Kerala High Court Raps Media; Says Litigant's Dignity & Privacy Can't Be Harmed; Calls For 'Responsible Journalistic Conduct' In Court Coverage
The Court lamented unjustified media comments based on oral remarks made by judges during adjudication.
While allowing Priya Varghese's appeal, the Kerala High Court made some critical observations against the media coverage of the case. Priya Varghese is the wife of K.K. Ragesh, private secretary to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.Taking note of the media attention received by the case, a division bench of Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C P reminded the press to...
While allowing Priya Varghese's appeal, the Kerala High Court made some critical observations against the media coverage of the case. Priya Varghese is the wife of K.K. Ragesh, private secretary to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
Taking note of the media attention received by the case, a division bench of Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C P reminded the press to respect the right to privacy of the litigant and to follow responsible journalistic conduct. The Court stated that the an individual's Right to Privacy is not only against the State but also against private parties such as the media.
“On account of its nature as a right that is personal to an individual, we are of the view that the newly recognised fundamental right to privacy, which takes within its fold the right to protection of one’s reputation as well, would merit classification as a fundamental right that protects an individual, not only against arbitrary State action, but also against the actions of other private citizens, such as the press or media. 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.” the Court stated.
The Division Bench heavily criticised the media for the distraction caused and warned the press to not obstruct the course of justice:
“..frighteningly frequent are those occasions when the impugned decision in academic matters attracts media attention for some reason or the other, and the court has then to deal with the added distraction brought about through incessant newspaper/channel discussions and overwhelming social media posts. It is for this reason that 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.”
While noting that the media must exercise caution while reporting Court proceedings as not everything said by a judge during a hearing reflects the judge’s views on the case, the Court said:
“On its part, the media cannot be unmindful of the harm that is caused to a litigant’s 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 judge’s views on the merits of the cause that is being adjudicated.”
In November 2022, a Single Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran had held that Priya Varghese did not possess the requisite teaching experience, to be appointed as Associate Professor at the Department of Malayalam at Kannur University and directed the competent authority of the University to reconsider her credentials and decide whether she should continue on the Rank List.
The division bench set aside the order of the single bench and held that the time taken for acquiring a Ph.D. degree period spent by a faculty member under the Faculty Development Programme could not be excluded while considering the period of teaching experience.
Senior Advocate Ranjith Thampan instructed by Adv.Sri.K.S.Arun Kumar appeared for the appellant; Senior Advocate George Poonthottam assisted by Adv.Sri.Santharam P. appeared on behalf of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner; Senior Advocate P Ravindran, assisted by Adv.IV Pramod appeared for the University Registrar; Senior Advocate Dr S Gopakumaran Nair appeared for the Chancellor; Adv S Krishnamoorthy appeared for the UGC and Government Pleader TB Hood appeared for the State.
Case Title: Priya Varghese V Dr. Joseph Skariah
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 284
Click here to read/download judgment