Kerala HC Dismisses Lawyer's PIL Seeking Regulation Of Print & Electronic Media [Read Judgment]

The High Court of Kerala, on Friday, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a lawyer who sought framing of guidelines to regulate Print and Electronic Media.

Advocate Halvi KS had approached the High Court alleging that the media is misusing the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India for political mileage, and trying to use images and words to create apprehension in the minds of the viewers about their political leaders or government servants. Referring to various instances of 'media trial', the lawyer contended that scathing attacks are made by the media by acting themselves as Judges, overriding the official justice delivery system, and thereby interfering with the right to a fair trial of an accused in criminal cases. According to the lawyer, the law prevailing in the country to deal with such situations is not sufficient enough to tackle the irresponsible acts of the press and the print and visual media, and in that eventuality, the court should step in and form guidelines incorporating the restrictions.

The bench comprising the Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly referred to Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited  v. Securities and Exchange Board of India [(2012) 10 SCC 603], in which it was held that laying down a guideline to regulate the activities of the media is not a wise proposition. The court noted that it was also held in the said judgment that a prior restraint pre-empting the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India cannot be done, except under exceptional circumstances and that too after considering the issues on a case to case basis.

The court also observed that the Press Council Act, 1978 clearly prescribes a methodology to redress the grievances of any aggrieved person. Apart from the same, in order to regulate and control the cable television networks, the Government of India has made the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, wherein sufficient provisions are made to control the functioning of the electronic media and any aggrieved person is entitled to approach the authorities constituted thereunder and seek to redress the grievances, the bench said. 

While dismissing the PIL, the court observed thus:

We have no hesitation to hold that a public interest litigation to frame guidelines to restrict the media on the basis of the allegations made in the writ petition cannot be entertained and no guidelines can be framed taking into account the contentions put forth by the petitioner. We also feel that the judgements rendered by the Apex Court would make it clear that the media can be restricted by the courts on a case to case basis. Moreover, a Judge adjudicating any lis before it would be depending solely on the materials available on record, and definitely would not be guided by a press report unless the report itself is a material for consideration in the lis. We are also of the view that the petitioner is never an aggrieved person and no relief can be granted especially in view of the fact that the petitioner has not produced any materials to substantiate the pleadings. Thinking so, it is quite vivid and clear that the issue raised by the petitioner is set at naught by the Apex Court in Sahara (supra) by holding that general framing of guidelines for regulating the press is not possible. Therefore, it is a law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India having binding force thoughout India and therefore, binding on this Court also. Before we part with the judgement, it is relevant to mention the observations made by the High Court of Judicature, Madras in M.R. Saravanan (supra) that under self regulation the media voluntarily commits to uphold a code of ethics that it, itself drafts, thus providing a mechanism to which the public can complaint about perceived breaches of the court and an independent council adjudicating on the complaints and decides upon appropriate remedies in order to secure the credibility of its profession and the trust of the public.

Case details

Case name: Halvi KS vs. State of Kerala

Case no.: WP(C).No.16349 OF 2020(S) 

Coram: Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Shaji P. Chaly

Counsel: Adv Premlal Krishnan for petitioner, Sr.GP P. Narayanan and Sr. GP Manu V. for State, CGC OM Shalina for UoI  

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment