Court in K.S.Puttaswamy & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.
[(2017) 10 SCC 1]. Even prior to the said judgment, the right to protect
ones reputation was recognised as forming part of the fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution in Board of Trustees of the Port of
Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni [(1983) 1 SCC
124]. The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1965 also
recognises the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of expression
subject to the right of reputation of others. The right has also been
recognised in State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani [(2003) 8 SCC
361].
36 .....
We trust, therefore, that the
media will take note of these observations and adopt a code of responsible
journalistic conduct that will inform news reporting in the days to come.