Calcutta High Court Refuses To Stop Telecast Of An Interview Given By A Sitting Judge To A News Channel

The Calcutta High Court today refused to stop the telecast of an interview given by the sitting judge of the High Court to a news channel as it expressed a hope that the news channel won't telecast or broadcast anything which may have an adverse effect on the image of the judiciary.

With this hope and expectation, the bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj disposed of the PIL (Public Interest Litigation) Plea filed by one Sk. Saidullah.

The PIL plea had essentially submitted that the Bengali news channel "ABP Adanda" is going to telecast/broadcast an interview of one of the sitting Judges of the High Court and prayed that the telecast of the same be stopped.

Further, it was also prayed that a direction be issued to stop the telecast/broadcast of any interview of sitting Judge on any channel, website, web application, or any other form of print, electronic or social media.

It was further contended that such an interview of a sitting judge is contrary to the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, therefore, immediate restrain order should be issued to prohibit the news channel in question to telecast any such interview.

On the other hand, the Advocate General for the state also submitted that nothing should be permitted which can affect the reputation of the institution and that the primary concern is to protect the institution. The concerned news channel submitted that there is no cause of action to file the petition and that the petition is based on assumptions and presumptions and that the Judge in question is aware of his responsibilities.

It was further submitted that if in such a petition, any restraining order is passed that will affect the rights of the news channel without any justification.

Against this backdrop, the Court, at the outset, observed that the writ petition does not disclose the name of that the Judge except that the sheet enclosed with the petition mentioning 'Points of Law' contains the name of one of the Judges of the Court. That apart, the Court added, it is also noticed that there is no material on record to show on what issue, if any, the Judge is going to speak.

As far as the reference to the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Full Court Meeting of the Supreme Court of India on 7th May, 1997, the Court remarked thus:

"...no doubt that it is within the knowledge of all the Judges of the Court. Therefore, we have full faith that the Hon'ble Judge/Judges of this Court will have due regard to the same while making any statement at any occasion. Same is the position in respect of Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct." 

Thus, finding that the petition is based upon mere apprehension with incomplete details and that the petitioner failed to disclose his full credentials, the Court held that there was no ground for granting the prayer sought in the writ petition. Hence, the Court disposed of the petition.

Case title - Sk. Saidullah Vs. Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and Another 

Case Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 309

Click Here To Read/Download Order