Supreme Court Stays Gujarat HC Order Refusing Apology Published By 'Times Of India' For Wrong Reporting

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 4) stayed the order of the Gujarat High Court which directed the 'Times of India' newspaper to publish a fresh apology for wrong reporting of a Court hearing.

A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and VK Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by Bennet, Coleman and Co Ltd (the company which owns and publishes the Times of India) against the order passed by the High Court on September 2.

While granting leave on the petition to the Registrar General of the High Court, the bench directed that the impugned order will remain stayed.

The Supreme Court however clarified that the main proceedings in the High Court relating to the amendments to the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act will continue.

" Leave granted, stay of the impugned order as well as the contempt proceedings. However, we clarify that the proceedings of the writ petitioner would proceed in accordance with law."

On August 13, the High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi issued notice to the Times of India and the Indian Express seeking their explanation for wrong reporting of the Court's observations during the hearing. The Court observed that the newspaper reports gave a wrong impression that the comments made during the hearing were its final views, Later, the newspapers agreed to publish apologies.

On September 2, the High Court was dissatisfied with the manner of the apology published by Times of India, The Indian Express and Divya Bhaskar on August 23. On request made by their respective counsel, it granted three days time to the newspapers to tender a fresh public apology in "bold letters at the first page" while clearly informing the public about the "wrong reporting" published by them last month.

Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court Sunita Agarwal pointed that the apology headline tendered by newspapers did not specify what was the apology with regards to.

"You should have given it a complete headline that apology is in relation to what. Who is going to understand what is the apology for? Apology for reporting a wrong report, it should come and the report should have been there with this apology. How will people relate to that? Some people may have read that item (August 13 report) and some maybe reading this apology."

When the senior counsel appearing for the newspapers said that the public apology relates to the date and title of the report, the Chief Justice reverted that the apology seemed like an 'eyewash' as it didn't detail upon the news item which was wrongly reported.

"This is not the way a newspaper tenders an apology for reporting a wrong news item. It should be related to the news item...It is not the way the apology is tendered. When you are creating a sensational news then it is so huge letters, bold letters with some catch words, catchphrases, middle...where is the remorse? It is not an unconditional apology. It is only an eyewash. Same language in both newspapers. Both editors have tendered apology in the same language".

CASE TITLE: Bennett, Coleman And Co. Ltd. Versus The Registrar High Court Of Gujarat, Diary No. 40230-2024