'Yellow Journalism' : Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To HC's Contempt Sentence Against Newspaper For Publishing Anonymous Letter Against Judges

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition filed by the editor and publisher of Patrika Daily Newspaper against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court holding them guilty of contempt of court for a report published in 2012 levelling allegations against judges.

After the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshhu Dhulia expressed disinclination to interfere with the High Court's judgment, the petition was withdrawn. Dhananjay Pratap Singh, Jabalpur Local Editor of Patrika News Daily and Vinod Kumar Jain, Prakashak and Mudrak, Rajasthan Patrika Pvt Ltd, were the petitioners.

The High Court, in its judgment delivered in August this year, had imposed a fine of Rs One Lakh each on the petitioners for publishing an anonymous letter which contained allegations of a caucus of some local judges and advocates in Jabalpur. The High Court's decision came on a contempt complaint filed by  a practising advocate.

Court-Room Exchange

Expressing its disappointment with the concerned publication, Justice Kaul stated:

“Court has been kind…It is atrocious. An anonymous complaint, you are a responsible paper…. This kind of yellow journalism cannot be….”

When asked about the fine, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, apprised the Bench that the fine had been paid. He tried convincing the Bench that the newspaper only republished the anonymous letter.

However, Justice Kaul interjected: “You give credence to the anonymous complaint? Not even an author.” He further asked if it’s responsible to publish the same.

Lastly, Singhvi argued that the contempt petition was filed without securing the consent of the Advocate General in terms of Section 15. However, the bench observed that the Court can take up a contempt case suo motu too. Singhvi promptly replied that it had not taken up suo moto.

"Actually, you have been let off very lightly", Justice Dhulia commented. Justice Kaul concurred.

However, after some arguments, Singhvi withdrew the petition, and thus, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

Impugned order

Before the High Court, it was argued by the editor and Prakashak (who was also responsible for publishing the article) that they had merely reiterated the contents of the letter, which was circulated without intending to tarnish the image of the judiciary. It was further submitted that they tried to bring to the notice of the public at large the discussions being carried out amongst the advocates with reference to the Judges.

However, the Court took note of the fact that the letter was unsigned; therefore, it was the duty of the contemnors to verify the authenticity before publishing the news item.

“The respondents No.2 and 3 are holding responsible posts in the press and media being editor and prakashak/mudrak. They are required to act responsibly prior to publishing any news item. The news item definitely tarnishes the image of the judiciary in public at large.,” added the Court.

Moving forward, the Court, while relying upon the case of Prashant Bhushan and another, in Reference Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Cri.) 1 of 2020 and Baradakanta Mishra vs High Court of Orissa (1974) 1 SCC 374, emphatically held that even an attempt to scandalize or lower the authority of a Court would fall under the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ (Section 2(c) of the Act).

Basis this, the Court concluded that the impugned news item would fall under the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ as defined in the Act. Pertinently, the defence taken by the contemnors that the expression of regret was published on 24.08.2013, after a year, did not find favour with the Court. In this regard, the Court recorded:

“Merely tendering their apology in this criminal contempt proceedings will not absolve them of the act committed by them. Even the regret published almost a year after the publication of the news item in question will not come to their rescue.”

However, considering that more than a decade has passed since the publication of the concerned news time and also taking into account the expression of regret with unconditional apology, the Court found it fit not to send the contemnors in custody and instead levied a fine of Rs. 1,00,000\- each.

Case Title: DHANANJAY PRATAP SINGH vs. MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL., Diary No.- 41082 - 2023