SC says no for now to gag order against media
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court described the events leading to a motion seeking the removal of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra as “unfortunate” and sought Attorney General KK Venugopal’s assistance on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that wants a gag order on parliamentarians and media from discussing in public the removal proceedings against judges of the top court and high courts.
A bench of justice AK Sikri and justice Ashok Bhushan, however, refused to issue any restraint order without hearing the top law officer.
“Let him (AG) come and give his views and then we will take a call,” the bench told senior counsel Meenakshi Arora, who on behalf of the petitioner, NGO, In Pursuit of Justice, urged the bench to stop the media from carrying reports on the removal proceedings against CJI Misra. It fixed May 7 to hear the matter again.
“We are very disturbed about what has been happening... it is very unfortunate (as to) what is happening,” justice Sikri said at the outset of the hearing.
Referring to various news reports in recent days on the move by the Congress party to present the removal motion, Arora said that a judge cannot act fearlessly if discussions continue
› How can these legislators, as private citizens, talk about the same issue as and when they want? This will impact judiciary’s independence. MEENAKSHI ARORA, senior counsel on behalf of the for petitioner
in the public domain, while he is in office and the removal motion has not even been brought about formally.
Arora referred to Article 121 of the Constitution and said that even parliamentarians are restricted to discuss the conduct of a judge up to a certain stage.
“How can these legislators, as private citizens, talk about the same issue as and when they want? This will impact the independence of the judiciary,” she argued.
The judge agreed with Arora but wondered whether the media can be restrained through a judicial order.
“Law is very clear and everyone is supposed to know the law. Even the legislature should know the law. It is still happening. The question is what can we do now?” the bench asked Arora.
The Pune-based NGO has stated in its PIL that “the act of publicly brandishing their intention of mustering support of various political groups to initiate removal proceedings results in scandalising the courts and which is calculated to bring the courts of law into disrepute and to lower its authority and further to interfere with the due course of justice and the lawful process of the courts. Needless to say that scurrilous abuse of a judge or court or attacks on the personal character of a judge is punishable contempt”.
The petition has asked for the framing of suitable guidelines on the issue and order the information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry and the Press Council of India to stop the media from publishing matters relating to removal proceedings.