Gujarat High Court 'Postpones Proceedings' Against TOI, Indian Express After Supreme Court Stays HC Order Rejecting Public Apology

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday “postponed the proceedings” in respect of two newspapers–Indian Express and Times of India, concerning the issuance of a “public apology” by them for wrongly reporting court proceedings in an ongoing hearing of a batch of pleas moved by various linguistic and religious minority schools challenging amendments to the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act.

The high court did so after taking note of the Supreme Court's order of Wednesday (September 4) staying the high court's September 2 order, after Bennet, Coleman and Co Ltd (which owns and publishes TOI) moved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the apex court.

The Gujarat High Court had in its September 2 order rejected the affidavits filed by three newspapers–TOI, Indian Express and Divya Bhaskar–tendering and containing “public apology”, after noting that it was not to the court's “satisfaction”. However, at the request of the respective counsel for the newspapers, the high court granted three days time to the newspapers to publish the public apology afresh.

Pursuant to this Bennet, Coleman and Co Ltd moved the Supreme Court which in its order had said, “Until further order(s), there shall be stay of the impugned interim order dated 02.09.2024 as well as the contempt proceedings. However, we clarify that the proceedings of the writ petition(s) will proceed in accordance with law”.

During the hearing before the high court on Thursday (September 5), the respective counsel appearing for Indian Express and Times of India submitted before a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi that in view of the Supreme Court's September 4 order passed in the SLP, “further proceedings may not be undertaken against the editors of two newspapers namely–The Indian Express and Times of India”.

During the hearing, the court was also informed that the Indian Express was also in the process of filing a plea before the Supreme Court. 

The high court thereafter in its order dictated, “We have noted the order dated September 4, 2024 passed by the apex court wherein the interim order dated September 2, 2024 passed by us has been stayed wherein we have required the two newspapers namely Times of India and Indian Express to tender public apology in the newspaper published by them in bold letters on first page clearly intimating the public at large the wrong reporting made by them in the newspapers published on August 13, 2024 about ongoing hearing in the matter. Taking note of the above, we postpone proceedings in so far as the newspapers Times of India and Indian Express are concerned". 

"However, from the order passed by the apex court it seems like a wrong picture has been painted by the appellant before the apex court by saying that contempt proceedings have been initiated which is an incorrect fact, and the same may be brought before the apex court,” the high court said in its order.

With respect to Divya Bhaskar, the high court after taking note of its fresh public apology published on Thursday, in its order said, “In view of the unqualified apology tendered by the chief editor, Divya Bhaskar, we drop the contempt proceedings initiated against the editor of the newspaper Divya Bhaskar who had remained absent in the proceedings on August 22. The apology tendered by the chief editor of the newspaper Divya Bhaskar is to the satisfaction of the court. A warning is issued to the editor of the newspaper to be careful in reporting the court room's exchange so that any observation of the court may not present a wrong picture about legal issues deliberated in the court”.

The high court in its order also noted, “The chief editor of the newspaper Divya Bhaskar however assured this court that due care shall be exercised in future while reporting about pending court cases and proper attention shall be paid by him personally as well as senior editors to ensure that the report does not in any manner present an incorrect impression of the court proceeding”.

The hearing of the main matter has been listed on September 9.

Background

In its August 13 order, the high court had noted that the batch matter had been 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 item in the two newspapers. The publication by the 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 on 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".

The court had then in its order issued notices to the editors of the three newspapers "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".

On August 22 when the matter was taken up, on the request made by the counsel appearing for The Indian Express and The Times Of India, the high court had in its order granted "three days time" to them to tender a "public apology" in their respective newspapers, "about the mistake, which they (newspapers) say that they have realized after the notices were issued to them vide order dated 13.08.2024". The two newspapers went on to publish the public apology on August 23. As no one had then appeared for Divya Bhaskar, the court had then (on August 22) issued a notice to the editors of the newspaper to explain "why contempt proceedings be not drawn against them for wilful violation" of the court's directions in its August 13 order. 

After the hearing of the matter on September 2, the high court had in its order dictated, "The affidavits tendering the apology by the Editors of three newspapers namely, “Indian Express”, “The Times of India” and “Divya Bhaskar” placed in the Court today tendering public apology in the newspaper about the reports published in the newspaper edition dated 13th August 2024, of the ongoing hearing in this group of petitions, are not to the satisfaction of the Court. All their affidavits are being rejected, accordingly”.

However, on the request made by the counsel for the three newspapers the court in its order granted them, “three days further time to tender public apology in newspaper published by them in bold letters on first page, clearly intimating the public at large about the wrong reporting made by them in the newspaper published on 13th August 2024 about the hearing of this matter”.  

Case Title: Mount Carmel High School & Anr. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors and batch