Media Comments On Pending Matters Causing Great Damage To Institution: Attorney General Tells SC

The Attorney General for India, Mr. K K Venugopal, expressed concerns before the Supreme Court on Tuesday about 'media trial' and media comments on sub-judice matters.

He said that these issues also need to be considered along with the questions of law formulated by the Supreme Court in the 2009 contempt case against Advocate Prashant Bhushan.

"The issue of sub-judice also needs to be considered. Today, the print media and electronic media are freely commenting on pending matters, seeking to influence the judges and public perception. This is causing great damage to the institution", the AG told a bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar.

Adding that this has taken "serious proportions" these days, he continued :

"Today, when I watch TV, I see comments about the bail application based on statements stated to be made to police. When a bail plea comes up for hearing, the channels flash conversations between the accused and someone. This can be very damaging to the accused".

Mr. Venugopal went to the extent of saying that such comments amount to contempt of court.

The Attorney General also cited the example of Rafale case to drive home his point.

"Another trend, for example, in a case like Rafale, on the day when the bench is taking up the case, there is an article commenting about the case with some documents. This issue needs to be addressed".

Senior Advocate Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Bhushan, expressed his disagreement with the AG's suggestions to club issues related to sub-judice comments with the questions formulated in the case which touch upon the ambit of contempt jurisdiction.

The issues related to sub-judice is already covered by the Sahara judgment, Dhavan said. He added that joining those issues to the case will make the matter complex.

Dr. Dhavan also opined that the press cannot be prevented from commenting on cases just because they are pending. He said that the decisions of foreign jurisdictions and the ECHR allow more latitude for media comments on sub-judice matters.

"When Shylock's case is on, can we tell the Press not to talk about it", Dhavan said quoting Lord Reid, a Scottish judge.

The Attorney General later said that he will hold discussions with Dr. Dhavan and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (appearing for the second accused Tarun Tejpal, former Editor of Tehelka magazine) regarding the questions to be formulated in the case.

Accordingly, the bench, also including Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, proceeded to adjourn the hearing until the first week of November.

The case relates to the suo moto contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court in 2009 against Prashant Bhushan over his remarks in an interview given to Tehelka magazine that half of the previous 16 CJIs were corrupt.

Based on a complaint then made by Senior Advocate Harish Salve against the interview, the SC initiated suo moto contempt case.

The case, which had been lying dormant for over a decade, again come to life last July, when the matter got listed along with the new contempt case taken by the SC this year against two tweets of Bhushan.

On August 17, a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had formulated three questions of law for consideration. They are :

(i) In case a public statement as to corruption by a particular Judge(s) is permissible, under what circumstances and on what basis, it can be made, and safeguards, if any, to be observed in that regard ?

(ii) What procedure is to be adopted to make complaint in such cases when the allegation is about the conduct of a sitting Judge ?

(iii) Whether against retired Judge(s), any allegation as to corruption can be made publicly, thereby shaking the confidence of general public in the judiciary; and whether the same would be punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act?

Apart from that, Bhushan also submitted ten additional questions of law, which the bench agreed to consider.

Following the retirement of Justice Arun Mishra on September 2, the matter got listed before the bench headed by Justice Khanwilkar.