MISREPRESENTATION OF COURT ORDERS.

The authorities all hold that where the orders a court, more so in a pending proceeding, where some decision is yet to be taken, is misrepresented by the press, or a party to the litigation or so misrepresented as to cause prejudice to a party, whether by way of making him afraid of continuing the proceeding or to compromise the case, is contumacious and ought to be punished. 

Reliance is placed, in this regard on:

(a) Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd—v—The Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay, Pvt. Ld. And Others, reported in (1988) 4 SCC 592: AIR 1989 SC 190:

The so-called informed Press may misrepresent the Court proceedings. We must remember that the people at large have a right to know in order to be able to take part in a participatory development in the industrial life and democracy. Right to Know is a basic right which citizens of a free country aspire in the broader horizon of the right to live in this age in our land under Article 21 of our Constitution. That right has reached new dimensions and urgency. That right puts greater responsibility upon those who take upon the responsibility to inform. The question of contempt must be judged in a particular situation. The process of due course of administration of justice must remain unimpaired. Public interest demands that there should be no interference with judicial process and the effect of the judicial decision should not be pre-empted or circumvented by public agitation or publications. It has to be remembered that even at turbulent times through which the developing countries are passing, contempt of court means interference with the due administration on justice.

(b) Narmada Bachao Andolan—v—Union of India and Others reported in (1999) 8 SCC 308: AIR 1999 SC 3345 (BS—3): 

"Under the cover of freedom of speech and expression no party can be given a licence to misrepresent the proceedings and orders of the Court and deliberately paint an absolutely wrong and incomplete picture which has the tendency to scandalise the Court and bring it into disrepute or ridicule…Courts are not unduly sensitive to fair comment or even outspoken comments being made regarding their judgments and orders made objectively, fairly and without any malice, but no one can be permitted to distort orders of the Court and deliberately give a slant to its proceedings, which have the tendency to scandalise the Court or bring it to ridicule, in the larger interest of protecting administration of justice.”

(c) Damodaran—v—Indu Choodan and Others reported in 1960 Kerala Law Journal 1140: 

“it would be simply disastrous for the due and proper administration of justice, if when a suit is still pending investigation in a court of law, that investigation was to be taken out of the hands of the Court and practically left to the press. The object of proceedings in contempt is not so much to vindicate the dignity of the Court or the person of the Judge, as to ensure that every litigant in a Court of justice has a fair and unprejudiced hearing at the trial on the merits of his case…It is necessary to emphasise that the press, with its freedom of expression, also carries with it the responsibility of observing rules of law, and should not injure the cause of a party by misrepresentation.”

(d) Bijoyananda Patnaik—v—Balakrushna Kar and Another reported in AIR 1953 Orissa 249: 

 “I must express my opinion that the jurisdiction of the Court is not confined to cases where the order of the Court, or the future orders of the Court, are likely to be directly affected in some way. If it were so confined, I doubt whether there would be any limit to what a litigant or some other person might say pending the hearing of an action in the Chancery Division, unless, indeed, it could be shown that, possibly, witnesses in the case were being interfered with. I think that, to punish injurious misrepresentation directed against party to the action especially when they are holding up that party to hatred or contempt, is liable to affect the course of justice, because it may, in the case of a plaintiff cause him to discontinue action for fear of public dislike, or it may cause the defendant to come to a compromise which he otherwise would not come to for a like reason…On going through the authorities placed before me I am satisfied that the opposite parties freely indulged in vilification of the petitioner knowing fully well that he had come to this Court for relief, and the tendency of these articles could only be to prejudice the public against the petitioner. It would, therefore, follow that they do constitute contempt of Court by all recognised canons applied in the reported cases…. But this Court cannot shut its eye to the fact that the litigant before it is entitled to protection from attack so long as his case awaits decision; and the Court will not hesitate to prevent any interference with the course of justice. Considered as a whole the articles doubtless constitute gross contempt of Court and the rule must be made absolute”. 

Dear Readers!

A lot of effort has been put into the blog for all to know and learn. However, we are humans and humans err.  Please feel free to correct me in the comment. 

 

If you like or dislike the post, kindly comment below the post and share your response. You are also requested to comment with your kind suggestions.

 

Thanks for Reading. J

Team Lex Polis.