Incorrect Reporting Of Court Orders Affects People’s Perception Of The Existence of The Rule Of Law: Bombay HC at Goa [Read Judgment]

Unfortunately, many do not read the orders of the Court available on the Court websites, and go by the incorrect reports, the Bench said.

The Bombay High Court at Goa observed that incorrect reporting of court orders affect the perception of people in the existence of the Rule of law and affect the administration of justice in the long run.

South West Port Limited had approached the high court against the 'denial' by Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF) to enhance terminal capacity at Mormugao Port Trust, Vasco-da-Gama purportedly on the basis of an order by National Green Tribunal on 22 November 2017.

The division bench of Justice Prithviraj K Chavan and Justice NM Jamdar, though refused reliefs sought by the petitioner company, addressed an issue raised by Goa Foundation, the intervener in the writ petition, that the attempt of the company is to somehow get an imprimatur of the superior court to dissipate the opposition to its expansion plans and that even a routine order of this court in its favour will be twisted as a stamp of approval and will be used to demoralize and break a collective public movement against the company.

With regard to such a contention raised, the bench said: “We cannot accept this as a standalone ground in law to deny a relief. That the order will be misconstrued is not a ground to deny it.”

The court, then made a general observation that misrepresentation of court orders are not uncommon and even when simple orders directing the authorities to decide applications as per law are passed, sometimes, by mistake or design, they are projected to public as if the court has mandated the grant of application.

“Unfortunately, many do not read the orders of the Court available on the Court websites, and go by the incorrect reports. Though such aberrations individually may seem minor, cumulatively they affect the perception of people in the existence of the Rule of law and affect the administration of justice in the long run. We however leave it at that,” the court said.

While dismissing the petition, the court also observed that the petitioner company is guilty of suppressing relevant facts. “The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in the disclosure of complete facts. The confidence reposed by the Court in the litigant must not be betrayed, otherwise, the functioning of the Writ Courts would become impossible,” the bench observed.