Media not Pope, says Supreme Court; Chief Justice warns journalists

The bench, which included Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, was hearing The Wire's plea challenging Gujarat High Court's refusal in January to quash Jay's suit, filed before a trial court in Ahmedabad.

BJP chief Amit Shah. (Picture by Prem Singh)

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday restrained an Ahmedabad court from proceeding with the defamation suit filed by BJP chief Amit Shah's son Jay against news portal The Wire, but warned that the media cannot behave as "Popes and guardians overnight". "We are not for gagging the media. But sometimes journalists write things that amount to sheer contempt.... They behave as if they are Popes and guardians overnight, sitting on the pulpit, and can write anything," Chief Justice Dipak Misra said. "I don't want to name any particular media, but a particular electronic media in its website has been writing things.... The way people have been vilified, it's not proper.... The electronic media should be more responsible. They cannot feel they are above everything," he added. The bench, which included Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, was hearing The Wire's plea challenging Gujarat High Court's refusal in January to quash Jay's suit, filed before a trial court in Ahmedabad. Posting the next hearing to April 12, the apex court said the trial court cannot proceed with the case till then and sought Jay's response to The Wire's plea. The news portal had reported that the turnover of a company owned by Jay had grown 16,000 times within a year shortly after Narendra Modi became Prime Minister and Amit Shah the BJP president. Jay has sought criminal prosecution of the reporter, editor and publisher and damages of Rs 100 crore for the loss of reputation to him and his family. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Abhishek Singhvi and Raju Ramachandran have appeared for the news organisation, while former additional solicitor-general Neeraj Kishan Kaul represented Jay. Kaul told the court the article was defamatory, and the proceedings should not be stayed. Sibal said there was nothing defamatory in the news report. "Journalistic freedom cannot be throttled. Otherwise, nobody in this country can ask anybody questions about any politician or anybody," Sibal said. He wondered: "Why did the court remain silent when certain comments were made in the social media by a person against a judge (saying) he (the judge) was junior to the father of the person (accused) who has been granted relief recently." Sibal did not name anyone. S. Gurumurthy, a chartered accountant and a Swadeshi Jagaran Manch activist who also edits a Tamil weekly, had recently asked in a tweet whether Justice S. Muralidhar, part of a Delhi High Court bench that last week gave interim relief to Karti Chidambaram in a corruption case, had once been a junior to Karti's father P. Chidambaram, senior advocate and former Union minister. The judge later clarified that he had never been Chidambaram's junior but did not initiate defamation proceedings against Gurumurthy, who had deleted the tweet. Justice Misra, however, told Sibal: "The judge (Justice Muralidhar) had taken the necessary action." Subramanium said the Supreme Court had zealously protected the freedom of the press and must ensure that free speech was not curtailed by defamation proceedings. Justice Misra said: "I have said several times (that) we will never gag the press. But you cannot write anything or whatever strikes your imagination." -The Telegraph, Calcutta