Gujarat High Court Asks Times Of India, Indian Express To Publish "Public Apology" For Wrongly Reporting Court Proceedings

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday asked the The Indian Express and The Times Of India to publish a "public apology" in their respective newspapers by tomorrow i.e. Friday for wrongly reporting the court's proceedings during the hearing of a batch of pleas moved by various linguistic and religious minority schools challenging the amendments to the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act. 

On August 13, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi had passed an order issuing notices to the editors of The Times of India, Indian Express and Gujarati newspaper Divya Bhaskar "calling upon them to answer as to whether they have got authentication from any officer of the Court before making the news items, that too in a sensational way or have simply used 'YouTube' live streaming videos to make the news out of nothing". 

The high court had in its order last week further sought an explanation from the newspapers as to why the proceedings be not drawn against them for "publishing a wrong version of the Court proceedings, making a sensational news by giving a distorted narration of the Court's observation during the course of hearing". 

During the hearing on Thursday, the Chief Justice orally said to the counsel appearing for the two newspapers (Indian Express and Times Of India), "If you admit that there is a mistake then first publish a public apology in your newspaper in bold letters referring to that article, and then making a statement that whatever statement you have made in those articles were wrong statements made on your part. And don't write this kind of apology. It should be unconditional apology...no one has tendered an unconditional apology in the newspaper".

"You have written this article for the public, the public should know that you are mistaken. Tendering apology to us is not relevant. You have given a wrong impression to the public. Tendering apology to us is not helping you. There should be a public apology to the public at large to whom you have given a wrong message by way of your newspaper article. If you do it all right, otherwise we will continue with the contempt notice," the Chief Justice orally said.

The senior counsel appearing for the two newspapers said that the papers had filed affidavits acknowledging their mistake and that the "headlines were certainly not ideally framed". It was also submitted that Indian Express had removed the publication in question from all electronic modes. 

To the court's oral observations with respect to the apology, the senior counsel said that the same shall be done by whatever date the court fixes. The high court thereafter orally said that the apology be published by tomorrow i.e. Friday in "bold letters" on the "front page" so that "everybody can see it".

The court further granted time to the newspapers to file a better affidavit, which they said they would file attaching the published apology along with it.

With respect to the publication in "Divya Bhaskar", the high court dictated in its order, "As there is no response we issue notice to the editors of Divya Bhaskar to answer as to why contempt proceedings be not drawn against them for wilful violation of the directions contained in order dated 13-8-2024. the notice be served upon editors of Divya Bhaskar through the office of registrar general high court within a period of two days from today. The response be submitted by September 2". 

The court thereafter listed the hearing of the main batch matter on August 27. 

Before parting the senior counsel said, "I can assure based on discussion I had...there is no doubt it had slipped through chains of protocol it should not have". Referring to the content of the three articles including the heading, the high court however orally said that this did not appear to be mistake.

"Three newspapers making the same mistake...It is not acceptable. Its not so simple. It is not a mistake. This was a properly coordinated effort...it is not acceptable three newspapers writing the same thing in the same way. Only language was different. The tenor of three articles were same. Three reports was crafted in the same manner," the high court orally said.

It further orally said that there was a difference between the observations of the court, the findings or the orders which the courts are passing and the difference between the conversations.

Agreeing to this the senior counsel said, "I bow down that even a lay man would understand the discussion which takes place in your lordships courts".

The high court thereafter orally said, "We will be writing all this in our order once we will be getting this affidavit". 

[Audio of the YouTube court proceedings was unclear in places during the hearing] 

Background

In its August 13 order the high court had noted that the batch matter was being heard since July 30. It thereafter noted in its order that during the course of the hearing on August 12, "certain observations were made by the Bench" which had been printed as a news items in the two newspapers. The publication by Times of India, had the headline “State can regulate minority institutions by excellence in education: HC”, with a sub- heading “Have to give away rights in national interest”.

The order noted, "The construction of the news item from the reading thereof, is such that it appears that the Court has formed an opinion into the matter of the rights of a minority institution to appoint teachers of its choice, vis-a-vis the exercise of State's power to regulate educational institutions run by minorities". 

The order further noted that a similar news item was published in The Indian Express at the local page with the heading “Minority and majority schools that get aid must comply with the norms: HC” and another such item was also published in Divya Bhaskar. 

The order thereafter stated, "The sensational way of reporting of the observations of the Court gave an impression to the common people that the Court has already formed an opinion, which is nothing but a misrepresentation of the Court proceedings. This practice of sensational reporting of the Court cases in an ongoing Court hearing is to be checked immediately". 

Case Title: MOUNT CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL & ANR. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS and batch